Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive356

ARBPIA

I'm not sure how it's supposed to work, Al-Shifa Hospital is clearly a contentious article related to the conflict. However I don't see any indication of editing restrictions, do they apply or not? Alaexis_¿question? 19:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

At least partially, ill add the appropriate edit notice. If an admin wants to say the whole thing is they can protect it and modify it. nableezy - 20:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Alaexis_¿question? 20:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's been extended confirmed protected since Oct 18, with a protection edit summary of Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA, so that's at least one restriction. Are you asking if 1RR applies to this article? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis Be brave, feel free to wikipedia:Rfpp -Lemonaka‎ 09:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

A recent row at RfA

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

---

Note: I'm not 100% sure this is the right place to start this kind of discussion, but it's definitely not AN/I. If there is a better place, please do let me know and/or go ahead and move it there.

See previous discussion here

Let me start by saying: I have either no or close to no prior interaction with any of the editors involved here. I am a relative newbie, having 500+ edits and most of them on project space, but spent most of the pandemic reading through project space, including past RfAs. I have read what it says on the top of the page about inexperienced editors not posting here, but I'm not opening this post to get anyone sanctioned or admonished. Rather, I want to get more opinions and start discussion on behaviour that I personally found concerning and deserving of wider attention, and establish some sort of consensus over whether and why it is/is not acceptable.

Moreover, an additional disclaimer: I don't wish to cast aspersions of any sort on anyone I mention below. I believe, and have no reason to doubt, that they are all acting in good faith and without conflicts of interest or ulterior motives. The involved people all appear to be longstanding editors, much more experienced and with much more contributions to wiki than I have. Nonetheless, I still feel that the behaviour of some of them may be detrimental to the community as a whole.

At the RfA for 0xDeadbeef which closed several days ago, Lourdes made several comments to the oppose vote which contained lanuage such as the following:

• Because I remember having acted on your complaints at ANI a few times, and on the basis of that connect and support that I gave you, I am requesting you to reconsider your stand

Kashmiri raised the issue of this comment giving the appearance of exchanging admin favours for a support vote, and in addition WP:CANVASS and WP:VOTESTACKING, on the RfA talk page. A discussion then ensued about whether this was the case. Loudres made a total of two replies during the course of active discussion, in which she generally apologised for the bad optics:

• [M]y apologies with no qualifications whatsoever for how this came out and swayed a few editors to change their votes and some others to add supports than oppose. Do be assured that I have taken heed of all the points above.
• It wasn't intended to be like this. Let this not take away from the worth of the candidate, whose RfA was drowning with few changing their !votes.
• I understand the points you have written and don't wish this to be an issue for the candidate at this point.

In my view, these comments fail to actually address the complaint, and instead simply acknolwedge that someone has complained and walk away without answering their questions. The talk page then degenerated largely into accusations of personal attack or conflicts of interest and discussion stagnated.

My concern with regard to this is twofold:

• Firstly, the original issue: Lourdes is making an appeal to her own actions to convince people to support another person. Kashmiri further takes issue with the fact that the reply is not actually discussing the candidate in question, but I agree with Noah that emotional appeal is unavoidable at RfA, and the main issue here is with the implication of "I did you a favour, please do me one".
• Secondly, broader concern on the impact of admins and crats on discussions: In my view, what has effectively happened is an admin waving their mop around resulting in greater impact on discussions. Even an otherwise very experienced editor wouldn't be able to say "I did a thing for you" because they don't have the permissions to do said thing. (It is validly noted that it's not clear whether Lourdes actually used admin tools in the "thing", but the languge of "acted on your complaints in ANI" seems to imply something of the sort.) This is not unique to RfA at all, I'm sure we've all seen messages on talk pages along the lines of "I have 10k edits and you have 100, so shut up". However, I feel that mop-waving behaviour is of special concern in a venue where we're deciding whether to give someone else the mop to wave around. It gives an uneasy impression that if one has friends in high places, RfAs get a lot easier.

Personally, I think that the appearance of due process is just as important as the due process itself, and looking at it from the perspective of an outsider, unfortunately this series of events failed to provide that appearance. Please do let me know if there is a better place to raise this concern, and apologies for the hassle to everyone I'm pinging below. Fermiboson (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for all editors mentioned and/or involved in linked discussion, and elsewhere: @Lourdes @Kashmiri @Brat Forelli @Hurricane Noah @Tamzin @J947 @Voorts @Rhododendrites @TimothyBlue @Star Mississippi @RoySmith @0xDeadbeef @AirshipJungleman29 @Intothatdarkness @Serial Number 54129 @GiantSnowman Fermiboson (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Fermiboson, the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/0xDeadbeef#Lourdes's canvassing has witnessed multiple apologies from me to multiple editors. What do you wish me to do here in this report? Let me know. Thanks, Lourdes 08:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry if it seemed like I was going after you, that wasn't my intention. I mostly wanted wider input on the concerns I raised above. That said, I would appreciate if you could elaborate more on what the original intent of your message to GS was - if you didn't mean for it to be "favour-trading" then why mention your favour at all? Fermiboson (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Fermi, it was a mistake to ask for a review of the oppose based on past interactions. I also have taken heed of the comments from other editors there. Let me know what else would you wish me to do here? Lourdes 08:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Could you also disclose, if you remember, whether the past interaction involved the use of admin tools or permissions? Other than that I have no more questions, and thank you very much for your straightforwardness. Fermiboson (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it would have involved the use or the opportunity to use admin tools or permissions. Even a comment given by an admin on an AN or ANI notice is equivalent to using an administrative authority. Thank you, Lourdes 08:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you very much, and sorry again for the trouble. No hard feelings, hopefully. Fermiboson (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

I can't find the case linked to in the close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Lourdes doesn't work and there's no archive search on the page. Can someone (e.g. RickinBaltimore or ToBeFree edit the close to point to it? And maybe add archive search to the /Case page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudolfoMD (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There was no case, we declined the request since Lourdes was desysopped and indeffed. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Eyeroll. RudolfoMD, it's at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1183169230 Fences&Windows 15:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Major source problem with Associated Press

It appears the Associated Press has removed all of their articles from the website from at least the year 2006 prior. Any Associated Press source that was dated in the year 2006 or prior will now link to PAGE UNAVAILABLE. This is a major problem as I'm sure many articles used Associated Press sources. I've actually contacted Associated Press about this and someone got back to me saying they've inquired with the operations team about it but until we get an update many of these sources will now link to page unavailable until it's addressed. It is of course possible that they may not bring them back at all, in which case we'll have to hope many archives exist on Way Back Machine, but it will be a pretty major job to go through all these dead links and archive them/recover as many links as we can. Inexpiable (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to run a search of references to establish/guesstimate the number of times it's used? By its nature, a lot of its articles would have been syndicated to other outlets. Serial 17:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

On the order of 3,300 articles have any source dating 2000 to 2006 using U.S. date format, and use apnews.com. Maybe somebody can improve this search for a more accurate answer (remove the prefix:A term for the full result).

"associated press" insource:/"apnews.com"/ insource:/date=(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December) [0-9]+, 200[0-6]/ prefix:A

Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Cheers @Bri! Serial 17:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Tweaked the search queries a bit; not perfect, but more accurate. Got a number closer to 950, with both mmdd and ddmm date formats and going back to 1990. The searches are in my sandbox, if useful. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Tweaked the query again, new total about 150 listed here. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a task for WP:URLREQ - I would suggest posting there. Galobtter (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@GreenC: also since they do a lot of this kind of fixing. Galobtter (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Galobtter. One could use iabot.org but it will take a while to resolve since it has to see the link is dead on 3 passes, with at least 3 days between each pass. It's a better fit for WP:WAYBACKMEDIC ie. WP:URLREQ when only some links within a domain need to be saved or moved. I opened a request at Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests#apnews.com. Follow further conversation there. I won't start for a few days while we wait to see if AP resolves the problem, and I finish work on MetaCritic, another major source outage, then retool for apnews.com -- GreenC 21:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Of note, I waited four days and the MetaCritic website fixed itself. Good thing because they had 50k to 100k broken links. See this often, sites break then repair themselves after some time. I'll still keep the apnews request pending for now. -- GreenC 23:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Earlier today, there was a big notice on the AP's front page, saying that some articles were unavailable, and to use the mobile app while they fix it. I tested just now, and a 1999 article that fails in the browser loads properly in the app. The notice is off their main page now, but there's a chance it'll get fixed. DFlhb (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think a solution to this would be to point Archive.today's archiver to the google cache of each page before the cache expires, and then use WP:URLREQ to reference the newly archived copy. Most if not all the pages are likely to be in google's caches. Anyone with the skill and inclination to make it so? Archive.today is already smart enough to treat the cached copy as authoritative and direct users using the original url to its copy. RudolfoMD (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is still not fixed. This article is from 2006: [1], links to page unavailable still. I have not yet heard back from the Associated Press after I emailed them informing them of this. Inexpiable (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Another ARBPIA page created by a non-EC user

Zikim Beach massacre is a very problematic piece of ARBPIA content that was created by a non-EC user and appears to be extremely off-kilter with respect to WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. Judicious un-creation may be in order. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have deleted it and redirected to Battle of Zikim, where the content was covered anyway. I have dropped the editor a reminder about editing ARBPIA articles as well, as they clearly haven't understood that (or have ignored it). Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  The author does make the point that User:SunDawn reviewed the article and even praised him for it. Animal lover |666| 14:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It was a decent start to an article and was in no way problematic from a WP:V or NPOV perspective (it was well referenced to reliable sources). The question of why anyone would claim the article was problematic should be the concern here. Number 57 15:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

In the current climate, such pages should be deleted immediately as a matter of course imo. Selfstudier (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

And that's another view that should raise concerns IMO. Number 57 16:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess we should get rid of Deir_Yassin_massacre and redirect it to the Israeli War of Independence. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It was a synth-y affair replete with ample editorialisation, POV tone and a POV title, and supported by three fairly weak sources that barely seemed to verify let alone cross-verify most of the claims, and with nary an WP:RSP in sight. Pretty much exemplary of why EC protections exist over the CT area. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, you are the one who violates WP:NPOV and so on every article that doesn't align with your POV is automatically marked by you for deletion.

I provided three reliable sources from the biggest media networks in Israel. Each of the sources I added is considered reliable and has an article about it here on English Wikipedia. Sometimes, not all the information is translated into English and is only available within Hebrew sources, so I did the hard work and translated three reliable sources from Hebrew to English. I could find even more resources, but once again, all of them are in Hebrew and therefore won't be considered as NPOV by Iskandar323. Orwell1 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

No, this was an page created out-of-process, and it was bad. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I am the original creator of this article. As I am now an ECM user, I am requesting the restoration of the article. Orwell1 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

To avoid any doubt: I am withdrawing my request. Orwell1 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

For anyone reading - you just made 320 edits consecutively adding the same category to articles. I'm not sure if this qualifies as 'gaming' EC (genuine question, I've seen people talk about EC gaming previously but not sure where the line is). Requesting further input from other administrators and pinging original deleting administrator Black Kite. Daniel (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I see we had the same thought at the same time. Revoked: Special:Redirect/logid/154419860, User talk:Orwell1 § Removal of extendedconfirmed^diff. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

For God's sake, is there anything wrong with adding categories to articles after they have been double-checked and verified? Is there anything wrong with being a WikiGnome? Would you prefer me not to make these useful edits? I have lost my desire and willingness to contribute to this project since Iskandar323 started chasing after me and marking every single article I created for deletion. Orwell1 (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

To avoid any doubt: I am withdrawing my request. Orwell1 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting Reconsideration of ECM Permissions

• Orwell1 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

I am a valued editor on the Hebrew Wikipedia with over 20,000 edits and a former sysop on other sister projects. My expertise lies in the Israeli-Arab conflict, and I have created dozens of articles about it on the Hebrew Wikipedia. I aimed to reach the 500-edit limit so that I could begin editing in areas I understand, but my rights were removed without violating any policy. Each of my last 300 edits was reliable, verified With the investment of much effort. There is nothing wrong with minor edits. I would greatly appreciate it if you could restore my permissions. Orwell1 (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

To avoid any doubt: I am withdrawing my request. Orwell1 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Running an unapproved bot to game extended-confirmed is not allowed. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Only part of my edits were done with a bot. I still don't understand why it's not okay. Yes, a bot takes much less time than doing some tasks manually. But every bot requires development time and testing time to ensure it doesn't cause harm. Would you rather cancel these useful edits? I really can't understand users like you sometimes. If anything, the fact that I used a bot shows that I'm an experienced editor and shouldn't be treated as a new editor. So yes, I still believe that each of my last 300 edits was reliable and verified, with a significant investment of effort. And I still believe you should restore my permissions. Orwell1 (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Orwell1 (Non-administrator comment) We do not allow unapproved fully automated editing. All edits are expected to be reviewed by a human prior to implementation. The Wikipedia:Bot policy has more information on this. Right now admins saw a need to stop policy violations by removing your extended confirmed permissions. That does not mean you will never get extended-confirmed, just that you will have to work back to get it. There are millions of articles to edit, why not find something that suits your interest and work on rebuilding trust? Awesome Aasim 22:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be perfectly honest, you should probably count yourself lucky that you weren't blocked for running an unapproved bot. stwalkerster (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Concur with stwalkerster . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

A few further examples

A few further examples of non-EC ARBPIA creation: Ein HaShlosha massacre, which was created on 13 October (at the time as a "massacre" with no death toll) by an at-the-time non-EC (/only just autoconfirmed) editor with unusual subsequent editing (mass adding of short descriptions to get back to ECP), and Nirim massacre, created on 21 October by a user active since 11 October and with 400 edits at the time of the Nirim article creation. The non-EC + pointed title combo is not great. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've suspected similar sorts of things, editors gaming EC in order to participate in editing of articles and RFCs where EC is required. No evidence just when you look at an RfC that's under ARBPIA and you see a lot of the editors are barely over 500 edits then it's hard not to draw that conclusion. TarnishedPath^talk 09:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Now we also have Alumim massacre, created by a user with 31 edits. Same issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Such pages should be deleted (or draftified at a minimum), not even bothering to make edits, just straight into this article, with a whole two Israeli refs in support. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That page was draftified. In my opinion, draftification is better than deletion in such cases, because it can be done unilaterally and quickly. PROD and AFD take seven days, during which time the article is not indexed but is outward-facing. I see that page was then worked on, and is back in article space after being properly accepted by an EC reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The EC editor that returned this to mainspace actually barely edited the page at all; they simply added sources to existing statements, creating the impression of verifiability without actually editing any of the statements. Much of it still failed verification when it was moved back into main space. This seems inappropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I moved one of these pages Nirim massacre to Nirim attack, per this request. I was reverted by User:SuperJew. While it is true that it is not uncontroversial (since the entire topic attracts controversy), in this instance given it is such a non-NPOV title, and the comments here, I feel it fulfills the requirements of a technical request. There are other move requests at WP:RM/TR. Please clarify if these are technical requests that should be moved, or if they should go to formal WP:RM discussion. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Since you know this topic is controversial, it's quite baffling that you considered the move uncontroversial and made the move less than 20 minutes after it was added. --SuperJew (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  While the topic is controversial, I didn't consider the move itself controversial since it was a technical request to ensure NPOV. This discussion was linked in the move request, which I consulted before making the move. Since you reverted my move I am requesting clarification here. If these are policy violations, then we can not wait 7 days or more for a formal move discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Since these are grossly POV titles/policy violations it's not baffling at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not at all POV. It was a massacre and was described as such in many reliable sources. --SuperJew (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Prove it. Reliable sources by no means broadly use that term. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Should be draftified and ec protected. Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: as admin who deleted the article above, do you have any thoughts on these contested moves? Polyamorph (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Firstly, if articles are being created by non-EC editors they should simply be removed from mainspace. If EC editors then want to take repsonsibility for them, then fine. The article title is obviously an editorial matter; as a general rule of thumb, however, I would tend to shy away from using "massacre" unless it's extremely well sourced that this is the COMMONNAME of the event. A number of these articles do not appear to follow this guideline. Indeed, yesterday I deleted List of events named massacres at AfD; most of the Delete rationales were because the inclusion criteria were so variable. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you Black Kite. I will draftify for now as created by non-EC user. Polyamorph (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Arrrgh, someone moved it back to mainspace. Polyamorph (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Provided it is done by an ec editor, thereby taking responsibility, that's OK. The issue is non ec creation. Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Chengqingy

Chengqingy is a recently-created account which, in my opinion, has not been acting in good faith and is disruptively editing Nigera-related articles. They were warned about content blanking and edit warring by multiple users, particualrly at the article Nigeria. They do not respond to their talk page messages, which is not a big deal, but it is frustrating communicating through the only thing they read, which is edit summaries.

So what exactly are their edits which are disagreeable enough to start a row with multiple users? It is painfully clear that this new user is only interested in removing content about Nigeria that they do not like, then erroneously claiming that it was due to unreliable sourcing.

Chengqingy made four mass content removals from Nigeria in a 72-hour period with the same vague reasoning ([2], [3], [4], [5]), prompting four warnings on their talk page.

They have also been selectively removing a particular photo of a starving child at Nigerian Civil War, with a new bogus reason given each time after having explained to them why their reason is not policy.

It is clear to me that this user is not interested in building an encyclopedia. Look at this recent edit to Anambra State, for example. The edit summary is "links added", so why did they also randomly remove Mathias Ugochukwu from the list of notable people? What is their explanation? The edit also adds the subjective claim that "[Chimamanda Adichie] is one of 21st century [sic] most influential author" without a source; are we really to believe that this user has a solid grasp of WP:RS policy, enough so that they can make judgement calls as to what paragraphs to remove from articles with no more explanation than "no verifiable claims"? Yet that does not even have to be asked, because as other users have pointed out, all the content that has been removed by this user has been adequately cited. Yue🌙 07:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yue: You haven't notified the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am just seeing this message right now and would like to make some comments. Firstly, All the edits I have made so far are with honest motive and not otherwise. Secondly, I removed ’Mathias Ugochukwu’ from the notable people because the name appeared twice. The veracity of my edit to ‘Chimamanda Adichie’ is not an assumption because there were series of citations about the claim on various notable websites on google. And I added those sources. Lastly, the edits on ‘Nigeria’ was because I couldn’t find the claim elsewhere on google, even the author did not provide the methodologies that was involved in the claim. Hence it contradicts with Wikipedia rules. Chengqingy (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Five appeals at AE

The initial wave of ARBPIA sanctions has thankfully ebbed, but this leaves us with a number of outstanding appeals at WP:AE—currently five—at a time when admin participation has likewise ebbed. One just managed to fall off the board until I restored it, so it would be great to have a few more admins chime in, or close those that are closeable. (Full disclosure, I am the sanctioning admin in two of the cases.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 07:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a great place to spend my second day! I'll take a look. jp×g🗯️ 08:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. jp×g🗯️ 08:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the corps @JPxG:! This follow up reply definitely got a chuckle out of me. AE is a "thar be danger" area a lot of admins avoid, and for good reason. That isn't to discourage you as it definitely needs help, but it can definitely be contentious. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

May I ask how it fell of the board? I thought AE cases were supposed to stay open until closed by an admin. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: It was automatically archived by a bot as an old discussion. Renerpho (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably it should use User:ClueBot III for archiving so threads are archived when closed rather than based on when they were edited. Galobtter (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought we didn't use an archive bot at AE and that every thread got an admin close. Guess I was mistaken. Bummer, that would be a nice feature. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Likely G5, possible block evasion

TheDelhiBoy2 was indef blocked on 27 October 2023, and only ever edited the article Amar Singh (art dealer). GlasgowGoatHerder created an account on 29 October 2023, and heavily edited the same article. A draft created by GlasgowGoatHerder comes back as a likely G5 candidate when SPI tools are run against TheDelhiBoy2. The DelhiBoy2 tried to A7 speedy delete the article Amar Singh (art dealer), while GlasgowGoatHerder created a draft about an artist who has held exhibitions at Amar Singh's gallery, and has previously painted Amar Singh; the topics are clealry strongly aligned. GlasgowGoatHerder claims to be creating a page on Wikipedia for a school project. I do not believe this stated motivation to be true. In any case, GlasgowGoatHerder still remains unblocked. Uhooep (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused on why you're allowed to be anywhere near this article, Uhooep. You used a sockpuppet account to edit war with the other editors on this very article you're bringing up. There likely is other people's sockpuppets going on with the new accounts throughout that entire article's history, but this doesn't seem like a subject you should be involved in whatsoever at this point. Silverseren^C 02:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I have never used another account to edit since successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee in June 2021, and I take that very seriously. I also have no COIs. I am one of three independent users requesting a CheckUser on the aforementioned suspected master and suspected socks. Uhooep (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Recreation of an article

Hi,

Since new information came to light I would like to suggest the creation of article Giovanni Morassutti based on the following reliable sources : 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7, 8 Crispycali (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked as a suspected sock. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Multiblocks Proposal from the Community Wishlist Survey 2023

Hello admins, Community Tech needs your feedback.

During the Community Wishlist Survey 2023, a request was made for the functionality to layer blocks or allow them to overlap.

Community Tech has began work on this proposal and has conducted a technical investigation, which the team has published.

Please share your feedback on the results of the technical investigation and also on our overall approach to the proposal.

(Please let me know if I should also add this notice to the newsletter talkpage to request addition to the newsletter for December 2023.)

Thank you –– STei (WMF) (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Glad this is being worked on, I didn't realise this had come up but it's something I've been wishing for ever since P-blocks came in. Canterbury Tail talk 15:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@STei (WMF) I don't understand what I'm being asked to comment on. Am I supposed to say whether I agree or disagree with the results of your technical investigation? I'm going to trust your team is competent so mark me as agree especially because block having large technical debt "rings true" with my experience using the function. But as far as I can tell there is no solution being offered - next steps is in fact blank - so I can't tell you anything about your thoughts on next steps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 I believe you are being asked to comment on whether or not the user stories and requirements were correctly identified by the team :) Sohom (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail@Barkeep49@Sohom Datta thank you all for the feedback. When the next steps are published, I will be back to inform your group.

Also @Barkeep49, apologies for any confusion. –– STei (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

RFA oppose votes

We have had editors blocked, badgered and cancelled for ivoting oppose at RFA. We have administrators moving discussions: Ritchie333 seems to do this more than others. I objected on Ritchie333's talk page earlier this year but they have not stopped moving the discussions in subsequent RFAs.

See some examples

Oppose ivoter Therapyisgood blocked in theleekycauldron's RFA - read discussion here

Moving oppose discuussions in the Novem Linguae RFA

Synotia was blocked by Maile66 for ivoting oppose in Aoidh's RFA

I also unblocked Synotia when others pointed out I was possibly in error with that block. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

And today we have a bureaucrat unilaterally striking the oppose ivote of an editor in good standing.

I questioned the crat (Acalamari) on their talk page. I believe that these actions are undemocratic. We should ivote in secret as we do for Arbcom candidates; that way editors will not be badgered, blocked, sidelined and cancelled. We should not manipulate the results to produce an unrealistic 100% support outcome.

One thing we can still correct: @RadioKAOS: is an editor in good standing and their ivote in the JPxG RFA should be reinstated. Congrats to JPxG on their adminship and for trying to get others to stop badgering oppose ivoters in their RFA. Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic; please stick to the original topic, viz. bollocking people. Serial 15:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've never seen the term "ivote" before. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC) My guess is it's a corruption of "!vote" - which also makes no sense as RfA is more explicitly a vote than a discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC) i can already hear the screaming. ltbdl (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC) An old habit of mine which other editors seem to understand. ivote is !vote because it is WP:NOTVOTE. Lightburst (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Cargo-cult Wikipedia jargon. iVotes are not votes in the same sense that !OS isn't an operating system. —Cryptic 16:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• The last two at least were deservedly struck, as they were both disrupting the process to make a point and not actually commenting on the candidate. RFA is supposed to be a consensus-building process, and editors with an axe to grind making protest votes should be removed. RFA is enough of a mess without that crap. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why didn't you wait for Acalamari to respond on his talk page? You gave him less than an hour and a half before coming here. (I also think this is better suited to WT:RFA. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. The discussion could have continued at Acalamari's talk page... as it happens I agree that it was a bad call to strike that oppose, and in general we should avoid badgering RFA opposers too much, but I don't think this is a problem which needs a WP:AN dramafest any time soon...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru and Pawnkingthree: I am sure you are both right. Acalamari was just the latest RFA incident, and I thought it needed broader discussion. Lightburst (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking of setting up an RfC soon (when I get time to write a decent proposal) of stopping replies to !votes (whether support, oppose or neutral) and put them elsewhere, such as on the talk page, the general discussions area ... just about anywhere. Basically, they'd be analogous to Arbcom discussions. It helps keep the noise and the accusations of "badgering" down a bit. Indeed, I would only consider archiving responses too !votes to the talk page because they have been badgering or otherwise talking too much about a single piece of opposition. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron 2 was an absolute bloodbath, which I appear to have taken part in and helped, and for which I apologise. I was obviously having a bad day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• If your vote (and it is a vote, RfA is about numbers, not discussion or consensus) is not based on the candidate's suitability for adminship, it absolutely should be struck. Well done to Acalamari for having the balls to call it out. If your vote is a personal attack, you absolutely should face the same consequences as you would elsewhere on Wikipedia. The free for all punch up and the drama when somebody dares try to enforce some decorum is everything that is wrong with RfA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Very well put. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's a vote, RfA is about numbers, not discussion or consensus +1 Serial 16:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  If it's about numbers, why are we allowing comments of any kind? Just vote (!!vote) and leave. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's a vote, RfA is about numbers, not discussion or consensus - this right here. Discussion can go to the talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: It is only a vote for support voters... but it is clearly not a vote for oppose voters. Are you ok with erasing votes? Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, where did I say I wanted to erase votes? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If I ivote "Oppose why not?" my ivote would get scrutinized as disruptive and editors would demand for me to justify the oppose. But that is a common support ivote. Also "Support I thought you were an admin already?" Perfectly ok support ivote. Some just say "Support" with a signature and that is fine. Try doing that as an oppose ivoter: Oppose (signature). The response from @HJ Mitchell: is surprising - imagine enforcing decorum by erasing a valid ivote based on entirely subjective criteria. FYI: even JPxG recognized the problem with this response to question 11.Special:Diff/1182777427. With comments like that I know they will be a fantastic administrator. Also check out the comments of Chris troutman. Lightburst (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that, at RfA, the dynamics differ between support votes and oppose votes. Supporters who write only their signatures or use non-arguments like the "I thought you were an admin already" vote, are normally assumed to be indicating that they concur with the nomination statement, or that they find no problems with the nominee. If one were to oppose per no stated reason, whose statement or argument are they concurring with? Why are they opposing? Other times, oppose votes that are perceived to be directed at issues other than the nominee, or are perceived as weak, get badgered, while weak oppose votes don't get badgered as often when many are opposing, probably because it is assumed that it is not unreasonable to oppose the nomination. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Right @Nythar:, but you see the refrain above claiming it is a vote! It is only a vote if you agree with support. If you oppose you are forced to justify, which is the opposite of a "it is a vote". Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That does seem to be the case, and RfAs resemble genuine votes only when the number of oppose votes become large, although oppose votes still may be badgered. And I'm not referring to the reasonableness of an oppose vote; even the most justified opposes will be badgered in a 200/3 RfA. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

We assume that all admin candidates have good qualities just as all have flaws. The onus is on you to disprove the nomination statement if you feel that the flaws outweigh the good qualities. I've done so many times but doing so just to take a potshot or make a point about the process, or for any other reason not related to the candidate, is disruptive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually I'd like more discussion and less voting. But we can't fix something by pretending it's something else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Crats should strike pointy disruptive opposes more often than they do. Even (and especially) if they make no difference in the final tally, it's deeply unkind and unfair to disrupt someone's RfA to make an unrelated point or general objection to the process or adminship in general. Folly Mox (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Folly Mox, HJ, and others. As a candidate who has experienced a rough RfA in the past, and was quaking in my boots before launching the second, the high social cost of writing the first oppose is a feature, not a bug. If you wanna take a potshot at a candidate in the one of the only places we basically ignore civility rules, you'd better have a good reason. There are lots of qualified editors out there who are terrified of RfA because of what dumb, insubstantial things might be dredged up in the oppose column just to embarrass them. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• I have to disagree with the last couple of comments. The "high social cost of writing the first oppose" absolutely is a problem. If an oppose vote is obviously cast to make a point or to disrupt the process then yes, I think it can be struck. In any other case though (and that includes votes that initially look like they are poorly explained), it's different. Those votes should be respected as such. As I said in the discussion of Cupkake4Yoshi's oppose vote to JPxG's RfA, Cupkake4Yoshi has every right to vote against a (so far) overwhelming majority, AND to be taken seriously. Johnuniq, and others below, have explained how this vote may be the result of a misunderstanding, but that doesn't justify assuming bad faith. It saddens me to see voters questioned and ridiculed like this, because it genuinely threatens the process. We need people to raise genuine concerns ESPECIALLY in the face of overwhelming majorities. If they turn out to be mistaken then that's great, but we must not shout them down. JPxG themselves commented earlier today to ask that people not jump in and try to beat this guy's ass on account of his oppose rationale. I tried to convince the editor not to leave Wikipedia entirely. Whether they'll change their mind, I don't know. The necessity to stay civil applies to all! Compare Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hey man im josh#Replies to Sportsfan (hatted) for another recent example of an oppose vote being shouted down. Renerpho (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• I'd agree with that, Renerpho. There seems to be a bloodlust for some in attacking oppose !votes - and many of the objections and attacks would be worthy of admin attention (even though it is often admins making some of those comments). No one questions the support votes (as opposed to !votes) on an RFA, but it seems to be de rigour for people to attack an oppose, even when made in good faith. It seems that sometimes supporters don't seem to want to see even one oppose without jumping on it: they should take on board that people's views and opinions differ and it's just as fine to oppose with what they think is a weird rationale, as it is to support with zero rationale. As long as the oppose carries something of a realistic rationale that isn't obvious trolling or an outright attack, then it should stand. This is slightly bizarre, given the (248/1/1) close (really, why bother with the dramah and supervote of the delete when the count is never going to be anything but a pass), but huge kudos to JPxG for their approach to the oppose. - SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  The reason given to strike that oppose vote (quote: as the rationale is false in some parts and a rant about Wikipedia in others; less to do with the candidate as it otherwise ought to be) borders on a failure to assume good faith, or at least to parse what that vote actually said. Yes, the vote is a rant about Wikipedia, but that's in response (reality check) to what was perceived as an unjustified praise of the project by the candidate (the "Jimbo quote", as they call it; the statements "free access to the sum of all human knowledge" and "a reliable source of high-quality information"). Is that rationale "false"? I don't know. But it's not unreasonable, and it definitely is about the candidate's statement, not just about the project. Wikipedia has its flaws, and if someone opposes an RfA because the candidate seems to be unaware of those perceived flaws, that sounds like a good reason to me! The vote still would have easily passed, so I don't understand why Acalamari would even open that can of worms and strike a vote that could have been made in good faith. Renerpho (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• RadioKAOS voted oppose because "the answer to Q1 is a whole lot of happy horseshit", then goes on to explain why they think the answer is horseshit. Simply put, RadioKAOS thinks either JPxG's answer is dishonest or JPxG is living in fantasy land. RadioKAOS is also unimpressed with JPxG's self-proclaimed non-answer to Q10.
  Sure there's an unrelated rant in there as well, but votes with zero rationale still get counted. It seems the bar for oppose votes tends to be higher, but even in that case an oppose vote that merely says "Oppose, I think this candidate does not have the required mindset for an administrator" which could universally apply to any candidate would probably still be counted. So to discount a vote due to its rationale would require an extraordinarily irrelevant or false rationale and should virtually always be discussed before getting struck. In a few cases an argument could perhaps be made to move, strike or collapse a rationale without striking the vote itself: in this case the rationale is rather long which doesn't fit well in a numbered list of votes. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's also noteworthy how close to the end of the RfA that this had occurred, so unintentionally or otherwise, there was no likelihood of any sort of rebuttal being posted due to the new policy requiring the automatic closure of an expired RfA. I have to wonder if that may have prompted the suddenness of striking the !vote without any discussion. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps relevant here is the thing I said when someone asked me about it at said request:

I don't know if it is appropriate for me to do a full go-off about the RfA process while I am in the middle of one, but I suppose I will be honest: it's fucking sad. While nobody has individually chosen to play the part of the villain, the outcome is nonetheless disgraceful. The number, right now, is 222/1/1: but is that real? Who knows. Maybe there are some people who think I'm a complete piece of trash, and are simply choosing not to throw themselves upon the bonfire by saying so in public at a 222/1/1 RfA. I guess we'll never know: I have been given the gift of a potentially high ratio, at the price of a potentially dishonorable victory. But what else could have been done? What else were they supposed to do? The options seem to have been to do that, or to say nothing and let it stand.

On one hand, I did strongly disagree with the oppose voter's claim, and I do feel like the process benefited from the mistake being pointed out, but on the other hand, did it really warrant 7,200 bytes of response? Perhaps a better question is why we've decided that it is uncivilized to have a candidate respond directly to accusations, but it is highly civilized to have a dozen other people respond nebulously on their behalf. The circumstances behind an oppose vote, especially one based on something that happened a long time ago, are generally arcane and half-remembered even by their participants; why would bystanders be better-equipped to address them? I feel like they usually aren't, which is part of the reason people make up for quality with quantity, and we end up with giant walls of text below every oppose. I don't know how this could be formalized, but it seems to me that if you see an oppose that's so goofy you feel you absolutely must take action, it's probably better to channel your outrage into asking the candidate a somewhat open-ended question that lets them address it.

I think one of the major issues that gives rise to badgering is that, for whatever reason (an actual rule? an unwritten custom?) candidates are forbidden to (or at least considered uncouth if they) respond to opposes. This means that random other people must do so on their behalf, and since nearly everybody except the candidate is just some random person who wasn't involved in the thing being brought up, it's very difficult to tell if any given objection was thorough enough, or addressed the central point, or was "enough". Hence why there are a ton of them. I think that if we let the candidates just say "That's not true because of diff and diff and diff" or "I disagree", it would be worth a thousand "this is impetuous!" badger responses. jp×g🗯️

JPxG, I wish all admins approached it the way you do! Discouraging oppose votes actually is unfair to the candidate, who is denied both valuable criticism and honest feedback. It is also dangerous. It is interesting that we are discussing this on the day another admin has been desysopped and blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.[6] They passed 207/3/1 in 2018. I can't help but wonder if more people would have opposed at that time if it didn't come with such a risk of shaming. Looking back, there are hints in that RfA that make me think... The question whether Wifione was a sockmaster has even been raised in their RfA in 2010 (passed 90/23/4), so obviously just raising an issue doesn't guarantee that it is properly addressed (there wasn't enough evidence to prove sock puppetry at the time).[7] We have been rightfully talking about how painful RfAs can be for the candidates; but at the same time, an almost unanimous vote is meaningless if voting a certain way is discouraged! Renerpho (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I wish candidates were encouraged to participate in discussion with the opposers. Might be better to not have this discussion in the oppose section, but then it would be better to not have any rationales in the support or oppose sections at all; discussion and voting should be separate. —Kusma (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Me too @JPxG: I have mad respect for you as an editor. You did the research when I was getting pummeled at AfD a while ago, and I never forgot it. I think your answer to question 11 was spot on and I know that you will be great in this new role. I am sorry for dragging you in here a day after your RFA. Congrats! Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think offtopic rants should not be allowed in the oppose section. Personally, I believe RfA should be a vote (the pseudo-rationales in the oppose section are what causes most of the acrimonity) so I think the perfect answer would have been not to strike the vote, but to reduce it to the "oppose" and move the offtopic rant to the talk page, but striking it was a reasonable bureaucrat response. —Kusma (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I have to disagree with the people who say that RFA should be a numerical vote, not a discussion. Sure, most serious candidates fly through these days, which may lead people to that conclusion. But there have absolutely been times that a well-written oppose brought up a certain issue, incident, or concern that was not being adequately considered and significantly changed the way the rest of the RFA unfolded. Whether that meant supporters switched to oppose or they decided to stay put, they made a more educated decision as a result of the oppose, and I argue that was always a good thing, even if it meant that some of those RFAs failed. Pinguinn 🐧 11:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  When I say "RfA should be a vote", this is shorthand for saying that RfA should involve a discussion together with a (separate) numerical vote. That's what we have done for ArbCom for many years (sometimes with open voting, more recently with secret ballots). —Kusma (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Decoupling the votes from the discussion would allow the ability for people to vote without making a post in the discussion area. In an ideal world that would be good—we'd allow people to support and oppose without a stated rationale. But while supporting without a statement is already common at RFA, the concern I would have is that people who voted oppose and did not immediately provide a rationale in the discussion section would be pinged and hassled in the discussion section until they provided one. So in the end, it wouldn't be so different from allowing them to just provide a statement with their vote. Pinguinn 🐧 15:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I cannot read this wall of text in detail but having searched a few key words, I cannot find any reference to the agreed, legitimate and RFC approved process of moving lengthy, off-topic and inflammatory discussions to the TP. This approach was agreed years ago as means of removing the oxygen from debates caused by (usually, but not always) !oppose votes which were generally (but not always) absured, irrelevant or plainly intended to incite disruption. It has been successful. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• RfA is like a marriage ceremony. The candidate stands in front of people who clap and cheer, because it certainly was not an easy path for them to get to this stage, they have been through doubts and scrutiny. Yes, it must be asked: If any person present knows of any lawful impediment..., then if you're aware of a valid impediment, please detail it convincingly. Otherwise just clap and cheer per nom please. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not a bad analogy. I have never witnessed an oppose at a marriage ceremony, but I imagine some badgering would ensue, even if it was perfectly valid. There's certainly a social cost to speaking up at a marriage ceremony. But do we really consider RfA as a ceremony? Maybe all of us have misunderstood the idea. Renerpho (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  RFA is an ascension ceremony. Levivich (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  I should have said, do we consider it as anything else but a ceremony? There seem to be some who believe it's a vote, and that there should be a discussion. Maybe that's a misunderstanding. Renerpho (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Poking my head in to give a few thoughts, I guess. I've been tied up in meat space and what little time I've had for wiki stuff has gone to what you might expect, so forgive me for not having followed this blow-by-blow. Firstly, I find it sad that JPxG says the outcome is nonetheless disgraceful. Consensus is not merely the ratio of support to oppose, it is also the absolute strength of each camp; a limited group of editors[...]cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. You did not merely achieve a high ratio of support to oppose: of the three candidates in you cohort you received the highest absolute number of support votes, over a hundred more votes than at my RfA, and a higher participation than at my failed RfB. If we were to disregard opposition entirely like we do for ELECTCOM and go simply on endorsements, you would have the strongest claim to consensus. The trust this community has in you is real, and if you ever doubt that read through what your supporters have to say about you. When I have doubts or anxieties about whether I have the support of the community or if I've lost my way, I don't go look at the ACE results or voter guides, I look at my nomination statements and the words of hope and encouragement given to me at RFA (and even my RFB despite its failure).
  Secondly, the argument against Acalimari---that RfA is a vote and therefore votes should not be badgered or struck---only makes sense if you think democratic votes are wild free for alls, but they aren't. We strike votes at ACE all the time, one of the last edits I made here was paperwork to empower a group of people whose precise job is to strike votes at ACE. We have eligibility and participation requirements which disenfranchises hundreds of editors because we believe their opinions are insufficiently informed due to lack of participation, and we change them in RfCs that get limited participation from those who would be affected. Meanwhile, bureaucrats have been routinely criticized for the lack of transparency in how they actually weigh !votes, but now that one has gone through the trouble of showing their work, transparency in the vote counting process is also undemocratic? What's the model of democracy we're working under because it seems to just be a word thrown around whenever we don't like something that happens at RFA.
  Bureaucrats are perhaps the most specialized group of editors on this project. They have, arguably, a single job: determine the outcome of an RFA after weighing the validity of "votes" or "comment" (you pick). Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence[...]the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones. If a "vote" or "comment" is based on a plainly erroneous statement, it's value is zero because it is simply false; it's arguably less useful than a bare "oppose" with no rationale. Why treat it like it's on par with something even mildly helpful to consensus? In democracies, if a vote is invalid, it gets discarded. The bureacrats already do that; they just don't show their work. There's nothing that says they can't show their work, and I don't see why we should prohibit them from being more transparent in how they weigh consensus even in uncontroversial cases. To me, that is what improves democratic decision-making. — Wug·a·po·des 00:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: A long post which seems to justify the crats removal of a valid vote in the RFA. Imagine that: crats and admins all circling the wagons to support the crat who disenfranchises an editor who is otherwise qualified to participate in this procedure. This is not unlike the blue wall where police are loathe to criticize each other. Pick the right side, it is not hard. I know that I am entering dead horse territory so I will take my leave. Lightburst (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Lightburst: How many admins have you voted to desysop in the last two years? You're clearly more interested in your political agenda (turning RfA into a straight vote) than actually grappling with how to interpret the line from WP:RFA I quoted. I don't view this as a battleground with sides that need to win, but if that's how you want to see it, feel free to wall yourself in your camp and ignore me. Ad hominem arguments and hyperbolically comparing internet mods to a system that murders people with impunity isn't going to make me think your argument is any more convincing. — Wug·a·po·des 21:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I think the answer is zero. Feel free to correct me if you have information about me voting to desysop editors - in fact in July I advocated for AlisonW not to lose her bit Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Evidence - i thought you would remember. I do not have an agenda to desysop anyone. My agenda is always to improve the project and governance of the project. What I always say at RFA is admins should protect content and content creators. I forgive you for not reading the thread, but I never said it was a straight vote, look above to see HJ Mitchell said it was a straight vote, Vanamonde93, RickinBaltimore and Serial Number 54129 agreed. And hyperbole is: "a system that murders people with impunity" Is that really what you think of the police? Back to this: when crats or admins act inappropriately I hope some editors continue to speak up. I am busy working on other things now and change is not coming anytime soon. I am disappointed that you could not figure out that Acalamari was mistaken. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Wugapodes, If a "vote" or "comment" is based on a plainly erroneous statement, it's value is zero because it is simply false;
I'll have to forgive you as you haven't followed this blow-by-blow but the so-called "erroneous" statement was RadioKAOS saying "the candidate still hasn't provided an actual answer to Q10". At the time RadioKAOS voted, this was JPxG's answer to Q10: "Yes, but I will need to think about it for a minute". That is very clearly not an actual answer. Some confusion happened because JPxG expanded their answer to Q10 afterwards. Even the expanded answer may or may not constitute an "actual" answer, but it doesn't matter: that's not what RadioKAOS commented on. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz thanks for that clarification on the timeline. In the abstract, I still stand by the argument, but with your clarification I think the present example is arguably not the best example of the hypothetical case. That said, I do think JPxG's clarification matters to some degree. We've seen in controversial RfAs or those with late-breaking information situations where some supporters will come back and "re-affirm" their support. The idea being that crats won't necessarily know if the supporters would still support had they known about the late-breaking information, so editors re-affirm to clarify that they have considered the new argument. This is essentially the other side of that coin: RadioKAOS commented on a specific answer which was then clarified, so does the opposition still hold given the new info? It's probably worth less, but not "zero" like in the hypothetical situation I originally thought. At the very least, probably not worth striking given the fact that it doesn't matter to the outcome and (obviously) caused more trouble than it was worth, but I don't think the "crats can and should show their work" is completely defeated either. — Wug·a·po·des 21:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Section break / bureaucrat response

First off, this thread could have waited until I'd had a chance to reply to the messages on my talk page about this topic; that being said, this general subject is a good discussion to have.

We should not manipulate the results to produce an unrealistic 100% support outcome. - I agree, and more than 99% of the time there has been no need for a bureaucrat to strike anyone's participation. But there are situations when it has been appropriate to do so and never has it been to ensure unanimous support for someone.

As to address this message from Lightburst on my talk page, there was no "misleading explanation" for my striking out the oppose in question. The oppose falsely stated that the candidate hadn't answered question 10; there is an answer present. If the opponent merely disagreed with the answer, then they should have stated as such; saying no answer was provided was incorrect. As for the rest of the oppose, I will agree that my use of the word "rant" was erroneous. But that aside, the remainder of that opposition had nothing to do with the candidate and was, instead, the opponent sharing their views about various problems they perceive with Wikipedia. I have set past precedent for giving less weight or dismissing participation that is critical of Wikipedia or the WMF while being irrelevant to the candidate; in the bureaucrat chat for Floquenbeam's second RfA, it was people supporting because they were against the WMF - not because they were for Floquenbeam - that led to me disagreeing with my fellow bureaucrats and being the only one to argue for a no consensus closure.

As for my striking being "undemocratic", per policy, we are not a democracy. And about there being no "rule" about striking, I'm far from the first bureaucrat to strike a contribution (and this isn't even the first time I've done so); we absolutely can strike provided that there's either been a discussion that has proved the participation is inappropriate or, if acting entirely by ourselves, we are able to justify the strike. In this case, my strike is consistent with my past determinations in RfAs. I will not be reversing the strike because the RfA is closed (if we start going back and changing participation in closed candidacies, then we open an entirely new world of trouble) and because I consider the strike to be correct, as justified above. If there's a community discussion that forbids bureaucrats from it, then of course I shall abide by such a decision in future. Until then, striking or otherwise discounting participation has been an acceptable action for bureaucrats to take, within reason as stated.

To address other aspects of this discussion, those unrelated to my specific actions, over the past few years or more, it has become acceptable to move extended discussion to the talk page if it becomes too cumbersome or shoots off into irrelevancies. This, by itself, is not a reflection on the person who has supported or opposed. It's done to reduce clutter on the main candidacy page, not to censor anyone.

Finally, with regards to "badgering", while there is the voting element to the process, RfA is a discussion as well. Anyone participating in one is accepting that it's possible that their contribution may receive questions and other responses. This applies not only to opposition, but also those in support or neutral or even anyone just making a comment. The general thought is that since opposition holds more weight than supports, opposition receives more scrutiny; but if anyone thinks that supports should receive more than they currently do, then absolutely people should challenge accordingly and I encourage them to. Provided that no one is being followed back to their talk page or being sent uninvited private correspondence about their RfA participation, then no one is being "badgered" and we need to stop throwing that term around so readily.

Tl;Dr - the oppose I struck here had nothing to do with the candidate's qualifications or suitability to become an admin, and was otherwise a long commentary about Wikipedia; the one part that was about the candidate was false. Acalamari 00:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyone participating in one is accepting that it's possible that their contribution may receive questions and other responses -- Your response sounds like you are suggesting that the incivilities mentioned above are an acceptable way to "discuss" an issue on this site. Please clarify where you draw the line of what is acceptable, ideally with reference to the examples given above. Renerpho (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Acalamari, The oppose falsely stated that the candidate hadn't answered question 10; there is an answer present. If the opponent merely disagreed with the answer, then they should have stated as such; saying no answer was provided was incorrect.
You are misquoting RadioKAOS. They actually said: this RFA is almost over and the candidate still hasn't provided an actual answer to Q10. Note the adjective "actual" here. They didn't claim the question was literally unanswered.
And to quote from the answer given to Q10: so here is a bullshit non-answer So by the candidate's own admission they were unable to provide the examples that were requested in Q10. The candidate somewhat avoided a direct answer saying "no", claiming no specific examples came to mind. This seemingly left RadioKAOS hoping the candidate would update the answer later to provide the requested examples. (or a clear claim that they can't provide the requested examples) We can argue whether the answer constitutes an "actual" answer or not, that's highly subjective and not the way to "win" this argument. (not that anybody will win this argument, arguments like these can only be lost, not won) Edit: as JPxG pointed out, we all overlooked the fact JPxG added the "bullshit non-answer" after RadioKAOS voted. When RadioKAOS voted, the answer to Q10 was "Yes, but I will need to think about it for a minute." which unequivocally equals "not an actual answer".
And about there being no "rule" about striking, I'm far from the first bureaucrat to strike a contribution
This argument falls in the "n people can't be wrong" category.
(and this isn't even the first time I've done so)
"I've cheated on you many times, I don't understand why you are mad." ;-)
we absolutely can strike
Considering there's no rule about striking this is something bureaucrats just started doing. So now I say: no, you can't strike. In the absence of a rule my word is worth as much as yours, so you really can't strike anymore now. This doesn't impact removal of content for policy-based reasons, but you can't strike the actual vote in cases like these.
provided that there's either been a discussion that has proved the participation is inappropriate or, if acting entirely by ourselves, we are able to justify the strike.
And you're not able to do that. So where was the discussion?
In this case, my strike is consistent with my past determinations in RfAs.
"My cheating on you has been consistent, I don't understand why you are mad." ;-)
I will not be reversing the strike because the RfA is closed (if we start going back and changing participation in closed candidacies, then we open an entirely new world of trouble)
So declare your close invalid. Reopen the RfA, unstrike the vote and let someone close it. If that changes the outcome (which in this particular case it won't), so be it.
It's done to reduce clutter on the main candidacy page, not to censor anyone.
It's worth considering to move such comments down to the general comment section while remaining on the same page, but that discussion is probably not one for AN. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Acalamari: You made a unilateral decision to strike a valid vote by an editor based entirely on your own subjective criteria. As stated above, this was an easy pass so your erasure of the vote is curious. Editors above have insisted that RFA is a vote: but it obviously not if you are able to cancel a vote. I think you were wrong, and it is not even a close call. What is the next step for us pawns if you as a bureaucrat refuse to un-strike a valid vote? Lightburst (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Contrary to popular opinion, not every decision you disagree with is open to endless challenges. Go and write an article instead of wasting time with meaningless drama. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Note that at the time, I had not actually typed out that answer to Q10, it just said "I will have to think about it for a while to come up with something" (or something like that, not verbatim). jp×g🗯️ 11:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• After seeing this, this and this, I will not be participating in the conversation here any further. Criticism of my judgment and discussion around it are completely valid; but calling me or anyone else retarded, however, is beyond unacceptable, even if in linked meme format or somehow argued that "everyone" present is retarded. I'm sure there's going to be some way that it'll be excused or otherwise justified, though, or made out to be that I'm deserving of what was said / linked. Acalamari 04:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Acalamari: Nobody is calling you anything, and I am not "excusing" or "justifying" something that I think didn't actually happen. The edits you linked to make quite clear that nobody intended to use insults. Alexis Jazz never seriously argued that "everyone" present is retarded; you are twisting their every word there. On the contrary, I am convinced that the details of the meme didn't even cross their mind. They even said that they misremembered the meme.[8]

  I hadn't understood the reference to the jpg-image myself, hence why I googled it, to find out what they were even saying. It was me who then brought up the possibility on their talk page that it could be misunderstood. I asked Alexis Jazz to remove the reference to the meme, no matter how obscure, and to clarify what they meant -- which they did (the spirit of the meme is not the same as the literal message ... because of this I've edited my comment[9]). They summarized it as effectively I called everyone, very much including myself, retarded, adding that that's not quite accurate (that is, not what they meant to say). Please do not take that as literally meaning that every one of us has been insulted. The reference has since been replaced by the mundane, but intended meaning, that arguments like these can only be lost, not won.

  It is sad that you seem to use my attempt to keep the discussion going, of all things, as a knock-down argument to end it. That is not how I expect anyone to respond to criticism. In the comment I made on Alexis Jazz's user page, I said that this is an important discussion to have, and clarity is needed to avoid derailing it. If you actually consider criticism and discussion around your judgement as important then I hope this convinces you to actually reply to the criticism raised before. Renerpho (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I already did reply to the criticism; see my post at 00:43. I've given my reasons for my action in the RfA; if people disagree, they anyone who wants to hold another discussion to re-instate the oppose is free to do so. As for Jazz's comment, I have struck my message above. AGF, after all, although that behavioral guideline seemed to go out the window early on in this entire thread. Acalamari 12:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for striking the message. It is a step in the right direction. Renerpho (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I´ve undone the JPxG rfa close by Acalamari, some bureaucrat willing to actually justify their close can reclose it. I was uninvolved with the Rfa and the discussion, but the status of bureaucrats doesn´t make them immune for errors and criticism. If someone used personal attacks while doing this, then get them warned or sanctioned, but don´t use it as an excuse to avoid admitying an errot in judgment. Fram (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted your actions. I see no issue with a discussion here (or elsewhere) determining that the struck vote should not have been struck, and subsequently updating the nomination and related counters to show 248/2/1, but JPxG passed their RfA and you do not just get to "re-open" it because the numbers aren't 100% to everyone's liking. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to Primefac for restoring the closure. The close itself does not need to be justified; it was an obvious pass and no one is disputing that, so your re-opening of the candidacy was inappropriate at best. The issue at hand is the oppose I struck, and on that issue I have "actually" justified and explained why I did it. That you might disagree with the reason doesn't mean I didn't give one. And there was no error in judgment from me - I believe my action was correct. If the community wants to exhaust time and effort on restoring this one oppose, it may do so at its convenience. Acalamari 12:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Your explanation has been shown to have been incorrect, and your discounting of the vote was the wrong action. Have you even seen JPxGs response above? "Note that at the time, I had not actually typed out that answer to Q10"? As a non-burocrat, I shouldn´t adjust the tally or only undo your striking of the one vote, so simply letting another burocrat reclose it was the easiest solution. Fram (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The easiest solution for causing more drama, yes. Please stop stating your opinions as facts, Fram. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There isn't a time stamp on the question's answer and we bureaucrats do not go through the entire edit history of each candidacy, so I didn't notice at the time of my reading when that answer had been given. But even if there was one and if I had known the answer came after the oppose, I'd still have performed the strike but my rationale for doing so would have been slightly different.

Your undoing was a far more drastic move than changing the tally would have been, but neither should have been done, regardless. Acalamari 12:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The close should be undone, thanks @Fram:. I see that very quickly another bureaucrat had the back of the Acalamari. Surprise! We can have our vote in an RFA struck with no notification to the voter? Got it! I know that numerically the struck vote of a single oppose vote is meaningless, but the bureaucrat action demonstrates to me that participation in an RFA is meaningless. All you have to do is allow editors to vote in an election and then assess after seven days. Is that too much to ask? I say we vote in secret and all of this blocking, meddling and vote striking is avoided. Lightburst (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Please re-read my statement; I am neither endorsing nor criticising Acalamri's strike. Rather, I am undoing the unilateral reversal of the close of a successful RFA. Whether the oppose is kept struck or added to the formal records is not my concern; JPxG passed their RFA and it should not be entirely undone by a non-bureaucrat because the numbers may not be correct. Numbers can be adjusted after the fact if there is an issue (and they have been in the past, for example if a late-breaking vote is missed by the closing 'crat). The outcome is not in question, which is why I reverted the undo. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Primefac: - Bureaucrats already have supervote power in deciding RFAs and now they have extended their power to striking valid votes. If this vote was somehow objectionable, why wasn't the voter notified or warned for the vote? Lightburst (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The outcome of the vote is indeed not my concern, and I am sorry to JPxG that we are messing with what was (is) a very successful RfA. That said, I would have appreciated if Acalamari themselves (and not some other well-intending admin) had simply undone the strike with an admission that they were in error, and reopened the RfA for it to be properly closed soon after, ideally by an uninvolved party. It wouldn't have been a big deal, I think. That's what has been suggested before Fram's action. I appreciate that Fram was trying to help, but I disagree with them reopening the RfA, as much as I agree with their reason to do so.

Acalamari, your non-response to the criticism disappoints me; as do the replies from HJ Mitchell and Primefac! The timestamp on the question's answer is irrelevant. Both Yes, but I will need to think about it and here is a bullshit non-answer fit RadioKAOS's oppose rationale. As Fram has correctly stated, your rationale for striking the vote has been shown to be incorrect in the replies to your 00:43 comment. Renerpho (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

To clarify what I am concerned about: It's the example this sets for the future. Both the way how oppose votes in general are discouraged, and how votes may be dealt with in the closing process. Renerpho (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Rfa left closed, vote unstruck, tally adjusted. Acalamari, you didn´t need to go through the Rfa edit by edit, just look at how it looked at the moment the offending oppose was posted. Fram (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Fram! Can we move on now? As far as JPxG's RfA is concerned, I have said all I have to say, and I think Acalamari have heard what they had to hear. Does anyone disagree? There are clearly some more issues here that may be worth discussing, but I feel like this may be neither the right place nor the right time to do so. Renerpho (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Fram, thank you!
Mad props to @JPxG for pointing out we all missed the fact they added their "bullshit non-answer" after the oppose vote was cast which caused part of the confusion. They could have easily remained quiet but chose to speak up instead and I respect that. I hope someone will notify me if JPxG ever runs for bureaucrat so I can cast a vote.
It's unfortunate that @Acalamari didn't unstrike the vote themselves. Instead Acalamari said Your undoing was a far more drastic move than changing the tally would have been, but neither should have been done, regardless. As far as I'm concerned, it's not too late for Acalamari to admit they simply made a good-faith mistake by overlooking the word "actual" and not checking the page history. It's not too late to admit that striking the vote, especially without discussion, was not the right thing to do.
Anyone can make a mistake, but someone who is incapable of admitting and correcting theirs will only continue to cause drama and shouldn't be in a position of trust. Acalamari: nobody will blame you for making a mistake, but they will blame you for not owning up to it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

He didn't make a mistake. He made a decision you don't agree with. Everyone in this thread needs to give their head a wobble then go and add as many bytes of sourced prose to the encyclopaedia as they have to this noticeboard on a meta-meta-meta issue. Jesus wept! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If Acalamari would honestly believe that they should revert Fram. I'd be highly surprised if they did. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm tempted and I'm sure Acalamari was. But at this point it would only result in more ridiculous drama, causing more problems than it solved. And people wonder why we can't get anything done around here! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, But at this point it would only result in more ridiculous drama, causing more problems than it solved. Actually it would quite possibly result in Acalamari losing his bit. (but I'll give you that drama would be involved)
And people wonder why we can't get anything done around here! That's an easy one: because Acalamari hasn't managed to state they made (at least in hindsight) the wrong call. You can't blame anyone but Acalamari for that. Acalamari had the opportunity to minimize the drama but unfortunately didn't take it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Bollocks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Your insistence in defending this out of policy action is curious. Our slogan "Wikipedia: The free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit!", but apparently not "anyone cannot vote". Lightburst (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Not nearly as curious as your insistence on continuing to argue even after you've got what you want. Was the encyclopaedia finished while I wasn't looking? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: You have not been reading carefully, just defending the indefensible. What I want is detailed in the thread; I want for oppose voters not to be blocked, harangued, sidelined and have their votes struck in the dark. I thought we all wanted the same thing? The un-striking the vote is insignificant when you as an admin cosign the maneuver and consider re-striking it. And it seems the crat thinks they are golden. Lightburst (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

And I want RfA to be a more collegial environment so that good candidates aren't put off from running at a time when we need more admins. To that end, I'm extremely happy to see opposers blocked, harangued, sidelined, or having their votes struck if their votes are not related to the suitability of the candidate, or are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, or are personal attacks. Other than that, if you want to oppose (civilly) based on something the candidate has done or not done that gives you pause, go ahead. I'll defend you to the hilt, even if I disagree with you that it makes them unsuitable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm . i guess we agree on some things. I am finding some common ground in your statement. I saw you as a reasonable person when we previously interacted so try to imagine my surprise at seeing your messages in this thread. Lightburst (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue and frankly I've never seen the point in striking votes except in the most obvious cases (e.g. sockpuppets). Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs) used to oppose every RfA on the grounds that we had enough administrators (this was back in the mid-00s). Drove people crazy. Generated far more heat than light. Most people did the sensible thing and ignored him. Functionally, RfA is a vote. Is consensus assessed? Kinda. If a user in good standing wants to oppose a candidacy on spurious grounds well, what of it? No policy is offended here. Moving from the abstract to the specific, striking the one vote here accomplished nothing and clearly did more harm than good. On the plus side, the actual candidate showed a good deal of sense in handling (and not escalating) the situation. Mackensen (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think RadioKAOS could not have gotten a better answer to their Q10 than JPxG's handling of this situation. Kind of funny if you think about it. Renerpho (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Lourdes: in light of the Lourdes debacle I went to the RFA to see that the valid opposition was badgered and discussion was relegated to talk page - like this Andrew Davidson oppose. [about that]? Crazy responses like: My experience here is that there are some editors who love opposing people at RFA ...they tend to be trouble-makers and and this whopper: his participation at RfA is as deliberate trouble-maker on some otherwise immaculate runs for office. IMO the desire to have a Dear Leader "immaculate run" is the problem. Lightburst (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The appeal of an unanimous or unopposed vote is questionable. People are keeping track of it,[10] and I guess it's an interesting statistic, intended to measure unusually high (=good?) community consensus. However, if an oppose vote is attacked for blemishing a statistic, that's a prime example of Goodhart's law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Renerpho (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

A few days ago I added records for highest ratio (i.e. requiring 1 oppose or 1 neutral) -- maybe there ought to be records for highest two-oppose or highest three-oppose as well. jp×g🗯️ 21:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: If you're actually interested in proposing this then we should discuss it somewhere else. But for the sake of the argument: Expanding those records further won't do any good. What are you actually measuring there, the largest pile-ups of support votes? Successful target shooting (trying to hit precisely x oppose votes)? Why would that be interesting, and why should people want to break those records? Do we really encourage people to vote honestly if that only helps RfA candidates to be added to that vanity project of a list? I'd rather get rid of it altogether than add more entries. Renerpho (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured they were a lesser evil than only recording unanimous/unopposed runs, but overall, I think it might just be a negative influence on the process. Perhaps we could come up with better and more imaginative categories, like "most cuss words from the candidate on a successful RfA" or more pointedly "least oppose-badgered candidacy" etc. For example, I would not qualify for the latter... jp×g🗯️ 10:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking for a while that WP:RFX100(+) should stop explicitly tracking "highest unopposed", "highest unanimous", etc. Maybe that would do some small amount of good. (Then again, in 11 years and a day of editing, I've never understood why exactly we're so worried about oppose badgering. The opposer is under no obligation to oppose if they can't handle criticism, and also under no obligation to respond to that criticism.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 05:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I really truly agree, Tamzin. I think the concept of identifying and applauding RfAs for being unanimous creates an unhealthy culture of hostility for pretty much all parties involved - voters, spectators, the current candidate, would-be candidates, and even established admins. I had some thoughts on this, but I've realized that they would probably become an essay-length post, and so I may post them in a separate userspace essay and share them later. But long story short, we are susceptible to crowd psychology here on Wikipedia, just as much as we would be susceptible to it anywhere else on this rock hurtling through space. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 to MfDing the RFX100 pages as glorifying something that isn't healthy to glorify (unanimity). Dissent is not only productive but necessary for good decision-making. Levivich (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: People have been unrightfully sanctioned for opposing; there have been personal attacks and incivilities in the replies to their votes; people have left the site over the attacks in recent RfAs, and that behaviour is justified and accepted. That's the difference between criticism and badgering, and we should not mix up the two. They look similar if you squint, but they are not the same thing. Renerpho (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Most concerns I've seen over oppose "badgering" have been about legitimate criticism of the opposes. That's distinct from concerns about personal attacks in response to opposes. Again, people can just oppose and walk away. It's not that hard. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Idle parliamentary speculation

A hypothetical, parliamentary question: If Fram had been a crat when making this edit, would it mean I was not an administrator during the intervening time before someone else re-closed it? As a separate question from being a sysop, which is a technical permission -- in the same sense that a ban and a block aren't the same thing. The answer in this situation would seem to me to be "yes", since a crat-closed RfA is what grants adminship, not the vote count at the end time (and indeed a 123/1/2 can be closed as unsuccessful under certain strigine circumstances).
But isn't that kind of weird? Are there any other circumstances where it's possible for someone to be a sysop and not an administrator? I suppose, depending on which order the crat closing an RfA clicks the buttons, it might be the case for a few seconds. Has it ever happened for longer than that? jp×g🗯️ 10:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Without descending too far into lawyering, I would argue no, inasmuch as it's the granting of the flag that makes you an administrator, not the closure of the RfA itself. RfA is a community process for determining who should be granted the flag. It's still up to a bureaucrat to push the button. It's not within the bureaucrat's charter (at present) to reverse an RfA and desysop someone because they disagree with the close; I can think of a few situations arising out of some bureaucrat chats where a decision to promote was taken and some bureaucrats felt that decision was precipitous, but there wasn't really anything for it. I think one ended up at Arbcom.

That said, if there was a situation where promotion was truly controversial (which yours wasn't), it would probably be a good idea for the new admin to refrain from doing anything with the tools while the politics sorted themselves out. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

JPxG, well, I remember one time this kinda happened, but it was on Commons: c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 80#Jcb. The de-adminship was closed by a Wikipedia admin (trusted, but not a Commons admin/crat) and locked by a Commons admin. (but not crat) 67% voted to remove his bit. Commons technically doesn't require a crat to close though it's generally how it goes in practice. While waiting for a crat to come online and actually remove the bit, Jcb continued performing admin actions. Drama ensued.
If Acalamari had reversed the close themselves, I'd argue you technically wouldn't be an admin until a proper close happens. We'd consider the close as having never happened. Though you'd possibly keep your bit to avoid polluting the rights log. If you used your bit without realizing it might be advisable to wait, nobody would blame you in this case. If another crat reversed the close.. well, maybe? I suppose we'd still consider the close as having never happened. This is ignoring the question whether another crat would be in their right to reverse a close, I'd assume there'd be a valid reason to reverse the close. But I'm largely speculating here and things may turn out different in practice. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems like an interesting academic exercise and a technicality. As an aside: I am rather perplexed that Acalamari apparently still believes that they were right to strike and mischaracterize the minority opposition vote. Maybe there needs to be some arbcom action for this kind of disruption to the RFA process. As Alexis Jazz has said, an admission of error is in order and it does not seem to be coming. Without an admission Acalamari will believe it is within their purview to tamper with votes and then dig their heels in. Lightburst (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbcom?? This is just getting ridiculous now. We should all find something else worthwhile to do rather than continue this discussion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: the integrity of the process is in question. Sidelining minority opposition is what my post is about. The crat apparently thinks they are ok to continue in this manner. Lightburst (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Acalamari have accepted Fram's latest edit to the RfA (it is still the most recent edit as of now [11]), and we should assume good faith that they are trying to abide by whatever community consensus we may reach, even if they disagree with it (even if they consider the discussion a waste of time). Would I appreciate an apology? Yes. Do I think they should not do this again? Yes, that's why we're here, to make sure it doesn't. I still believe we can do that without parental guidance. @Pawnkingthree: You are not the first here who's trying to tell us what is and what isn't worthwhile discussing. I appreciated that the first time it happened; and in most cases, I wouldn't mind being told again. Considering the topic of this thread (the integrity of a key process, and how we conduct discussions on this site in general), it just irritates me. Renerpho (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I was reacting to the suggestion made above that Acalamari be hauled off to Arbcom, which is way over the top. As you say, the oppose has been reinstated, and has not been reverted, so what else needs administrator attention? Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Renerpho: I like the spirit of what you said above - but I see this as WP:ICANTHEARYOU. If I demonstrated the same behavior and refused to admit this obvious error I am sure I would face sanctions. It is clear from the thread above that they were mistaken about the missing answer to question 10, and yet they moved on which makes me believe that they will continue in this manner. Acknowledgment is important. Lightburst (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

My opinion: When the matter at hand has been resolved, which I understand was the RFA !vote being properly tallied and accounted for, the proper path forward is to de-escalate. Not to escalate further. Besides which, I had assumed that the reason you had opened this WP:AN is to discuss the attitude at RFA towards oppose !votes in general, not to report on a specific bureaucrat's unbecoming conduct. Any further qualms that you have with Acalamari at this point ought to be handled either conversationally, or if you must, through WP:ANI. We are not yet at the point where we can say we're at our "last resort". _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Renerpho, Acalamari have accepted Fram's latest edit to the RfA (it is still the most recent edit as of now Acalamari only made a single edit (at 2:34, 4 November 2023) since Fram's close at 14:42, 3 November 2023. So I'm not quite certain Acalamari is even aware of what happened. Would I appreciate an apology? I wouldn't even ask for a literal apology. They could just say that knowing what they know now, it was the wrong call. While I hope it's not what Acalamari is doing, it is unfortunately a very common strategy to avoid accountability by remaining quiet. I've seen it far too many times. People who are being questioned know that the community eventually gives up, allowing them to pretend they made the right call. Archiving bots are their friend.
That de-adminship of Jcb I referenced above? That was the same. Jcb would make a few posts to defend whatever he did before ghosting discussions that tried to hold him accountable, never admitting a mistake. I've literally searched for Jcb apologizing for something, anything.. and had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find 1 sorry/year. Assuming someone acknowledges their error when they ghost a discussion is why the drama didn't end until he was desysopped. If you want less drama, keep pushing until you get an answer. A little bit more drama today, 10 times less drama tomorrow.
Even though some people continue to side with Acalamari, the strike has proven to be controversial at best - and a controversial strike should never happen without prior discussion. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

New admin question

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.

---

Trifling question from a new sysop. When I go to any contributions page now, I see (change visibility) along the left side of every single revision, which I find irritating. I'm not able to work out if there's a specific setting that's causing this, or if it's just universal for admins. Is there a way to turn this off/on so I can only see those (change visibility) tags when I'm working on revision-deletion? Thanks for the help! —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I personally use User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRevdel.js, which turns that into less intrusive check boxes, like those on the history page. Galobtter (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Worked like a charm, much appreciated. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not a setting, it's just universal. And I guess banner blindness is a thing, since I honestly can't ever remember noticing it, despite jumping through hoops to make similarly-placed items in my watchlist and page histories less obtrusive. —Cryptic 01:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

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

Administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

Tamzin

Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

• Ragesoss
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
• There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
• Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
• Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
• Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
• Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
• Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
• An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

• The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Off-wiki coordination over 2023 Hamas-Israel war?

This post: Talk:2023 Hamas attack on Israel#Help combat antisemitic bias and make all these articles more even handed - not really properly acquainted with the rules about this stuff. Is this allowed, or ... ? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Seems like it would violate WP:CANVASS. But we can't control outside groups, only editors, so we have to keep watch what is being changed on-wiki. On another note, antisemitism by any editor is serious and should be reported to WP:ANI or WP:ANV, but somehow I suspect what they really mean is "anti-Israel bias"... (non-admin comment) starship.paint (RUN) 13:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding a diff of the section that was created, for reference, now it's deleted. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with coordinating edits off-wiki if it's genuinely intended to improve the encyclopaedia, as e.g. I'm sure we'd all agree removing antisemitic bias would be. It happens all the time on Discord, IRC, at editathons, and so on. The problem is that what frequently actually happens in these kind of groups is that they coordinate to push a particular POV, make tag-team edits, and/or canvas participation in specific discussions. If that's what's happening here (I'm certainly not going to join random Whatsapp groups to find out), then you should report it to ArbCom, because it's inevitably going to involve nonpublic evidence. – Joe (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a vio of WP:APPNOTE as it is specifically calling for involved editors and is not on one of the listed acceptable discussion places. Now deleted off of two pages. Pretty clear this exists to push a POV. But we can't stop the discussion itself. Those pages are heavily watched. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Could be what it says on the tin. Could be a honeypot for doxing. Could be an effort to make Wikipedia believe it's being manipulated to cause an overcorrection in the other direction (at least, that how people unfamiliar with Wikipedia would think). Hard to tell. Bad edits are guaranteed anyway because it's a CTOP, so being on the lookout is a good idea. DFlhb (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Admin backlog

Category:Requests for unblock is pretty backlogged at the moment. Perhaps one or two of our shiny new admins want to review an appeal of two?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Edits suppressed

In the "Hunter Biden laptop controversy" article, several recent diffs have been suppressed, beginning with:

‎Forensic analysis: September 2021 22:55 November 7, 2023.

I wanted to review some of those edits. Do you know why this has happened? Edits were not copyvio or libelous, etc. Can the diffs be restored? DonFB (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the log note [12] Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The edits are revdelled, not suppressed. I just checked and I concur that it's copyvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The text of this edit is definitively copied from these two sources. The website linked by Diannaa in turn quoted one of these articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of PanAm Post review

Kind regards. Per the closer's advice, I wanted to see if it was possible to ask for a review of the closure of the recent Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 418#RfC: Reliability of PanAm Post 2.

The closing statement said [13] that "there is no consensus to change the result of the prior RFC", but it seems rather that there was not consensus on the reliability.

This was a long discussion and I can understand the reasons for the statements, but I ask for a review given that a Category 2 seems to be more appropriate in this regard. Best wishes NoonIcarus (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• The purpose of the RfC was to change the outcome of the previous RfC. There was no consensus to make that change, and therefore the previous RfC stands. Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• I don't see how anyone closing that RfC could possibly have found consensus that the Pan Am Post should be treated Additional considerations rather than Generally unreliable. No consensus seems like a perfectly fine close here. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Account Creation

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 have just created my account (or so I thought) and I appear to have been immediately banned... can you resolve this please?

User Name is "Satans Mother"

Thanks 2A00:23EE:1C68:40DC:7567:7F66:55:48CC (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Your IP address range is blocked from creating accounts due to abuse. PiGuy3 (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Is nonce an appropriate edit descriptor?

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. Another user deleted an attempt to get consensus on CIA Memorial Wall and referred to me as a nonce. Diff |Talk:CIA Memorial Wall: Revision history - Wikipedia|

Nuncle Jimmy I (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I presume you mean this edit? The summary has been revdel'ed and the editor blocked by @Zzuuzz:. GiantSnowman 11:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Nuncle Jimmy I (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding the extended confirmed restriction

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Extended Confirmed Restriction is amended as follows:

The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

1. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
   1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.
   2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
2. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.
3. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
4. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding the extended confirmed restriction

Invalid RfC

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC to reduce WP:ADVOCACY in Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources Starts with a non-neutral proposal, and goes into hopelessly-complex reams of different questions. Can someone shut it down before it collapses into a black hole under its own weight. The underlying issue needs tackling, but not like this. Can an admin please close it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no need for an RfC to decide whether the sky is blue. Our mission is opposed to advocacy and advertising. The RfC that I have proposed is neutral with respect to our mission: it assumes that there is continued consensus for that. AndyTheGrump's suggestion of a structureless proposal would indeed risk "collapsing into a black hole". The RfC I have posted has the minimum amount of structure to match the current content of the module and focus on specific questions - what should be added or not in the specific parts of the module as used in the main template using the module. Ordinary users cannot edit the contents of the module directly, so we need to have discussions of the concrete content that more or less match that current content. Boud (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the RfC tags; Boud, please read WP:RFC thoroughly before opening another RfC. --JBL (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with other users. I removed "RfC" from title so it is clear we are not at this stage yet.

RfC this big are almost always a mess, so yes, we first need some preparatory discussion before proceeding to an RfC. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• I actually agree with the proposal (at least in part, perhaps in whole), but that's not formatted as a useful RfC. I think using the VP to get a well-formatted and clear RfC could be a good use of time. Hobit (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki and Hobit: Thanks for the constructive suggestions. Boud (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

ACE2023 nominations are open

Eligible users are invited to submit a nomination statement for the Arbitration Committee elections at the elections page. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Call for Checkusers and Oversighters

The Arbitration Committee announces that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year. This reflects a change from past practice, which provided that only "extraordinary" candidates would be considered outside of an annual appointment process. The steps for interested candidates will remain the following:

• Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org.
• Candidates will be be asked to fill out a questionnaire.
• The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• The Committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements. Depending on the situation, this may happen immediately or may happen at a set time (e.g., first of the month) to allow grouping of candidates.
• Nomination statements will be published and the candidates will be invited to answer questions publicly. The community will be invited and encouraged to participate over a 10 day period.
• Appointment, if any, will be announced.

The 2024 Arbitration Committee will decide whether it will continue to conduct an annual call for functionary candidates, or if instead this process will be the primary process for functionary appointments going forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Call for Checkusers and Oversighters

Request to add username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants page

Hello Admins! I am a regular user of Bengali Wikipedia. Besides, I am the administrator of Bengali Wikiquote. Now the draft namespace has been opened in Bengali Wikipedia. But to work with the necessary scripts there, it is necessary to add my name to this page of English Wikipedia. I will not do a review (will rollback even if I do for testing). Hopefully, my low number of edits won't be a hindrance. This addition can be temporary.

Thanks for considering my request! ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 ^{(inbox - contribs)} 19:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@খাত্তাব হাসান: Requests should be made here. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Illusion Flame I know that. But this page is protected for me. ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 ^{(inbox - contribs)} 06:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@খাত্তাব হাসান: Per Primefac's protection reasoning, no one without ECP can request to be added, so the request would just be pre-emptively denied even if it was placed on that page. Per the editnotice, see the criteria. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Why should this request be pre-emptively denied? 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 has explained how he is not a "normal" user of AFC. This may not be the only way to achieve what he wants to do, but that can be discussed as Polyamorph has started below. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• @খাত্তাব হাসান: Can you request the author(s) of the scripts modify them for compatibility with the Bengali wikipedia? Then you can manage user group membership independently of the English wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Polyamorph Actually I can modify it for compatibility. But I want to make sure that this script works perfectly in Bengali Wikipedia as it works in English Wikipedia. Now the thing is, unfortunately teamwork is not working properly in the coding areas of Bangla Wikipedia. So, there is no guarantee if localization and other local issues will be resolved after import or not.

  Since it's not a user right, I'm not getting any different benefits; I don't think that would be much of a problem. ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 ^{(inbox - contribs)} 15:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Portuguese language

There's someone that keeps changing information on the page Portuguese language without changing the sources. It's been going on for days now. Petnog (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Petnog: Has the issue been discussed somewhere? Ideally you would politely provide a reason on article talk regarding why you reverted the IP's edits, and put a message on the IP's talk politely linking them to the discussion and asking them to explain why they think their changes are desirable. If there is no response and problems persist, then post at WP:ANI (this page is not quite correct). Or, rather than posting at ANI, you could ping me from article talk if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not a registered user. I did say in one of the edit summaries that the information they were changing was referenced, though. Petnog (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

IP editors may not know how to check edit summaries. The edit is not necessarily made in bad faith, given that Languages of South America says Portuguese is second. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you verify that the sources support the prose? This source doesn't mention the County of Portugal, and this one estimates 258 million total speakers.

Sourced content ≠ verified content. Folly Mox (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding to note these are the two sources to the sentences the unregistered editor is changing, by my quick reading not erroneously. Folly Mox (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

A ban to 104.151.29.180

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 user has recently been vandalizing multiple pages, by blanking them and spamming them with a copypasta. The list includes but is not limited to: The lion guard, The Police,German Empire, and a lot more. Begocc (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Invitation to Test the Incident Reporting System Minimum Testable Product in Beta

Hello Admins, you are invited to test an initial Minimum Testable Product (MTP) for the Incident Reporting System.

Earlier, the Trust and Safety Product team was tasked with building an incident reporting system which aims to make it easy for users to report harmful incidents. We have created a basic product version enabling a user to file a report of an incident, from the talk page where the event occurs.

Because of the key role you play in the reporting and response to incidents on-wiki, your feedback is needed to determine if this starting approach is effective.

Please see our MTP Beta update for a quick guide on how to test and also give feedback.

–– STei (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand 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.

---

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

(Copied from User talk:Gilabrand)

I am reaching out to kindly request a review of the recent suspension placed on my account, after spending the last 18 years giving of my time and energy to this project. I have over 72,000 edits to my credit. I have been so taken aback by this unexpected action (no advance notice, no edit-warring, no dispute with anyone), I am almost at a loss for words (which is rare for me). I assure you that my contributions were made in complete good faith, including the ones that some interpret as violating a topic ban that I have been careful to adhere to for the last 8 years (although there may have been slip-ups here and there, and as Nableezy has rightly commented, I ought to have appealed years ago). Allow me to say that on the few occasions that ban violations were brought to my attention, I was quick to revert as requested. An example: here. I am keen on maintaining the integrity and the accuracy of the content on Wikipedia, which has been the driving force behind my long-term commitment, and whatever complaints certain editors have had against me in the olden days, I believe there has been no repetition of any of that for decades. Many years have gone by during which I have a proven track record of working productively. I have added sourced content to thousands of entries, copyedited the English, written new articles and added images where there were none. Since my edits often involve topics related to Israel and Israeli people, I occasionally encounter gray areas requiring judgment calls - particularly in articles that are not clearly marked as falling under ARBPIA constraints but may contain sentences related to the conflict. If my appeal is accepted, I intend to avoid these gray areas with greater care. I am open to engaging in dialogue to address any concerns you may have and do what is needed to rectify the situation. I hope someone will realize that I may be old but I still have something to offer. Somehow, I don’t feel ready to be put out on the ice floe. I urge you to reconsider this block, to weigh the positive against the negative, and allow me to continue serving the Wikipedia community. Geewhiz (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Notified theleekycauldron as blocking admin. nableezy - 22:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors (Gilabrand)

• In my view the topic ban violations blocked for here merited a polite request that Gila self-revert and be more mindful of her topic ban and nothing further. If a block was necessary a month would have been more than enough. I know we have this idea that blocks are for preventing disruption, but this block is preventing a minimal amount of disruption in the form of not following a topic ban but along with it lots of copyediting that we need. I know MER-C has other concerns relating to a newly opened CCI, and I have no opinion on if a block should be imposed for copyright violations or if it would be better to have Gila help clean them up, but the arbitration enforcement block to me is depriving Wikipedia of useful work for next to no reason. And so I think it should be lifted or drastically shortened. nableezy - 22:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• And for the record, I dont dispute these were ban violations. I just dont think they merit an indef. We ask people to rectify their violations by self-revert literally all the time, it is accepted almost as basic courtesy for 1RR violations for example. Nobody approached Gila to ask her to self-revert, nobody reminded her of the ban. Yes, she should have been more careful, yes the templates were there, but an indef block for these trivial edits? Cmon, its just not necessary. nableezy - 23:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, nableezy. Gilabrand was blocked for multiple bright-line instances of violating her topic ban from both the Arab–Israeli conflict and Palestine, as well as several more edits that showed a clear pattern of ignoring the gray areas. A truly unthinkable number of tempblocks and past warnings were not sufficient to prevent these recent violations, and there were simply too many in such a short timespan (all of the edits I found were from the past two months' worth of editing) for a warning and request for reversion to suffice. Gilabrand's contributions are numerous (albeit I understand there is a CCI), but editors are expected to comply with policy and be accountable to the community even when no one is watching over their shoulder. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  A few editors have asked why I, in particular, chose to make this block – I'm happy to elaborate. I promised that I wouldn't take an admin action if I didn't know what I was doing, and the community agreed that they trusted my discretion in making that distinction. I was confident in this case, based on evidence and counsel, that I had a solid understanding of the facts of the case and the potential consequences of a block. (In reviewing this thread, I see plenty of good and healthy disagreement, but nothing I wasn't expecting, so I feel that the assumption holds up.) Another admin offered to take the action in my stead, but I politely refused: editors who want to criticize an admin action should know who was behind it, and in this case, it was me. If you think I acted inappropriately, feel free to tell me personally or report me to the appropriate noticeboards – I am, as always, open to criticism and accountable for the actions I take with community trust :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose lifting of block. Gilabrand has constantly violated her topic ban. There is a reason why that topic ban was issued. She has proven that she is incapable of following rules. When is enough, enough? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors (Gilabrand)

Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments, contentious topics sanctions may be overturned by "a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN".

• Added involved/uninvolved headings and the above note. (Technically CTOP says to use {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}, but that template isn't actually written for AN, and I've never seen it used here.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• I respectfully oppose this appeal (full disclosure: I've blocked and sanctioned Gila several times in the past and I'm the admin who imposed the topic ban; I also unblocked her from her previous indef block after consultation with the blocking admin but I consider all of those actions to be in an administrative capacity). Gila's edits in the topic area were found to be disruptive and tendentious and she has been warned and blocked multiple times for violating it; there is little possibility that it would be lifted if it were appealed, even discounting this block. That she has continued to skirt round the edges of the ban and clearly step over the line several times suggests this is not someone making a good-faith effort to comply with their restrictions, which were imposed for good reason. I wouldn't oppose converting it to a lengthy definite duration (minimum six months) but that would take a strong, convincing commitment from Gila to stick rigidly to the topic ban and remember that it is "broadly construed". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• I too have to oppose this appeal. I mean this diff is just kind of ridiculous. Like sure the edit is innocuous, but the ARBPIA template is literally the line before. There's no way to argue this or some of the other diffs provided theleekycauldron fall into a gray area. If two three-month blocks have not changed things, I'm not sure what we can do other than an indefinite block. That plus Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Gilabrand indicates that a separate indefinite copyright block is needed. Galobtter (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  I try very hard to stay away from ARBPIA and related topic areas and offer no comment on that aspect of this appeal, but I share Galobtter's concerns about copyright and I object to the block being lifted for that reason. Her most recent addition of over 500 bytes of text to an article (this edit to Jay Ruderman on 19 October) contains pretty clear-cut close paraphrasing from this source. Looking back a bit further, I found this edit to Israel–Mauritius relations on 29 August, which contains several sentences that are extremely similar to sentences from this source. Her appeal doesn't even mention copyright or the 2500-page CCI that's recently been opened, so I cannot support an unblock at this time. edited 04:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC) — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  @SamX: What parts of those two edits (Special:Diff/1180913949, Special:Diff/1172817211) are close paraphrasing not covered by WP:LIMITED? Levivich (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Levivich: Thanks for asking. I've provided an analysis of the diffs, with matching text in bold:
  Source:

  This philosophy is embodied by a December 2021 initiative in which four of Israel’s five major television broadcasting and production companies (KAN, Reshet, HOT and Yes) signed the foundation’s pledge to audition actors with disabilities with each new studio production. The companies also committed to a more inclusive selection process for all jobs across the film industry, on and off screen.

  Article:

  In December 2021, he convinced four of Israel’s five major television broadcasting and production companies to sign the Foundation’s pledge to audition actors with disabilities and commit to a more inclusive selection process for all jobs in the film industry, on and off screen.

  Analysis: Not a word-for-word copy, but pretty close. Several matching excerpts of the passages (on and off screen, for example) are not strictly necessary to convey the underlying meaning and are therefore considered creative expression.
  Rewrite:

  In December 2021, he convinced four major Israeli broadcasting corporations to improve civil rights within the entertainment industry for people with diabilities.

  
  Source:

  ...deported to Mauritius, where they spent the rest of the war in a detainment camp in Beau Bassin. [...] The men were held in a former jailhouse and the women in adjacent iron huts. [...] In all, 128 prisoners died in the camp and were buried in the "Jewish section of the cemetery of St. Martin," approximately a mile away from the campsite. [...] Another special ceremony was held in May 2001 by the South African Jewish community to unveil 66 graves. A visit to the prison and a Shabbat service and dinner were attended by the small Jewish community, Jewish tourists, and former detainees. The delegation also met with President Cassim Utim of Mauritius. [...] In 1960, Israel gave Mauritian students scholarships to study medicine in Jerusalem. After independence, full diplomatic relations were established and Israel's ambassador in Tananarive (Malagasy) served as non-resident ambassador to Mauritius. [...] In 2000, Rabbi Silberhalft officiated at the first bar mitzvah in Mauritius since World War II.

  Article:

  In the 1960s, Israel granted Mauritian students scholarships to study medicine in Jerusalem. After independence, full diplomatic relations were established and Israel's ambassador in Tananarive (Malagasy) served as non-resident ambassador to Mauritius.
  In a crack-down on illegal immigration during the British Mandates, Jews from Vienna, Danzig and Czechoslovakia seeking to immigrate to Palestine were deported to Mauritius. They were interned in an detainment camp in Beau Bassin. The male detainees were held in a former jailhouse and the women in adjacent iron huts. 128 prisoners died in the camp and were buried in a Jewish section of St. Martin cemetery, approximately a mile away from the campsite. In 1958, the cemetery was acquired by the Jewish community. In May 2001, the South African Jewish community held an unveiling there for 66 graves, followed by a visit to the prison and a Shabbat service and dinner. The Jewish delegation that attended this event also met with President Cassim Utim of Mauritius.

  Analysis: Pretty blatant close paraphrasing. Some of the sentences meet WP:LIMITED in isolation, but the volume of text copied makes this a serious violation. Rearranging the order of the more or less identical sentences is a small step in the right direction, but it's nowhere near enough to make this acceptable.
  Rewrite:
  

  The relations between the State of Israel and the Republic of Mauritius were officially established in 1968, right after Mauritius gained its independence. Mauritius cut off relations with Israel due to the Boycott of the Sub-Saharan African countries, but re-established them on 30 September 1993.

  In a crack-down on illegal immigration during the British Mandates, Jews from throughout Central Europe seeking to immigrate to Palestine were deported to Mauritius, where poor living conditions resulted in 128 deaths. A memorial service was held in May 2001.

  The first Bar Mitzvah in Mauritius since World War II was celebrated in 2001.

  
  You may have noticed that my rewritten passages are much shorter than Gilabrand's initial edits. This is both intentional and desirable—we have a mandate to summarize sources, not include every single detail from them. The former is much easier to do without violating copyright. edited 05:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC) — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  I very much appreciate the time you took to write such a thorough explanation -- thank you. Unfortunately I disagree quite strongly with your analysis. What you describe as copyvio, I see as simple editorial judgment. There is nothing copyrightable about a phrase like four of Israel’s five major television broadcasting and production companies to sign the Foundation’s pledge to audition actors with disabilities or even a full sentence like After independence, full diplomatic relations were established and Israel's ambassador in Tananarive (Malagasy) served as non-resident ambassador to Mauritius. Those are straightforward factual statements; they are not creative expressions, they just convey facts. Even in the aggregate, it's just a few facts.

  As for "too much detail," I disagree there, too. I think your rewrites omit significant detail. For example, in the first one, the rewrite omits "across the film industry" and "on and off screen," and in the second one, it omits the scholarship and a bunch of detail about the detainment and internment (not just deportation) of the 128 who died. So even as an editorial judgment, I disagree that the rewrites are an improvement.

  Stepping back, you're suggesting you want to indef an editor because they included too much factual detail from the source? I can't get on board with indef'ing someone because they were too accurate and used WP:LIMITED too much.

  This is a situation of copying phrases and so far I've seen one complete sentence copied, all still WP:LIMITED. If an editor is copying entire paragraphs verbatim, entire pages, then yes, that's too much. Or if they're copying creative expressions, no matter how short, fine. But these examples are just factual statements, of the kind described by WP:LIMITED. I don't see how it benefits the encyclopedia to indef an editor who makes the edits given as examples here. Levivich (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  We clearly have fundamentally different opinions on what is and isn't a copyright violation and how to properly respond to copyright violations. I've said my piece and will now disengage. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  If you'll allow me to comment in this section, if she is going to remained blocked for copyvios then the block log/aelog should reflect that, because as it stands she is blocked with a type of block that contains heightened requirements for lifting, and a copyvio block would not have those requirements. nableezy - 03:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Copyvio blocks have very different heightened requirements for lifting, but that seems like a reasonable suggestion if there's consensus that a block is unnecessary from an AE standpoint. If that ends up being the case, I'd ask the closing admin to consider reducing the block from sitewide to the draft and article namespaces only so that she can help out with the CCI. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• I have no real issue with the block itself. But I don't understand why the blocking admin who passed RFA in August saying they would not feel comfortable making AE blocks has now decided to start making them less than three months later. Jenks24 (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• I'd overturn the block. Look at the block log. Blocked once in 2021. Prior time was 2016. People are saying, like, if two temp blocks didn't stop this disruption... well, it was two temp blocks over 7 years!. FFS. You really think you're going to block someone once, and then, what, they'll never screw up again? Seriously? Is warning a user, you know, three times in 7 years... is that too many warnings? Come on. Yes, those edits were obvious violations of the TBAN. No, they did not deserve an indef. They should have been warned and asked to self-revert. Now, if there had been a warning in the past 3 months, or 6 months, then yeah, a block. But I don't see anything that recent, if the last warning/block was a year or more ago? Warn again. (Also, I have to agree with Jenks, TLC, why is your name in the AE log multiple times already? Why not gain some experience commenting at AE first, before indef'ing people?) And, please, folks, don't say "they've been blocked twice" if you're talking about a 7-year period... really, the time frame matters. It just comes across as ridiculous when they act like something that happens twice in 7 years is a frequent or reoccurring problem. Levivich (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Also, I checked the three example diffs in the CCI request and don't see any copyvio there. Maybe there's some clear copyvio in a revdel'd edit I can't see or I'm otherwise missing something, but I haven't yet seen an example of clear copyvio, so I would not support keeping Gilabrand blocked for that reason, either. Levivich (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  I can't speak to the other examples, but for this diff linked there, the edit is:

  Avocados are a major "money spinner" for Israeli agriculture, with almost half (45 per cent) being sold abroad.

  The source is:

  Avocados are a major money spinner for Israeli agriculture, with almost half (45 per cent) being sold abroad.

  You cannot be seriously arguing that it's not a copyright violation because of the addition of quotes. And WP:LIMITED is not a license to copy straight from the source (and certainly if I was going to write in my own words I would exclude the unencyclopedic phrasing of "major money spinner"). Galobtter (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  I am seriously arguing that. Look, you can write it as

  Avocados are a major source of revenue for Israeli agriculture, with almost half (45 percent) being sold abroad.

  ...and that would be fine. Changing "major source of revenue" to "'money spinner'", with quotes, doesn't suddenly make it copyvio. WP:LIMITED is a license to copy the source, because sometimes, there are limited ways to say something. Not every sentence is copyrighted... only creative expressions. Levivich (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Shmeh, I'm going to rant a little bit more about why I think this block should be overturned. It's not policy, but I think admins should go through this checklist when deciding whether to block somebody:

  1. Is the editor harming other editors? Are they harassing, threatening, making personal attacks, etc.?
  2. Is the editor harming readers? Are they vandalizing, hoaxing, misrepresenting sources?
  3. Is the editor harming the editing process? Are they edit warring, bludgeoning, are they making it more difficult for others to use this website?
  4. Is this editor violating some rule but not doing any of #1-#3 above? If so, don't stop this editor from editing, just tell them to stop doing whatever it is they're not supposed to be doing. You don't have to tell them all the time, but you may have to tell them more than once, even more than once per year.

  This seems like a #4 situation to me. Levivich (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse block these are bright line violations of their topic ban. On top of that, the unblock request comes only a matter of days after a CCI investigation was initiated. The unblock request reads to me as they are such a prolific and valuable editor, how dare they be blocked? There does not appear to be a genuine commitment to avoid activities that led to the block. They write Since my edits often involve topics related to Israel and Israeli people, I occasionally encounter gray areas requiring judgment calls. They ought to be committing to avoiding all gray areas entirely if they are serious about contributing constructively, simply saying they will take greater care to avoid them is not convincing. On the CCI, there are examples of blatant copying directly from sources, I'll reserve judgement until the investigation is completed but it does not inspire confidence in their contributions. Polyamorph (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'll reserve judgement until the investigation is completed – Ideally we'd be able to do that, but CCIs sometimes take over a decade to complete. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ah...well the examples I've seen, including those you provided, are blatant violations. So maybe my judgement is not so reserved! Polyamorph (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not involved with the AE block and have no opinion on it. Irrespective of the outcome of the AE appeal, they should have copyright problems added as a reason or reblocked for copyright problems as documented above, depending on the outcome. To be clear: the unblock appeal predates the opening of the CCI but not the request, and has been revised since the opening of the CCI. MER-C 17:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• (Uninvolved): Someone else needs to adopt this block. Leeky said during her RfA that she wouldn't make AE blocks. That's the kind of commitment she ought to be very mindful of.—S Marshall T/C 17:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  In point of fact, she did not say she would never make AE blocks. She said "I wouldn't feel comfortable jumping into AE blocks", which I take to mean she would not turn up there guns blazing immediately after a successful RfA. She now has some experience under her belt, and presumably her comfort level has changed. That's perfectly allowed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm curious what lack of experience that would make someone uncomfortable making AE blocks in August, could possibly be cured by October? What happened in September that granted said experience? It wasn't editing AE. RFA ended Aug 17. She made one AE report on Oct 5 -- first edit to AE ever -- and then indef-tban'd one editor and indef-blocked two more, all in October, all AE actions. Fast learner! This is particularly egregious for a candidate who said in Q1 that she wanted to work in DYK (and mentioned nothing else), and in Q6, the "what else besides DYK?" question, said "I'm not going to use the tools to dive headfirst into the water of a new area," yet that's exactly what she did. And: "I think it goes back to knowing your limits: For instance ... I wouldn't feel comfortable jumping into AE blocks". AE blocks is the only example she gave of something she wouldn't feel comfortable doing... less than two months later, after making one AE post, she feels comfortable making AE blocks. I'm sorry to call you out like this TLC, but you broke a promise here. Unfortunately, not the first or last new admin to do this. The kind of experience I would have expected: participating in a good number, like at least a half dozen, AE threads, without taking any unilateral action, just to make sure that your understanding of AE sanctions is in line with community consensus. Only then should you take unilateral action, starting with really clear examples. Only after taking a good amount of obvious unilateral AE actions, should you begin to take unilateral AE actions in more complicated or controversial cases... like indef'ing somebody who's been here 3x longer than you and has made 2x the edits, for example. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  All I can say is that your arbitrary rules for what make someone experienced enough to feel comfortable making an AE block are just that - your arbitrary rules. We should debate this block on the merits, not on whether leek is violating an arbitrary set of personal standards or violating a commitment she didn't actually make. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree there is no basis to demand that Theleekycauldron not make AE blocks, or this one, presumably she has since her RFA gained enough experience to feel comfortable making them. You can disagree with that, but that disagreement should happen on her talk page, and it has nothing to do with Gilabrand's appeal. nableezy - 18:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's rather important that we can rely on the representations people make in their RfA. If what someone says to get the mop isn't enforceable a scant three months later, then that might just be a smidge problematic, wouldn't you say? This point is self-evidently material to Gilabrand's appeal.—S Marshall T/C 20:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Everything about this argument is absurd. If you have a substantive objection to the block per se then make it, if you want to argue about admin accountability in general or in a particular instance do that somewhere where it would be on-topic. --JBL (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: I think you may have misread what leek wrote? Above you claim that she "said during her RfA that she wouldn't make AE blocks". But as PMC highlights in her response, that's not what leek said. Leek said she "wouldn't feel comfortable jumping into AE blocks". Is 2 months "jumping in"? I don't know, she made at least 128 admin actions in her primary area of focus in those 2 months, plus many WT:DYK comments and WP:ERRORS comments in an admin capacity, making her one of the most active Main Page admins; 19 days after the block of Gilabrand, this continues to be her overwhelming focus as an admin. To me that looks like she took her time before leaving her comfort zone. As JBL says, this is probably better discussed elsewhere, since "I don't think the block should have been made by this admin" is not one of the three listed reasons to overturn an AE block (unless INVOLVED or TBAN applies). But I do think it's important that we be clear here on what was said and what wasn't. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Is 2 months "jumping in"? Yes, especially when you start with indef'ing editors as AE actions. 128 admin actions is a lark, look at the block log. Look at the AE log. Look at AE edits. It's like 10 vandal blocks, and then straight to indef'ing people as an AE action. That's jumping straight into the deep end, and here we are, this the second AE indef. No admin's second indef should be an indef of someone who has 17 years/75k edits. Shit, she could have at least waited for the AE case to close. And yes, she did say she at her RFA that she wouldn't do this exact thing: she wouldn't dive straight into unfamiliar waters, such as making an AE block. (A very overly-harsh indef of someone who has volunteered twice as much time as she has, because they made good edits that were in violation of a many-years-old TBAN.) Levivich (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  In this respect I differ from Levivich. I feel that the block should be adopted by someone else, but in all the circumstances I don't feel that the block was too harsh.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  You keep saying the quiet part out loud about tenure, Lev. I guess that's better than dog-whistling it. Regardless, please stop filibustering. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  This was a very obvious block that any admin could have made. Indef vs a very long definite duration was a judgement call but either was valid and the result is likely to be the same in the long run. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  There's no need for snark or hostility Tamzin. What she said in her RfA, and her admin log, are a matter of record, not opinion. And yeah, admins shouldn't sanction experienced editors willy nilly, that's not "the quiet part," that's just common sense. You're welcome to disagree but don't act like I'm doing something wrong ("saying the quiet part out loud," "filibustering") just because I have a different view of things than you. Levivich (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Levivich, if you want to play the edit count game, you have more edits to AN and AN/I than you have non-automated mainspace edits. Do you see how that would maybe contribute to an impression that you are bludgeoning a thread that you know has no chance of going the way you want? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 16:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Wow now you're going personal? Yikes. It's not about edit count. It's about not indef'ing someone who dedicated years of their life to volunteering here just because they made a *gasp* third tban violation in seven years. That's overly harsh. You have made more than 3 mistakes in 7 years. So have I. Don't throw people off the website for making 3 mistakes in 7 years. It's not a crazy suggestion. But go ahead, keep attacking me for it. 👍 Levivich (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is a matter of record, Lev, not opinion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 16:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse block In addition to the present block, the editor's blocklog is extensive - the editor suggests that they needed warnings? These were bright line violations and as Galobtter has said above, "If two three-month blocks have not changed things, I'm not sure what we can do other than an indefinite block." I do not see Leeky's statement at their RFA as a prohibition against using the tools here. Leeky clearly did not "dive headfirst" instead they made a careful decision. Regarding Gilabrand , it defies belief to say that this editor with multiple blocks and bans and 72k edits does not know where the line is. This is an example of escalating consequences. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse a block, indef is too long 3 months (again) would have been enough. 6 months would have been fine. We are looking at someone who was blocked in 2021 and before that 2016. Yes, they are probably gaming the system. But long blocks seem to mostly work and we get a fairly strong contributing editor. I think jumping to indef was overkill. Hobit (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Indefinite is not infinite. I for one would be willing to entertain an unblock request in six months or a year or so. But indefinite forces some sort of commitment to change. It can't just be waited out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  I get that, but if someone is regularly contributing productively for a year, then is troubled for a month, then blocked for 6 months, I think it's still a net improvement. I will agree this was clearly done knowingly. Still feels like too much to me. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly support lifting of block. Gila has contrbuted to Wikipedia in ways that most of us can only dream of. She was limited to edit in certain topics and has followed these guidelines. She adds both new content and edits existing content and adds images. I don't think the edits provided by theleekycauldron constitute a violation of these guidelines and even if they are in the gray area - a warning would suffice. We should certainly not deny ourselves of Gila's additions to the sum of the World's knowledge. Thank you, Atbannett (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Again, no comment on the block itself, but I agree with Tamzin, PMC et al. that leek did not "jump into AE" and that such claims are very poor arguments for an unblock. — SamX [talk · contribs] 15:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  +1. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Upon further review, I now oppose lifting the AE block. A warning would have been appropriate if this had been the first or maybe second violation, but that's not the case here. By my count, Gilabrand has been blocked eleven times (!) for various violations of ARBPIA editing restrictions. Editing restrictions are not free, and policing someone who can't be trusted to abide by a topic ban violation is a burden on the resources of our already-strained administrative corps. I do not consider edit count or length of tenure to be mitigating factors, either in principle or in this particular case. If anything, I consider them to be aggravating factors. Anyone who has been around for eighteen years and made 72,000 edits should be well aware that edits such as this and especially this fall squarely within the ARBPIA topic area. If Gilabrand really doesn't understand this, she lacks the editorial judgement necessary to contribute to Wikipedia. Her unblock request doesn't convince me otherwise. — SamX [talk · contribs] 16:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Strongly support the lifting of block - I remember Gilabrand from the start of my time in wiki, in regards to art. I remember gilabrand was always out there verifying and checking that everything was cited, super active on almost of single page related to Jewish Art and culture that I visited. I considered the user one of the most serious Wikipedians out there, I think the user has been active for 15 years or more? I'm not too familiar with the prcoess but Gilabrand has has had a huge contribution to Wikipedia and to knowledge people have. I've seen gilabrand expand on so many topics. I think it would be a big loss to block the user from Wikipedia, certainly a loss for Wiki. In regards to the things presented above, perhaps a warning would have sufficed or a temporary topic ban from big contentious articles? From what I saw above it seems gilabrand's arguments were perhaps not the best. Nonetheless I think blocking such a user would be a loss for world knowledge, the user has obviously given so much of him/herself/theyself for Wikipedia. I really think it would be a big loss. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Endorse with modifications - Indefinite seems like a serious over-reaction here. Maybe, as was suggested above, 6 months? Blocks should be preventative, and an indefinite block in this instance rubs off more like a punitive measure than preventing some sinister activity from occurring. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Strongly support the lifting of block - It came as a surprise to learn that this user, a frequent and valuable contributor for over 15 years, was blocked. Her efforts in enhancing the coverage of numerous topics related to Art, History, Geography, Technology, as well as WP:ISRAEL and WP:JUDAISM, including through many original photo contributions, should not be ignored. Honestly, I have not observed any grave violations in her conduct. Her call to 'weigh the positive against the negative' strikes a chord - I recommend to re-evaluate this excessively harsh decision and consider the overall positive impact of her contributions (72,488 edits!) as well as her promise to be more careful in the future. Hmbr (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hmbr: This is your 4th edit since 2 February. Can I ask what brought you to this thread? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 16:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Discussion of close

• ScottishFinnishRadish, could you provide some analysis? I'm not sure I'm understanding the consensus you're seeing. Valereee (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Numerically speaking, there is stronger support that the block is reasonable. Down weighing arguments that cite the blocker, rather than the block, and looking at the response that calls for the block to be assumed by another admin, tacitly approving of the block itself, as an endorsement it's a fair consensus. The endorsements that carried it the length still provide support for the block itself, and are partially rebutted by noting that indefinite isn't infinite. There was little in the way of how the block was inappropriate per CTOP/AE blocking policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  • I did a count because I quick reading of the situation was that there were numbers to overturn/reduce, a quick count gets me:
    • Overturn/reclose due to issues with the closer (2): Jenks24, S Marshall
    • Overturn on the evidence (5): nableezy, Levivich, Atbannett,Homeerethegreat, Hmbr
    • Shorten (2) Hobit, EggRoll97
    • Endorse (6) Supreme Deliciousness, HJ Mitchell, Galobtter, SamX, Polyamorph, Lightburst
    • Endorse for copyright reasons only I think (1): MER-C.

  I think that even if you drop Jenks24 and S Marshall and count MER-C, you've got 7 to 7. I think 7 to 6 !voting to reduce or overturn vs. endorse is probably a fairer reading, and 9 to 6 or 9 to 7 is probably how I'd count it. So basically, ScottishFinnishRadish I think you're wrong about the numeric support unless you're discounting !votes for some reason (those involved in ARBPIA getting less weight?). Could you explain a bit more? Hobit (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  I apologize for my lack of clarity in the above statement. I was taking my lunch break and had limited time, and I wasn't expecting that this close would be contentious or I would have waited and given a more typical long-winded closure. The biggest clarification I can make is that I should have said Numerically speaking, there is stronger support that the a block is reasonable. To give a more thorough explanation of my closure I was looking at four supporting an overturn, six supporting a block, and two others tacitly supporting a block I have no real issue with the block itself... I don't feel that the block was too harsh.. That's a pretty solid numerical advantage. Even removing the conditional endorses, which I still believe support a block more than an overturn, it's four to overturn, six endorsing, two endorsing a block if not this specific block. I left out Nableezy and Supreme Deliciousness as this is a consensus of uninvolved editors.

  Now numerically and taking the strength of arguments into consideration there is a very clear consensus that a block was appropriate in this situation. Looking further into that to suss out if there's further consensus, we have six editors endorsing the block, and two editors endorsing a block, just not indefinite. The position that a limited block would have been better was rebutted in part by others, pointing out that they could appeal in the future because indefinite blocks are not infinite.

  As there was little in the way of actual policy issues with the block brought up in the discussion, with much of the opposition hinging on their contributions rather than demonstrating that the block was placed in error or there were other issues with the block it seems clear to me that the consensus of the discussion as a whole is that the block was appropriate.

  To add a bit more, I closed it this way as opposed to the much easier "There is no clear consensus of uninvolved editors to overturn" because I did see a positive consensus in the discussion that the block was appropriate and that theleekycauldron was fine in placing the block. I hope that sufficiently clarifies the closure, but if there are any more questions you know where to find me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Noting that, independent of what SFR has said above, I have sent ArbCom evidence that Hmbr and Atbannett's !votes constituted meatpuppetry / proxying on behalf of a banned/blocked user. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the detailed response. I'm a bit frustrated that you treated by !vote as an endorsement of the outcome when I thought I was really clear that wasn't where I was. I'm sorry to bug you again, ScottishFinnishRadish, but what words should I use next time to make it clear that I felt that indef should be overturned? Hobit (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Your statement was an endorsement of a block. You made it clear that you thought that that an indef was too long. I covered that with we have six editors endorsing the block, and two editors endorsing a block, just not indefinite. The position that a limited block would have been better was rebutted in part by others, pointing out that they could appeal in the future because indefinite blocks are not infinite. I guess if you wanted to be more explicit you could have gone with Overturn to a long duration block, although my reading would still have been the same. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, I thought I was clear enough, but I'll strive to be clearer going forward. I also think you've got the count wrong (I see 7 people that !voted to overturn, 2 for reasons that involve who the closer was. You see only 4 that want to overturn), but at this point I don't think it matters. I really do feel you've closed this incorrectly and that your reading is wrong, but I think any attempt to appeal the close would result in "yeah, endorsing the close was wrong, but there was no consensus to overturn so same outcome" and isn't worth doing. Hobit (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  For reasons I won't repeat because they're at #Request to re-open RFC, we shouldn't close "tied" votes when new votes are still coming in. Two new votes today. Levivich (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  As discussion closing principles go, that's much too gameable to contemplate. Nothing about this is a vote.—S Marshall T/C 17:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Please create a redirect from Wikipe-tan to Moe anthropomorphism

That page is salted, but meets criteria for redirect to article namespace (the term is mentioned in the target article). TIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Both mentions are uncited and could be removed at any time. —Cryptic 01:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Cryptic Fair point, not that I think there is a rule to prevent such redirects. But best solution is to add refs to the article, which I have now done. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    • That is the best solution, I think. And there doesn't appear from the logs to have been that much kerfuffle over that redirect since 2007. It's amusing that both of your sources existed at the time of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 24. Uncle G (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

      Right. Although back then folks for some bizarre reaoson wanted a cross namespace redirect from article space to wikipedia space which is generlaly a bad idea. Why nobody suggested a regular redirect but instead folks made a mess that led to this being salted - weird :> _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

involved?

I've edited heavily at Ellie Moon and Adult Adoption, both of which are experiencing a lot of what appears to be socking to edit-war. Can I get some opinions on whether I'm involved w/re blocking new accounts as they sprout up and should ask someone else to deal with it, or does it fall under 'any reasonable admin'? Thanks for any input. Valereee (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Both semi protected. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Reporting user who keeps adding flag icons.

User:Vif12vf keeps adding flag icons, removing sourced information and violating the rules such as MOS:Flag#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. The user is also harassing people.

In this edit, the user calls people gross:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doms_in_Iraq&diff=1185209854&oldid=1185197289

In this edit, the user harasses people and tells them to leave just for adding a refimprove template:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swedish_Americans&diff=1185226362&oldid=1185196486

In this edit, they are removing sourced information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lori_people&diff=1185206192&oldid=1185191419

They keep adding unnecessary flag icons to articles about diasporas: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dutch_people_in_Finland&diff=1185207488&oldid=1185189501 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dutch_Mexicans&diff=1185207534&oldid=1185189468

This is bullying and vandalism. 2600:6C50:7EF0:4A70:71B7:F61C:311B:8977 (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• User:Vif12vf is a very experienced editor, so I'd really like to know why they're removing cn and refimprove tags that appear to be completely valid. If they believe there is sockpuppetry involved, then more information is needed. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• You're required to notify the affected user when making a report here. I have done so for you. Reserving an opinion until hearing from Vif12vf. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
• Using a different IP address is not sockpuppetry, but something that people cannot usually do anything about if they choose not to register. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  I will admit being at fault for removing the tags, and have no excuse for that. Regarding the IP-editor though, I would like to direct the attention of Black Kite, Mackensen and Phil Bridger to Bishonens most recent entry on my talk-page regarding this IP-hopper. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Also just to possibly save some time, the reporter is an IP-hopper accused (not by me) of copy-pasting copyright material into wikipedia, yet who ironically throws a guideline around and treats it like an absolute rule while at the same time breaking one of wikipedia's most important rules. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Could an admin lower the protection level of people search?

It looks like the page people search was put under full protection a decade ago to due spamming issues. However the term [14] [15] [16] is a generic one for websites that compile public records into profiles on individuals, which they sell. Could someone bump the protection down to extended confirmed protection, so I can create a stub for the term? - GretLomborg (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Changed to semiprotection, as it seems like the original spammers were all non-autoconfirmed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've completely removed the protection, because non-autoconfirmed users can't create articles anyway. Graham87 (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! GretLomborg (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

For future reference, requests like this are best made at WP:RPP/D. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Jauerback

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

---

This editor is clearly deleting confirmed, verified, and proven copywritten images which can only be concluded as a personal reason.

User:Jauerback removing or deleting confirmed content please advise why you deleted content from Dave King (Singer) page about his personal life and marriage to Gina Cavalier on 10/24/1998 where the articles were confirmed and verified by written sources. This can only be seen as personal vandalism. You also protected and blocked the page without giving notice on the contributor's page (barbarellasouth) which is in violation of the Wikipedia rules of ethics. The image present was also proved copyright through wiki commons. Please advise your reasoning for your deletion of this content. Barbarellasouth (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_King_(singer) He was formerly married to Gina Cavalier in a ceremony at A Little White Wedding Chapel, in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 24, 1998, and divorced in 2005.

Citations regarding divorce date: https://unicourt.com/case/ca-la22-gina-cavalier-king-vs-david-king-776639 https://trellis.law/case/bd424270/gina-cavalier-king-vs-david-king Cavlier discusses marriage of Dave King: [17]https://medium.com/authority-magazine/gina-cavalier-of-the-liberated-healer-5-things-anyone-can-do-to-optimize-their-mental-wellness-575ae62c9130

@Jauerback is vandalising this content even though it's been proven and represented correctly Barbarellasouth (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP as an obvious sock of Gcavalier.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Appeal from Ethan2345678

The committee has received an appeal from Ethan2345678 (talk · contribs) and would like to hear feedback from the community before coming to a final decision. You can post comments either in the linked discussion below or send them to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Appeal from Ethan2345678

TheTranarchist 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.

---

Past discussions:  • TBAN at ANI (Feb. 18 - Mar. 3)  • Close Review (Mar. 4 - 7)  • Warning (May 6) / Dispute at ANI (May 6 - 10)  • Appeal (May 24 - 28)  • Appeal for limited exception (Jun. 2)  • 1 week block, ended early (Jun. 14-16)

A quick list of issues people raised in my original ban and subsequent appeal: RGW, SYNTH, RS, issues with BLPs, categorization, being overly verbose, and being too emotional. Since my ban, I've improved on all those fronts. While I previously had a reputation for writing articles with nearly entirely RS, "nearly" was the operative word and not good enough for BLPs, or any article for that matter, so I've since been even more strict with assessing the quality of each source. I've not been accused by anyone of RGW or SYNTH in my editing since my ban. I've been doing quite a lot of categorization/wikidata work and find it relaxing.

In terms of my work since the ban, on enwiki I've mostly focused on NYC history, particularly tenant advocacy (for which I created the NY Housing and Tenant Rights Task Force to better organize efforts to document it) and policing. My works in that vein include: 1904 New York City Rent Strike, 1907 New York City Rent Strike, Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, Crown Heights Tenant Union, Template:Housing rights in New York, and NYPD Strategic Response Group. I also did a lot of categorization work particularly with NYHOUSING. I started uploading public domain images for the 1904/1907 rent strikes on commons, and began uploading more - at this point a few dozen scanned issues of now public domain lgbt magazines (some of which I've scanned from physical archives myself) as well as photos of famous trans people and groups. On eswiki, I wrote es:Historia trans en Brasil from scratch, doing extensive research in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. I've also dabbled a little in fiction with The City We Became and Discworld (world)#Sentient species.

I'm asking that my GENSEX TBAN be moved to a 1RR restriction in GENSEX/AMPOL; 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed; and a PBAN from Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull - I want to stick to the less controversial articles covered by GENSEX and want to stay far away from that article because I was careless in sourcing and crude and immature in responding to insults from her and her fans. My editing skills have improved across various categories from categorization to research to sourcing and more and I would very like to put more effort into the WP:USALGBT task force I created like I've done at WP:NYHOUSING and generally improve our articles about LGBT rights/history/historical figures. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (TheTranarchist ban appeal)

• Support. Seems like a reasonable self-reflection and a reasonable ask. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'll also support as amended. I will, however, note my reservation with the 0RR imposed. I'm in general not a big fan of 0RR restrictions—I don't see much advantage to them over 1RR in terms of deterring edit warring, and they can wind up restricting the sorts of partial reverts that are often a healthy part of the ordinary editing process. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm going to humbly ask that in the interest of not going off into the weeds that we try to avoid relitigating the original topic ban yet again, and instead focus on this appeal. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Could someone please change the generic sub-heading here to something more specific, so editors don't have to check to know which "Discussion" is hitting their watchlist? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Make it 0RR with a ban from all biographies of gender-critical feminists, and I'd support.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  @S Marshall I don't personally believe that's an appropriate sanction for the reasons below but I see and understand your concerns and updated my appeal to address them.

  1) Prior to my ban, I watched bio-medical GENSEX articles to prevent pov-pushing, FRINGE content, and non-MEDRS sources and was only praised for that - the ability to revert there is important to my ability to keep our articles up to standard.

  2) My behavior surrounding KJK did not generalize to my other editing. For context, I wrote the article, it was widely agreed to be NPOV and RS compliant, she and her fans/SPAs began publicly attack me/the article and then the issues began. Namely, I was less careful with ensuring sources are reliable and I mocked her on my talk page and Mastadon. The article was also overly verbose, more of a style/writing issue but one I take seriously. I freely admit such behavior was immature, reflected poorly on me and the encyclopedia, and justifies a PBAN, but I wish to clarify the bad behavior was centered around a specific individual.

  3) The one thing KJK and I agree on is she's not a feminist. Chloe Cole has, to my knowledge, never identified or been identified as "gender critical" or a feminist. The only gender-critical BLP I edited was Stella O'Malley. Your proposal of "gender-critical feminists" seemed unintentionally narrow, so I added 0RR on organizations/activists notable for opposing transgender rights to my appeal to address the spirit of your request, which I hope you find amenable.

  Best regards, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Can we make it anyone who's gender-critical? Not just people who're "notable for" that?—S Marshall T/C 19:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  @S Marshall I've no issues with that, I appreciate your help with the precision! I thought it was implicit in "notable for" which I thought included even "mildly notable", partly because I can't think of any cases where someone notable identifies as GC and doesn't publicly campaign against transgender rights. Would the wording 0RR on articles about organizations/activists who identify as gender-critical or are notable for opposing transgender rights, broadly construed work? Best regards, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Support the revised proposal. I wanted to make sure people who are notable for things unrelated to gender, but are gender-critical, are within scope.—S Marshall T/C 20:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I would like to see a lot more edits in other areas before this ban is lifted. There's very little here to make the call that the editor has learn their lesson. I'd recommend something more specific on the appeals process so this doesn't keep popping up every few months. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Nemov Since my ban I've written 5 non-GENSEX articles on enwiki, written a non-controversial and in-depth GENSEX article on eswiki, and uploaded dozens of images to commons (some of which involved me physically accessing and scanning library archives). I've created templates, done extensive categorization work, created a productive task force, and logged roughly 1000 extra edits (roughly doubling my pre-ban edit count). My ban was 8 months ago, and my only appeal (though a 2-parter) was 6 months ago. How long should I have waited for this appeal, how much more editing should I have done, and what lessons haven't I learned? Genuine questions, since I've been trying to improve on all issues raised in my original case and sadly there's no firm guidelines anywhere on what to do in an appeal lol. Best regards, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think this is a reasonable request for a deëscalation of a sanction that was always on the heavier side. Recent tweak satisfies my original concern here. Support as amended except in the new sanction change notable for opposing trans rights to who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism, broadly construed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC), ed. 20:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Done: Updated the appeal per your note and S Marshall's - I broadened "anti-transgender activism" to "anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism". Best regards, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support revised proposal, good restrictions as a first step. Time has passed, there is some editing in other areas (though a lot in categories or assessment), but cognizant of the overall edit account of the account. Time to sink or swim. starship.paint (RUN) 02:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support; good self-reflection, and great contributions since then (I checked a few of the articles linked in the appeal). DFlhb (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I think the appeal indicates willingness to show an abundance of caution, and that is more than sufficient. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Absent any compelling evidence of continued willful disruption, we ought to lean on the side of second chances more often than not. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support - This seems like a reasonable first step after extensive work outside the topic area. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support This is what I would hope more editors that fall into situations that result in restrictions would do. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support Shows self reflection and a willingness to compromise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support Not sure what more we can ask to be done before an appeal. I agree with Red-tailed hawk that I don't see what the 0RR accomplishes. Galobtter (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support I agree this seems like a reasonable ask. I also agree with Red-tailed hawk and Galobtter that a 0RR doesn't really offer any benefits over the broader 1RR that applies to the rest of the topic areas. I think a straight 1RR in the specified areas would be more straightforward, both for TheTranarchist to self-police and for anyone else to enforce, while otherwise allowing regular editing as stated. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Sideswipe9th, et al. -- seems like a reasonable appeal, including a demonstrated commitment to topics outside of this one, though I'll admit I felt the breadth of the ban was too severe in the first place. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support because I opposed the original topic ban in its entirety and would support a total lifting of it. Loki (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support - a very well thought through appeal that recognises the reasons for the original ban and continues to mitigate that problem, while enabling the editor to continue to make valuable contributions to areas they have an interest in. Appeals like this are heartwarming. WaggersTALK 09:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support, and endorsing the comments of Loki and Sideswipe9th — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support - a well thought out and reasonable request to rescind this TBAN and obviously strong contributions in the interim. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
• I support this request, which is certainly ready to be closed! --JBL (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. When I saw this a moment ago, I was ready to author an epistle in support of this, but seems like that won't be needed. :) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support While I would normally have hesitation given the very limited editing in articles with significant traffic, I think the proposed revert limits should address any reasonable concerns. Springee (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support I originally supported the sanction when first placed, and I still believe it was the right move. After reading this appeal, I believe it is sincere and touches on all the right points that we expect from a ban appeal. I originally suggested taking an article through a GA or FA review to get a feel for sourcing and I would support the eventual appeal, but the content work listed is enough to satisfy me that Tranarchist understands the issues and what kinds of sourcing are needed for a BLP, especially for contentious statements. Personally I'd prefer to see Chloe Cole and Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism added to the voluntary page ban because they were more minor loci of the dispute, but I don't feel strongly enough about that to oppose or set it as a condition. It's always a happy occasion when we can welcome an editor back into a topic area they had issues with, so I'm very willing to extend good faith here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Post-banlift rant by TheTranarchist

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

---

Regarding this, with great disappointment I found that the first edit TheTranarchist (now renamed as Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist) made after this successful appeal was a long rant that included the following.

I was chastised for saying pseudoscience should not be on the encyclopedia and articles about QUACKS should stick to FRINGE, RS, and NPOV

FRINGE POV-pushers in GENSEX will never face any consequence no matter how much disruption they cause as long as they're "civil" (a bar that's surprisingly low)

All your edits in GENSEX are civil PROFRINGE nonsense? Untouchable.

a surprising number of editors see no difference between articles about hate groups, and, y'know, any article vaguely related to trans people.

these are by no means new problems, as my research into the history of GENSEX cases on enwiki disturbingly showed me

how to avoid kafkaesque POV-railroading in future and how to pass a show trial with flying colors...

Then, here, the second edit post-lifting by TheTranarchist:

I called this a show trial, half-jokingly, because I was told by multiple people that the only way to get unbanned in any situation is to plead guilty to every charge and accusation, regardless of the merit of the accusation or my innocence

Reading all of the above, makes me regret having participated in this show trial by supporting the appeal. It seems that the appeal was utterly disingenuous, and I'd like to leave this on the record. starship.paint (RUN) 01:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Although I don't expect any action to be taken, I'd just like to provide an FYI to @Red-tailed hawk, S Marshall, Nemov, Tamzin, DFlhb, Alpha3031, WaltCip, HandThatFeeds, RickinBaltimore, ActivelyDisinterested, Waggers, Maddy from Celeste, Sideswipe9th, Rhododendrites, Galobtter, Springee, JayBeeEll, Ser!, LokiTheLiar, OwenBlacker, and The Wordsmith:. starship.paint (RUN) 01:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I frankly think this is shit-stirring and I'd like you to strike it. Loki (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts. starship.paint (RUN) 02:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't think it's shit-stirring to ping everyone who voted to unban in an almost-unanimous discussion to a bunch of out-of-context quotes while allegedly "not expecting any action to be taken"? You think that constitutes "just an FYI"? Loki (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't expect that this will actually result in extra sanctions being imposed, that's what I meant. Therefore this is an FYI. The quotes speak for themselves, but you are free to explain how I have been misleading. starship.paint (RUN) 02:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, whether or not you expected this to result in extra sanctions I am very tempted to call for a WP:BOOMERANG interaction ban against you, because you clearly have something personal against TheTranarchist if you're going to ping 21 editors to drama against her. Honestly it's even worse if you're not aiming for actual sanctions, because then you have no excuse of having any kind of legitimate reason to do this.

The basic fact of the matter is that people can be cynical as they want about the Wikipedia process on their own talk page and this is, while maybe regrettable, not sanctionable. However, trying to get another editor sanctioned for bad reasons is sanctionable: it's WP:GAMING the system. Loki (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what part of these comments require any admin action. An editor is within their rights to criticize the state of moderation in a topic area—rightly or wrongly. And it's worth quoting the next sentence in the second comment: To just honestly say X, Y, and Z would not be issues going forward - leaving out the observation 'and the majority agreed they weren't issues in the first place'. So she avoided being combative in her unban request... I'm struggling to see how that undercuts the legitimacy of the request. Surely no one thought she'd decided she was 100% in the wrong in every past dispute she was in. I tend to agree with Loki that this subthread is disruptive, and I would encourage someone uninvolved to close it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Sbaio and his behavior towards me the last couple months

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. How are you? Hopefully good. I am writing because I know you’re an administrator and while I usually wouldn’t do these types of things, I would like to share a complaint about one user the last couple months. In August, I was falsely accused of sock puppetry after a small handful of my edits were coincidentally similar to an individual who was blocked from sock puppetry in early 2022 called “Moka Mo”. I tried to explain repeatedly that I am not the same person as “Moka Mo” and most of my edits were actually useful and not intended to be malicious and my goal was to be informative and helpful. And whenever I tried to reach out to him, he either gaslights me, ignores me or says stuff like “stop wasting everyones time” or “stop wasting time” and more.

I was falsely accused of sock puppetry since apparently a small handful of my edits were similar to another blocked user who was blocked for sock puppetry who is named moka mo who I had never heard of before until this summer. Whenever I try to explain I am not the same person, he either gaslights me, ignores me or says things (like stop wasting time or stop wasting everyone’s time and more).

This is a very frustrating situation and ofc I understand millions of people have other ideas too but the thing that is frustrating is that he is doing them without any thought or without informing me first and not cooperating with me when I try to get his attention. These actions are very narcissistic to me toxic behavior like this should not be allowed on Wikipedia. It is all crazy because even after I have said many times I am NOT moka mo and my real name but he doesn’t budge. Whenever I call him out on it too, he cries about “personal attacks” although he put this on himself with his narcissistic behavior and all the gaslighting and ignoring he has done with me when I try to communicate with him. While I get his feelings are hurt, I am stating the truth and he needs to realize that sometimes the truth hurts and honestly if he hadn’t gaslit me and simply have just communicated with me then he wouldn’t have gotten such criticism for his actions.

I don’t want to ramble too much so I’m gonna stop for now because I think I’ve explained enough for you to hopefully get what I am trying to explain but I appreciate your attention to this very important matter because I want Wikipedia to be a place that is inclusive for all and where people can feel included and not gaslit. And hopefully considering unblocking my real account that got blocked a couple months ago, gymrat16 and consider the possibility of blocking the sbaio account indefinitely for his cruel and abusive treatment towards me and a couple other editors. I usually wouldn’t say this because like I said, this should be welcoming for all but he has crossed the line for me and I believe without repercussions, one can never learn that this behavior is unacceptable. If you open up the activity for gymrat16 you’ll see the edits were intended for good judgement and not meant to be disruptive. Thanks for your time and I hope to hear back soon. Stay safe. 2600:1007:B0A1:E997:D05C:8D3C:427A:3BD2 (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

"And hopefully considering unblocking my real account that got blocked a couple months ago, gymrat16 and consider the possibility of blocking the sbaio account indefinitely for his cruel and abusive treatment towards me and a couple other editors." I understand your concerns, but you are not following the proper process to appeal your block and state your complaints - instead, you're evading your block by posting here without first having your block appealed. That's not a good thing to do - especially when you're trying to pose a rebuttal and state that you're not a sock and that you're not in violation of policy. The SPI report made also has an in-depth analysis of your behavioral similarities. You need to log into that account, review and understand this document on appealing blocks properly, and follow its recommendations. If you're unblocked, you're of course welcome to discuss your grievances about the accusations here. Doing anything else other than what I explained is not going to help you in the long-term; it's only going to make things worse and give administrators more ammo to use in order to justify your block. Because of your admission above, this IP range should be blocked for evasion, but I'm not going to do that. I would rather extend a small courtesy of trust than just "throw the book" at you. If someone accused of policy violations are being legitimate and if they're not a sock puppet, they will follow the process and appeal the block properly. I will have to say, though, that the evidence against you is significant and is clearly listed in the SPI report filed. I'd start by reading through it so that you can explain the similarities in your appeal. Good luck to you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Shared account User:Castorfacts

• Castorfacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Emily Fairfax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The userpage of User:Castorfacts states: It is run by the Fairfax lab, which seems to imply it being run by an organization, which violates Any user account should represent an individual and not a group of WP:NOSHARING. But WP:NOSHARING is part of Wikipedia:Username policy, and the username Castorfacts doesn't imply sharing. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I am kind of torn. On one hand this account made a proper COI declaration, but on the other hand it did create a quite flattering article about the scientist who runs the lab. Much to think about. jp×g🗯️ 06:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you're torn, the COI declaration implies shared use. Polyamorph (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It probably would be better if someone told them on their talk page before bringing to the noticeboard. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

(Non-admin) As a courteous gesture I initiated an interaction on their talk page. I feel communication is always a preferred first action, especially since it doesn't appear this account is causing immediate harm. --ARoseWolf 12:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Castorfacts has not edited since 6 August, so there doesn't seem to be an urgent problem. The note left on their talk page by ARoseWolf should be an adequate response, and I suggest this thread be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The question/issue is shared account not COI. IMO no biggee but it should get resolved. If a single person, they should say so. If multiple, it should be closed and create new individual account(s). North8000 (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Deleted article recreated

Nine articles were deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic), and six have now been spuriously recreated. There is nothing new, and they still don’t merit articles as independent subjects per WP:GNG (each is about a letter that already has an article, but with an accent applied, not about an actual letter of an alphabet). How do we delete these so they stay deleted? Protection? Thanks.  —Michael Z. 14:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The way to get the articles deleted is by consensus at WP:AFD. The first one was closed as "soft delete", which means that anyone can recreate the articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

But the required request for undeletion was never filed, with the exception of one: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 387#U with acute (Cyrillic).  —Michael Z. 14:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

"Required"? Levivich (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

For attribution purposes, the previous edits should be undeleted. But if the previous edits are by the same editor (sans the afd banner edits), I don't think much has been lost if one copies and pastes their own work. – robertsky (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

These are still not encyclopedic subjects, and they are misleading (the defining assertion that they are letters is wrong and not supported by any sources), and they should remain deleted. Is my only option to nominate them for deletion again?  —Michael Z. 17:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

If an article is recreated (as opposed to restored), there is nothing to attribute and thus no need to restore deleted edits. Levivich (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I was going on the assumption that the recreation is a copy and paste work. – robertsky (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOFTDELETE: “the article can be restored for any reason on request.” There is no other option provided.  —Michael Z. 16:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's the only option. The notion that an article can be restored for any reason, but cannot be recreated, is nonsensical (and if it were the rule, it'd be pedantic af). It's a soft delete; there is no problem with restoration OR recreation; just take it to AfD if you think it should be deleted. Don't try to win a content dispute by turning it into a conduct dispute. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Never implied anything about conduct. Just needing procedural advice. Is there a better forum?  —Michael Z. 17:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The procedural advice is to take the articles back to AfD. Things can't be soft deleted twice. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

spuriously recreated implies something about conduct. (Example: were deleted was a spurious description of soft deletion). The better forum is AFD. Levivich (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the wrong word choice. I meant recreated when the reason for deletion still stood, and without discussion or improvements to address it. Anyway, I now better understand soft deletion and know that back to AFD is the way to go. Thank you all.  —Michael Z. 18:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I have re-nominated the articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic) (2nd nomination).  —Michael Z. 18:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted edits Yuri Iluliaq (talk · contribs) is not writing exactly the same content as TheBiggestMicrosoftFan100 (talk · contribs) did. But the sources used by the latter were all about "stress marks in Russian" it seeems. It seems obvious that good faith editors are simply recolouring the hyperlinks in {{Infobox Cyrillic letter}}. Uncle G (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Ugh. I had removed them,[18] was reverted, and started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Cyrillic letter#Letters with stress mark. I guess I forgot about it when no one replied about the original disputed edit. Will try again after AFD.  —Michael Z. 19:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thailand massacre

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 were 1995 education reform that results in established school for 4.35 millions children from poor agricultural families in remote areas. Sukavich Rangsitpol’s Education Reform results in equal opportunities education for all in Thailand . Education reform In Thaksin page and Thailand page praise Thaksin who is most corrupted politician in the world,he is in jail right now 2403:6200:89A7:D762:95A4:A7B9:B2B8:BEC9 (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC) When I am wrote in his talk page,there will be a couple person attacks me. The other person trying to write that he is in jail which had also been deleted. The fact is Supreme Court sentence him to 8 years jail. It doesn’t matter where he is right now. He was not confined that was for the person before verdict.

In his page ,all of reference was not reliable.I think someone should correct it before the misunderstanding caused another massacre in Thailand.2403:6200:89A7:D762:95A4:A7B9:B2B8:BEC9 (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC) 2403:6200:89A7:D762:95A4:A7B9:B2B8:BEC9 (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Ethiopian Greeks

The information is completely wrong and gives erroneous information 2A02:C7C:36FF:3600:3541:34:3283:3E31 (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the correct place to discuss content issues, you should take your concerns to the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Close challenge: Required disclosure for admin paid advising

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.

---

RfC: [19]
Preceding discussion and closing statement: [20]
Discussion with closer: [21]
Notification will immediately follow this post.

I am challenging the closing statement that: There is consensus that the policy on WP:COI should be widened to include off-wiki paid advising for promotional purposes.

It's a closing statement concluding something that was never proposed, which most people did not address, about modifying a different policy from the one the RfC proposed. Per the closer, it puts more weight on the discussion preceding the RfC (the mechanism we rely on to solicit additional voices and structure discussion) than on the actual RfC, for which there was no consensus, and does so with the effect of radically transforming one of our central policies (changing WP:COI from a policy about conflict of interest editing into something that applies to activities that take place entirely outside of Wikipedia). At the most fundamental level, we should not be transforming policies based on informal, unstructured discussions, especially while an RfC on the subject fails.

Secondarily, the closing statement hinges on "promotional purposes", which isn't defined but seems to boil down to something we all already agree on: that it's unacceptable to advise people how to violate Wikipedia's policies. I don't think that's in dispute, and we already have the tools to take action against someone found to be doing that via WP:NOT and WP:TOU, etc. (and those can be modified accordingly if there's any doubt). What we disagree on, and what the discussion was about, concerns monitoring and disclosure requirements. It seems like there's an extracted notion that we indeed all agree on, but it's accompanied with a remedy there's absolutely no consensus for (the transformation of WP:COI rather than the many other tools that aren't explicitly about on-wiki activities). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Bad close, well outside the scope of the RfC. —Kusma (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

(I was fairly heavily involved in the discussion and was unaware that this was even a potential outcome. So unaware, in fact, that I do not have a fully formed opinion on the quality of the closer's policy proposal. It is a new policy proposal, not a possible reading of this RfC). —Kusma (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was heavily involved in the RFC and so am far from neutral, but I agree with this challenge. Given that there was (correctly imo) no consensus found for the question asked in the RFC I don't understand (even after reading the discussion on the closer's talk page) how consensus was found for something broader that most participants didn't speak about. There may or may not be consensus for such a change to the COI policy, but there is no evidence (either way) in that RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Bad close It was not within the scope of the RfC. Agree per Thyduulf and Kusma.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect to the closer, I do not think this is a type of RfC when a non-admin closure is a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The RfC was originally about a change affecting only admins. It makes sense to have a non-admin close such RfCs, as admins could be perceived as self interested. —Kusma (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

In Steelpillow's defense, a non-admin was explicitly requested below the RfC. Whether that request is a good idea is debatable, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Bad close. There's clearly no consensus for any such thing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, "My recommendation is to expand WP:COI to cover all activities..." caused me to raise at least one eyebrow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Closer here. The RfC formed only a part of this wider discussion. At the end a new subtopic, outside the RfC, was opened to discuss closing the discussion. That was what I did, and the RfC got swept up with it. Very little of my closing remarks addressed the RfC directly; those being objected to here were unrelated to the RfC, so folding them together here like this, after I had already stated as much on my talk page, seems a bit strange. Also I am unsure why the OP here did not post a link to this challenge in the post-closure comments immediately below it. If there was anything bad about the RfC close, it was inviting someone to close the whole discussion without considering the effect on RfC embedded within it. If I did wrong to follow up that invitation, I can only plead ignorance. So what we need here and now is those "bad close" judgements to clarify which bits refer to the RfC, which to the discussion as a whole, and what exactly did go wrong where. I know I shall learn something from that, but so far this discussion has been a mess of misunderstandings about what I actually closed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You state "The main discussion shows a clear consensus that anybody, be they admin or not, should declare a COI where paid advising off-wiki, for promotional purposes, relates to their activity here." The main RfC question was whether "Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage". There was no consensus for this in the RfC (it was 38:55 against). So clearly there is no consensus that paid-advising admins should disclose their clients, yet you say there is consensus that they should declare their COI. Do you suggest that people should declare "I have a COI" without disclosing what that COI is? That would make no sense. I suggest you undo your closure. —Kusma (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You are doing it again. My remark that "The main discussion shows a clear consensus that anybody, be they admin or not, should declare a COI where paid advising off-wiki, for promotional purposes, relates to their activity here" referenced the wider discussion raised by its OP, and not to the RfC. If you read down the close, you will see that I agree entirely with you that the RfC had no consensus. Please do take this on board and stop conflating the question asked by the OP with the question asked by the RfC. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I applaud you for trying to close it, but I really think closing an RfC should address only the RfC question and any consensus (or lack of) relating to it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

If you are willing to close a "discussion that has an embedded formal RfC" in a way that is diametrically opposed to the answer of the embedded formal RfC, then you're doing it wrong and should not be closing any RfCs. You can't override the formal RfC by the "wider discussion". Formal RfCs are serious business, and people expect them to count. —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Read my close again - all the way down. I reference the RfC in bold so everybody can see where I do so, like this: "3. RfC: Required disclosure for admin paid advising has no consensus for change." What part of that is claiming a consensus for the time of day? So please, please, where I specifically reference "the main discussion", why do you persist in conflating this with the RfC? And where I make a clear finding on the RfC, why do you guys not see it there? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Steelpillow, ok, if I follow your argument, then it means that admins who do paid advising do not need to declare who their clients are, but anyone (including admins) who does paid advising needs to declare their what their advising-related COI is (or is this only if you have told your client how to self-promote? Or if they later self-promote although you told them not to??) If that isn't what you mean your closure to say, please clarify it; I don't understand how you can disclose COI without disclosing the clients. If it is what you mean your closure to say, I can't help reading this as overruling the results of the RfC, which opposed additional disclosure requirements. —Kusma (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothing like that, I aimed to be as non-specific as possible because there was consensus for the square root of naff all in the main discussion and none at all in the RfC. If you have to go through all those convolutions to try and justify a conflict with the RfC outcome, boy do you have a weak case! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're claiming now that there wasn't a consensus to do anything, why on earth did your close say that there was? —Cryptic 22:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Can I (as a non-admin) note that this is a difference that makes little difference, that COI already covers entities that one did paid advising to, as either an "employer" or a "financial interest"? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Bad close in that it addressed things that weren't seen as problematic originally; even if the result was correct, it was not for the reasons presented. ——Serial 21:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Impossible Close IMO there was no way to close that discussion without a reasonable challenge being brought. It was an extraordinarily disjointed and run-on series of discussions which touched on a number of related and often overlapping but still distinct topics... Arguments ran the gamut from the strictly personal to the purely philosophical with no two editors seemingly making the exact same argument. We can't even all agree on whether the closer must be an admin or absolutely should not be an admin... I think Steelpillow did a good job all things considered and I appreciate them offering themselves up on the alter of public opinion (I will note that the other closer who was suggested on the talk page more or less endorsed Steelpillow's close). TLDR its easier to yell bad close than it is to make a hard close. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it was hard at all - it looks like a clear "no censensus for anything" to me. And that's all an RfC closer should do - assess any clear consensus that arises, or state that there isn't one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not certain that a "no consensus" close wouldn't have been challenged. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Notwithstanding Boing! said Zebedee's point regarding how difficult this closure actually was - TLDR its easier to yell bad close than it is to make a hard close. Of course it is, because as you said, hard closures are hard. A strong and experienced understanding of how to assess and implement consensus for a large-scale multi-faceted discussion is not something that every user has, nor is it reasonable to expect that they would. We can applaud someone for their best efforts in tackling a tricky subject, but in the end, we weigh the outcome rather than the intentions. You still have to get the close right. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Questions for the closer: in the wider discussion, not just the RfC, could you point to four or five comments that pushed you toward your consensus determination, specifically the one that WP:COI should be widened? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  So here's what I found before I ran out of caring, and I was only a fraction of the way through it all.

  • "What most people seem to agree on is that it's not banned by the existing policies and guidelines, since WP:COI's language is very clear about its application to edits." - Mike Christie
  • "Any editor being paid to advise others on Wikipedia editing must disclose their conflict of interest and the name of their clients." - A. B.
  • "I agree with the 3 choices @A. B. laid out" - Pecopteris
  • "I agree our policies don't currently apply to paid advising. I am suggesting that we need some new policies or guidelines, at least for admins, when it comes to paid advising." - Barkeep49
  • "This is very simple… if you are paid to edit WP, disclose it. If you are paid to advise someone else about editing WP, disclose it. If you are paid to do anything related to WP, disclose it." - Blueboar

  They do not all specifically mention WP:COI, but they all mention stuff covered by it and they all want to see advising covered as well as editing. So if you can figure how we can meet that consensus without widening WP:COI, then please suggest a better phrasing and I will make the change to my close. Meanwhile I am off to bed now and busy tomorrow. So when I get back here the shape of the world will have changed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Mate, let's perhaps dwell on those words for a second. You say you only got a fraction of the way through the discussion before you "ran out of caring". And yet you decided to go ahead and close based on the fraction you had read? That's ... not a good look. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not 100% sure what SP is saying here. They could be saying that they started re-reading the discussion to pick out examples to answer my question, and they got as far as Blueboar's comment before they stopped caring to look for more. Or they could be saying what you think they're saying. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  My comment, quoted above, doesn't indicate that I believe the COI policy should be broadened. Steelpillow quoted it in response to Firefangledfeathers's request for examples of comments that said it should be broadened, but mistook my meaning, which I think is clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• As above, inappropriate close by an editor who had not read the entire discussion, and which should be procedurally reverted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I was expecting a no consensus close, based on the parts of the discussion I had read (and admittedly I haven't read it closely after the first couple of days and haven't done more than skim after hte first week). I am astounded that something broader than the original question was found to have consensus. I had hoped for a well written closing statement that might give some sense of what the community thought, which has its own use, but to find consensus for something so broad boggles my mind. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't participate in that discussion. I didn't even read it. And I'm not an admin. Does anyone want me to close it? I think that generally speaking I can summarize things fairy well. Won't be offended if my close wouldn't be accepted either. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

This is what WP:DfD is for Mach61 (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Since a comment I made was apparently influential to the close, I do want to clarify something: I Don’t think paid advising is a WP:COI issue… I think it is an issue of ethics. It is ethical to disclose any payment related to WP, even when there is no conflict of interest. This should apply to any editor, not just admins. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  COI disclosure is an issue of ethics, too. So you seem to be slicing that pretty thin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  The question isn't really just whether it is ethical to disclose payment, the question is whether disclosure should be required and if so what needs to be disclosed. In the abstract I don't think you would find anybody who would say that disclosing payment is unethical, however when you ask whether disclosing the personal information of payer and/or payee should be required then you will see a range of views comparable with those expressed in the RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  (non-admin) I can certainly think of instances where disclosing payment would be unethical, at least with a payee attached. A client may be hiring an admin for advice of sensitive matters that they would not want to post to public boards. If, say, a small tech company wanted to figure out how to deal with someone who was putting sensitive company secrets on the article about them, the admin announcing "I'm being paid by WhateverTech" may well have a Streisand effect, drawing attention to material that the company might want to quite appropriately not want to have seen. There are certain sorts of advisors in this world who are clearly ethically bound not to announce their clients -- sex therapists, for instance. This probably wouldn't apply for most of the cases (well, that's a guess, as we know of very few instances of admins being thus hired), but there are at least theoretically cases where ethics would call for privacy. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, there is a difference between (1) "I was paid to advise about Wikipedia editing", (2) "I was paid to advise about Wikipedia editing by Joe Bloggs", (3) "I was paid to advise about editing the Joe Bloggs article and (4) "I was paid to advise about editing the Joe Bloggs article by Joe Bloggs". I can't, off the top of my head, think of any ethical issues with (1), but all the others do all have potential privacy or other issues. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• It goes without saying that an RFC that concerns admins should not be closed by a non-admin. NACs are only for no-brainer, obvious, inconsequential stuff. Overturn the close and warn the editor not to do that sort of thing ever again (unless they pass an RFA). Softlavender (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think this is a bit harsh. A couple of people had specifically requested a NAC, and Steelpillow offered to close and the offer was accepted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  That doesn't at all go without saying. Admins are not a privileged class; we are just users with a few more buttons. There is no rule against non-admin closes of important RfCs. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Softlavender, an RFC that concerns admins should not be closed by a non-admin is...I'm trying hard to find something to say besides that is absolute bullshit. Why in the world would we think only admins can assess admin activity? Or that non-admins can't? Valereee (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Softlavender, as above, this isn't fair. SP only responded to a request for a NAC, whether they got it wrong or not, I wouldn't blame them for failing to accurately summarize a discussion consisting of ~70K words which is too much for a novella.
  I started reading it as I offered to write a close myself and I suspect I'll be able to write a better close. I lean towards agreeing that a NAC is preferable as all admins could be argued to be involved. Even assuming an admin would write a perfectly neutral close, it's better to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  If anything, Softlavender "should be warned" never to say anything so nonsensical again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think that you're going to get a lot of people disagreeing with this idea. We're the people entrusted with the tools that can do damage in the wrong hands. We're not some kind of ruling class. The whole point of RFCs is to get the editorship at large involved. Yes, even in closing discussions. We were all not administrators once, and for some of us doing this kind of stuff was how we earned the trust of the community to be granted the extra tools. Uncle G (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  For me it goes without saying that a hugely attended RfC like this should only be closed by our most capable closers. Some of those closers happen to be admins, some of them happen to not be admins. As many admins pass RfA with no assessment made of their ability to close discussions (you can be really great with the CSD and the username policy and how to deal with vandals while having no idea about discussions) it is not clear to me at all that admin status is the right thing for this kind of discussion (even without considering the fact that it's about admins which would, on the margin, make me prefer a non-admin closer). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, I don't agree with that either. While I did say above that not everyone has the skills required to weigh and implement closures for complex issues, I also don't think we should be casting a shadow over an entire group of users. Admins don't inherently exclusively possess those abilities over non-admin users, and Wikipedia doesn't need any further class divide. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm going to pile on and disagree here. In fact, I also think it might be preferable for an experienced non-admin to close this one. And I'd say Steelpillow is qualified to do it - I just don't think they closed it right, not that there's insufficient experience here, and they closed it with the best of motives. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn, because that's not what the community said.—S Marshall T/C 00:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn I do not think this needed an "admin only closing". Valereee said it best above. Rhododendrites has called out some of the deficiencies in the close rationale, and I agree. Lightburst (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved), this close appears to entirely disregard OUTING concerns, a primary argument for what the closer agrees was a successful opposition for the RfC. (I don’t care about admin status). Mach61 (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn. Per above. Negligent close which clearly fails to describe the result of the discussion. -FASTILY 03:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn. The closer misinterpreted some statements as support for changing the COI policy, as seen above. Of the many discussion participants, very few mentioned a change to COI as their preferred outcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn. A wrong closure is wrong even if the closer is an admin, while a valid closure is valid even if the closer is a non-admin. The closer of a discussion about a contentious topic should understand that she (generic pronoun) has to demonstrate that she has the competence to close this discussion. QRD (quod remains to demonstrate). Pldx1 (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

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

FYI: That thread is now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Admins and being paid to advise on editing. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is now down to "only" 450 KB of text, aka 10 times the upper limit recommending in WP:SIZESPLIT. That one discussion was more than half the page. Please continue the discussion over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for deleted revisions for research on Wikipedia history

Hello, I am doing research on the history of Wikipedia in my country. Unfortunately, the page Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Czech Republic was deleted during a reorganization in 2007, which prevents me from finding out who the self-reported Czech editors of English Wikipedia were in the early years of the project. Could an administrator please recover the deleted revisions of that page and share them with me (date and page content for each revision) in some practical way (can be email)? Thank you. --Blahma (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see the deletion message: CSD G6: Housekeeping (outdated project page), content was: 'This page has been replaced by Category:Wikipedians in the Czech Republic.'
You can also see Category:Czech Wikipedians for people who not only live there but were also born there. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, this wayback link shows the page as of 30 January 2005. Fabrickator (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

To make it clear, I am not looking for current Czech editors. I am trying to dig out from historical records who was a Wikipedia editor and at what time. I am mainly concerned with years 2001–2004. I have already seen the 2005 Wayback copy, but it only gives me an "upper bound". I am building a chronology, so I need more exact dates (and some order). I could routinely inspect old revisions of pages such as Wikipedia:Multilingual coordination because they had only been archived, not fully deleted. Also, I am an admin on Czech and Esperanto Wikipedia, so I could access even deleted revisions there; I can't do it here, though. A category, from purely technical point of view, cannot be a full replacement for researchers like me, because it has no trackable history (and did not exist back in the early years anyway). Compare with Wikipedia:Wikipedians which was not deleted and still has searchable history going back to 20 Nov 2001. The page I'm interested grew merely as a subpage thereof. --Blahma (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Blahma, below is the deleted edit history. In short, any edit that isn't in bold is that person adding themselves and themselves only to a list of editors. For the bolded edits, I have added some italicised notes to explain what these edits were, where the edit summary doesn't exist. I hope this helps. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

(diff) 09:14, 29 November 2006 . . Malyctenar (talk | contribs | block) m (cat has long been replaced by Category:Wikipedians in the Czech Republic (to hell with these bothers, Czechia rules!))

(diff) 09:21, 17 August 2005 . . Rmky87 (talk | contribs | block)

(diff) 09:18, 17 August 2005 . . Rmky87 (talk | contribs | block)

(diff) 09:14, 17 August 2005 . . Rmky87 (talk | contribs | block) (Removed and redirected as part of Wikipedia:User categorisation)

(diff) 16:22, 10 August 2005 . . Icairns (talk | contribs | block) (categ Wikipedians by country -> Wikipedians in (country))

(diff) 10:51, 20 July 2005 . . Qertis (talk | contribs | block) (Qertis is Czech (or Bohemian?:))

(diff) 14:56, 30 June 2005 . . Netvor (talk | contribs | block) (Adding myself)

(diff) 18:10, 14 April 2005 . . Darwinek (talk | contribs | block)

(diff) 07:03, 13 April 2005 . . Darwinek (talk | contribs | block) m -- added "[[Category:Wikipedians by country|Czech Republic]]"

(diff) 17:53, 2 April 2005 . . Pavel Vozenilek (talk | contribs | block) m (added self)

(diff) 12:50, 28 November 2004 . . Wikimol (talk | contribs | block) m

(diff) 20:13, 14 October 2004 . . Mike Rosoft (talk | contribs | block) (Proudly added myself)

(diff) 23:02, 13 October 2004 . . JohnyDog (talk | contribs | block) (added myself to list)

(diff) 15:36, 26 August 2004 . . EmilJ (talk | contribs | block)

(diff) 14:55, 12 August 2004 . . Malyctenar (talk | contribs | block) (adding myself)

(diff) 01:51, 18 July 2004 . . Kyknos (talk | contribs | block) (adding myself)

(diff) 07:26, 11 June 2004 . . Zeman (talk | contribs | block)

(diff) 23:59, 2 March 2004 . . Matt Borak (talk | contribs | block) m (added myself)

(diff) 15:19, 23 December 2003 . . Guy Peters (talk | contribs | block) m -- added "[[cs:Wikipedie:Wikipedisté]]"

(diff) 15:16, 23 December 2003 . . Guy Peters (talk | contribs | block) m

(diff) 05:46, 29 April 2003 . . MarekF~enwiki (talk | contribs | block)

(diff) 10:30, 11 July 2002 . . Golem~enwiki (talk | contribs | block)

(diff) 00:37, 28 May 2002 . . Boleslav Bobcik (talk | contribs | block) m

(diff) 06:25, 10 March 2002 . . XChaos (talk | contribs | block) m

@Daniel: Thank you very much, this indeed helps a lot! Now I can see that there have been multiple Czech contributors in English Wikipedia before the Czech one got started, including the (latest) dates of their arrival. I am definitely going to use this in my study.
Resolved. --Blahma (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Blahma: I've just searched the Nostalgia Wikipedia, a copy of the Wikipedia database from 20 December 2001, for "Czech" and didn't find any users self-identifying as being from there (which surprises me a little, to be honest ... that search picked up all pages because there were no namespaces back then). However, I did find a page now at Wikipedia:Historical archive/Friends of Wikipedia/Technology weblogs--Non-English that leads to a write-up about Wikipedia in Czech from July 2001, which might be of interest. If I'd noticed this request in time, I would've temporarily undeleted the "Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Czech Republic" page, used Special:Export to export the XML of the history, and sent that to you. That would've been another way to get at the info. Graham87 (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

IP block exemption

Hi,

I am a sysop and an oversighter on fr-WP, and I often contribute from my office (pls don't tell my boss...) or in trains, where I have to use blocked IP (VPN or vandalisms). Could you please grant me an exemption on en-WP?

Best regards, JohnNewton8 (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Granted for a year. If you still need it after that, you can ask for it again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Ninja! JohnNewton8 (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

IP Blockage

Hi, I just meant to create an account (or login, as I have an account in mediawiki) but it says my IP has been blocked. From what I can understand, it's due to my internet provider?

Can this block be lifted? Please advise.

Thank you! 190.237.61.121 (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems that there have been persistent long-term abuse from your network which resulted in the IP address range being partially blocked. You can request for an account at Wikipedia:Request an account. – robertsky (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It's unusual, or at least usually unintended, to block a handful of pages then block the whole range from all account creation. It's worth checking with the blocking admin Black Kite if that was their intention. To the IP user, I'd imagine if you can log in at mediawiki, then just browse to this wiki, it should create your account automatically. Otherwise, if you want to name your account then we can create it locally for you. The latter option is going to be public, so if you want to do that privately, contact some other admin privately. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

New sockpuppets of Holiptholipt

And he is back! @Drmies: @Vif12vf: Holiptholipt (talk · contribs) [22] is once again pushing his edits under the same IP adresses as the protection of pages ran out, in account names such as 2800:2503:2:B9EE:A56B:4DE6:77EC:A46C, 2800:2502:4:47B7:9F98:4960:3E70:933D. He has also registered a new Wikipedia account called AmigodeMassa (talk · contribs) pushing the same edit as he did this summer under the other sockpuppets Juan Carlos de Rsistencia (talk · contribs) and Marcela Ocaño (talk · contribs) [23], [24], [25], why can't he accept a ban? Just look at the revisions under Juntos por el Cambio and Republican Proposal, every month he tries again and again [26], Here are some more revisions exactly the same as before [27], [28], it honestly gets tiring, feels like he won't stop until he gets his edits through, just look how many accounts he had last time around [29]. BastianMAT (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio at ITN RD

Sorry for having to post here. At WP:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted)_RD:_A._S._Byatt I raised concerns about excessive quotations which are integrated throughout the article. Before posting to RD, Stephen removed the tag on the basis that it was a single quotation. This is not the case. This earwig report is very clear cut that there remain too many excessive quotes from the article http://theguardian.com/books/2009/apr/25/as-byatt-interview earwig report for current revision. This is not the only source where quotations are used. The entire article is full of such quotes. Unfortunately my attempts at discussion are resulting in stonewalling. I consider anyone with the authority to post to the main page should at the very least consider all concerns, especially those concerning copyvio, carefully before posting, and not to merely dismiss those concerns as if I'm a pest (at least that's the impression I am getting, I'm a pest for simply raising the issue). Thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• You might want to cross-post this to WP:ERRORS. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Done, thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Resolved, another admin pulled the article from main page. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Just an aside to this, I do find WP:ITN one of the more belligerent areas of Wikipedia. Perhaps understandable because users are passionate about the subjects. But it does mean we need admins there who will respond to requests and who are completely versed in policy. Polyamorph (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Blood Red Throne

Would someone be able to restore Blood Red Throne while this deletion review is taking place? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 15:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Reply - @El C:, thank you very much for your assistance. However, should the page that existed prior to its deletion (with band members, albums, etc.) not be reinstated? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. The page currently at WP:DRV is the one that I temp undeleted. El_C 15:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Reply - @El C:, nvm, the history is all there. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Account breached

Very much belatedly I've noticed on my list of contributions an entry that has nothing to do with me. I presume the IP logged will reveal this, but in this digital age there is not much certainty left. Believe it or not, the entry is from 14:38, 12 September 2020. I have not noticed anything unusual recently. Sechinsic (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. It's odd because it looks like quite a constructive edit, so doesn't look like your account fell into malicious hands or anything like that. I would of course encourage you to change your password immediately if you haven't already done so. We'll need a checkuser to look into the IP for that edit, it's not something that an ordinary admin like little old me can do. I won't ping anyone as checkusers monitor this page fairly frequently so I'm sure a willing volunteer will turn up. Meanwhile - silly question but I have to ask it - you're SURE it wasn't' you? WaggersTALK 16:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that the Foundation's data retention guidelines only allow for non-public personal information (including IP addresses and user agent information) to be stored for 90 days, I am almost certain that even checkusers won't be able to find out anything helpful about an edit from more than three years ago... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Shot in the dark, @Sechinsic, and it probably doesn't really matter 3 years later, but have you ever shared an IP with SquisherDa (talk · contribs)? They'd edited that page before and have an edit-summary style similar to the one used in Special:Diff/978037814. (If answering this question would compromise your privacy or theirs, please don't answer.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 16:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Non-EC editor-launched, now closed ARBPIA RM

This RM on a clear ARBPIA topic was launched by an editor with only slightly more than 100 edits amid the swamping of en.wiki with new content on 7 October. If it were an open RM, it would presumably be eligible to be procedurally closed, but it went ahead, and it was closed without comment on the procedural irregularity. Should this still be overturned? And if not, is the procedural irregularity an eligible reason for a procedural move review? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I strongly oppose overturning. The rationale is very valid and found consensus, the user was not even alerted of sanctions. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That is not my point; I haven't suggested this has any bearing on the user, since, as you note, there is no suggestion that any awareness was there. The point is one of procedure, in that the launching of this RM fell outside of the activities permitted under the WP:ARBECR clearly covering the WP:ARBPIA CT area. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The rationale is very valid and found consensus from many EC users. I was not arguing on any bearing on the user either Aaron Liu (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The RM could been have closed down, but if the editors responding to the RM and the closer are all extended confirmed it seems pointlessly bureaucratic to overturn it now. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, one support !vote was not extended confirmed, but everyone else was. 6:1 should count as a consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't matter; even if we overturn the RM the title stays the same, as the RM was proposing to reverse an undiscussed move. BilledMammal (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a new RM, but one with actual participation probably shouldn't be closed. Given that there were !votes in support, it would really just be a fundamental violation of WP:NOTBURO to require that one of the many extended-confirmed supporters re-do the RM just for the sake of ARBPIA rulings. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 17:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

From the perspective of WP:Use common sense I'd be inclined to treat these analogously to WP:SK4, which is already the way discussions started by topic-banned editors tend to be handled. So if the only participants are ineligible go ahead and speedily close or remove, however if eligible editors have added comments in good-faith then let it run either way, a gentle message on the user talk page of the initiating editor with a brief explanation is advisable. In this specific case luckily it didn't matter since it was simply an attempt to revert an undiscussed move, something that happens routinely and can even be requested at RM/TR. However, much as it pains me to say this, this is really a matter for WP:ARCA. If we were discussing something unlikely to recur I'd probably just say shrug and move on, however this is going to happen again sooner or later, might as well get the arbs to weigh in before it does. (Non-administrator comment) 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

knudW

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 was recently banned for no apparent reason by this user. 185.107.13.31 (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

They are not an admin, so you were not banned by them. Also to clarify, you would been blocked, not banned. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

If this is about something that happened on the Danish Wikipedia (where KnudW is an admin), the English Wikipedia isn't the place to address it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Close appeal of Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 6#RfC to issue a non-binding resolution to the Wikimedia Foundation

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.

---

First, Mach61 should not have closed this discussion; they were involved, having participated in the RfC and having voted in a closely related RfC. While their involvement was, in their words, minor, involvement is a bright line that can not be crossed; there is no urgency to close this discussion and they should have waited for a truly uninvolved editor to do so rather than taking it upon themselves.

Second, their close was flawed; they discounted !votes on the basis that support !votes disproportionately lacked rationales, and …many support rationales overlapped with those of resolutions #3 and #1. The latter reason is flawed in every circumstance; there is no reason why support or oppose rationales can't overlap between discussions, and it is absurd to discount them because they do. The former reason can be appropriate, but isn't in this case; for a discussion like this where policy is silent we seek to determine the level of community support, and !votes without rationales are still relevant to that - and even if we do fully discount them, the support goes from two thirds in favor to three fifths, still a clear consensus in the absence of other valid reasons to discount the !votes.

If this close is overturned, I would ask that the next closer be an experienced closer; an RfC with this level of participation and potential impact isn't a good candidate for an editor's first close.

Pre-appeal discussion on the closer's talk page can be found here. BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Involved discussion (RfC to issue a non-binding resolution to the Wikimedia Foundation)

• Sole comment:

• On the INVOLVED issue, I think the reply to the resolution #3 voter is basically irrelevant; the support:oppose ratio on that was so high that it would have been SNOW closed if the discussion was anything other than an RFC, a given exception to INVOLVED. No further comment on the !vote at WT:VPW
• On the merits of the close:
  • It seems logical to me that, if the arguments for resolution #2 with the most support are similarly valid for other resolutions, and arguments that only work in favor of #2 have less support, #2 should be seen as having less consensus than other resolutions.
  • I take precisely the opposite reasoning of BM on !votes without rationales. Since the "support" side had the advantage of workshopping this proposal for months and being prepared for when it went live (which I am NOT equating to canvassing), I think it's fair to discount the earliest non-rationale votes as not being representative of the community. And just overall, I think that looking for a diverse array of arguments for a side when gauging consensus for a proposal which necessitates weekslong consultation with the community (unless BM literally wants the resolutions to be posted on Meta immediately), makes sense. You do not want a scenario where a "silent majority" object to the content of a resolution after consensus is supposed to have been ascertained (not unlikely, because even a well-advertised RFC on the VP represents a subset of metapedians.

Opposing due to my credentials is valid, but please don't link NAC, I read it and chose to ignore the advice there. Since we're stuck in the world where I've already closed this discussion, I suggest focusing on the content of my close, not the process that lead to it. If the content is poor, please say so, this discussion deserves a high-quality close. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems logical to me that, if the arguments for disputed resolution #2 which overlap with those of other resolutions, and arguments exclusively in favor to #2 have less support, #2 should be seen as having less consensus than other resolutions.

I'm sorry, but I've read this several times and I still can't understand what you are trying to say. Can you clarify? BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This sentence was rendered ungrammatical when I rewrote it in the draft. It now reads It seems logical to me that, if the arguments for resolution #2 with the most support are similarly valid for other resolutions, and arguments that only work in favor of #2 have less support, #2 should be seen as having less consensus than other resolutions. Mach61 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand what you're trying to say now, though the logic eludes me - an argument being valid for multiple resolutions doesn't make it less valid for a specific resolution. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Undo close and get an established closer to close the RfC. Come on. This RfC was closed by an account that is barely a year old and essentially only started editing Wikipedia in earnest after discussions about this RfC started (while the account shows 1,647 edits now, it had barely made 200 when BilledMammal first kicked off discussion about this RfC). That, and the convoluted logic of the close. --Andreas JN466 09:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate on why you think the closer’s logic is convoluted or flawed? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• BilledMammal your contention is that a single, non-voting, comment on a related RfC is enough to trigger involved? That seems far more than the policy supports (what strong feelings? what appearence of bias) and their single comment would, for me, fall under the administrative action exception to the policy. I do agree that their weighting argument is flawed and that seems like enough to justify a different close. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Uninvolved discussion (RfC to issue a non-binding resolution to the Wikimedia Foundation)

• No need for a close A close is useful in RfCs where it is important to distinguish between simple comments and arguments that show understanding of WP policies and guidelines. In this RfC, policies and guidelines are irrelevant—they do not dictate the community's relationship with the WMF. This is shown by the large number of editors who !voted without providing any rationale whatsoever. It is highly problematic to assess "arguments" and "WP-consensus" in this situation, so I advise just ignoring WP:NOTAVOTE, heeding WP:OF and WP:IAR, and leaving it as a simple vote. Any other end to this RfC is logically awkward. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  A close is a summary of the RFC. I think that it could be useful to summarize these RFCs, as they reflect current community sentiment on these issues. Even if the close doesn't result in concrete policy changes due to WP:CONEXEMPT and other jurisdictional reasons, it can still be useful to have a statement that the community feels X way about these issues, and requests/desires Y actions in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  They don't actually constitute community sentiment, as the participation is meager. More like, consensus is, 'don't care.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm counting 55 respondents to the first RFC. In my opinion, that is a quorum that most Wikipedians would not question. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  A whole 55 is still a small fraction of the editing community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  The 400+ supports this petition got also represents a small proportion of the community. What number would not? Mach61 (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, historically 55 is quite small, that's my point. 400 is more in line with our historically broader gatherings. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Format is different; that was a petition, this was an RfC. 104 editors is an extremely high level of participation for an RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is a petition too, it's just bureaucracy to say it's an RfC, so that is somehow different. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Structurally, this discussion was very different from a petition, but if we continue we'll derail the close appeal so I won't comment further on this - although I'm happy to discuss on my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, there is an area for dissent, which is nice, but many ivoters just ivoted which is petition like, and not really consensus discussion, especially since there is no policy or guideline to discuss or base discussion or consensus on. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  55 for #1, 69 for #2, and 80 for #3, for anyone curious - and 104 editors overall. BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  So not even 104 editors could muster interest in all three questions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Novem Linguae on this. BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Modify closure or overturn. Them being involved probably should be grounds for an overturn in this case, if not for any other reason than to actually have someone independent closing the proposal. Heck, even a user on their first edit, would still be less involved. As for the merits, from a bit of a review of the RFC, while I would absolutely stay away from closing an RFC of this magnitude with a 10-foot pole, I see consensus broadly for 1 and 2, and overwhelmingly for 3. Even with the closer's statement, I'm not entirely sure on their reasoning for closing 2 as no consensus. I do think this probably should be formally closed, though. It is likely beneficial to have at the least an impartial summary of the discussion for anyone in the WMF who gets to review the discussion, or anyone in the community who is interested as well. A small tidbit I'll mention, I'm not exactly satisfied with the closer's response to questioning of their close. Their response reads as somewhat sarcastic and borderline patronizing, and it's not the best type of response to give to someone questioning your actions. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with no close is needed per above, just send it on to the WMF, as is. And see what the response is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  They have already issued a response to resolution #2 which isn't getting much consensus along with a link to discuss it further. The rest will be passed on regardless. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, they have been generally good of late entertaining and issuing responses. I think that is likely to continue in the manner of dialogue. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Their involvement on the issue was minor: they argued against someone opposing #3 for a fairly obscure reason and didn't elaborate (plus SNOW stuff), and the "behavior" rfc shouldn't be relevant as its contents are quite different. Secondly, we're issuing a resolution on behalf of the broad community, so we need even more consensus, not just votes. Thirdly, for resolution #2, after you eliminate all votes without a rationale, you get 58.3% support. This, combined with the clsoer's summary of the discussion which I mostly agree with, IMO lands a result of no consensus mainly thanks to wording. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn close User in question was involved and has little to no history in the area of closing RfCs. Their close, on top of this, contradicts clear consensus, especially in the first discussion (where comments were 68%, or 2:1, in favor of the proposal; the second was still 62% in support). The reasoning they gave simply doesn't explain closing against such wide numerical majorities; the arguments for the oppose side would need to be clearly superior, and as far as I can tell, they aren't. This close should be overturned. I take no stance on whether or not a close in general is warranted, but this ain't it. Toa Nidhiki05 19:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  The first discussion? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they find consensus in favor of this resolution #1? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  The closer introduced their own idea for what would satisfy the first discussion which would utterly gut it. That's why I counted it. Toa Nidhiki05 13:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  I’m still not sure what you mean. If you’re talking about removing a sentence which would have asked the WMF to halt relevant grants not approved by the enwiki community, that was removed by BilledMammal, the proposer, not the closer. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn close, and get a 'crat in here While the closure not being an admin in and of itself is not a factor in determining whether to overturn a close, on a controversial, highly participated RfC purporting to make a statement representing the community as a whole, we should be observing the rules and procedures to a T. Nobody was going to die if the closer, however uninvolved or involved, waited for someone more experienced in reading walls of text and less likely to raise controversy to come along. Since we're here anyways, let's just pass the ball to someone whom the community has explicitly stated its trust in for determining important community consensus. Fermiboson (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Anyone experienced may close a controversial or difficult RFC, including non-admins and non-crats. The custom for the most important and controversial RFCs is to request a panel close (multiple people). I've never seen a "crat must close this" request for an RFC closer, so in my opinion this is non-standard and I do not recommend it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Wikimedia Foundation banner fundraising campaign on English Wikipedia starts next week

Dear all,

The WMF is running its annual banner fundraising campaign for non logged in users in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the US from 28th of November to the 31st of December 2023.

Thank you to everyone who has worked together to prepare the campaign this year! We’ve built up the collaboration process this year on the community collaboration page, at in person events (e.g. Wikimania and WikiCon North America), and in other individual discussions. More information around the campaign, like example banners and messaging, can be found on the community collaboration page. We continue to welcome ideas on the page.

Some more resources around the fundraising campaign:

• Love Wikipedia? Get to know the nonprofit behind it by Maryana Iskander
• ABC for Fundraising: Advancing Banner Collaboration for fundraising campaigns by Julia Brungs
• Preparing Together: Updates on 2023 English fundraising by Julia Brungs
• The Fundraising Report 2022/23
• 7 reasons you should donate to Wikipedia by Lisa Seitz Gruwell

Generally, before and during the campaign, you can contact me directly at jbrungs at wikimedia dot org, or the team:

• On the talk page of the fundraising team
• If you need to report a bug or technical issue, please create a phabricator ticket
• If you see a donor on a talk page, VRT or social media having difficulties in donating, please refer them to donatewikimedia.org

Thank you for the collaborative effort this year,

Julia JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

All things being equal, a banner campaign that told the truth would be more interesting. ——Serial 14:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@JBrungs (WMF): What do you mean the fundraising is starting next week? Logged out in the U.S., I have been seeing fundraising banners and pop-ups for quite some time. RudolfRed (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @RudolfRed,

We have been running pre-tests to test both our technical infrastructure as well as messaging that we are co-creating with the community, since July. These have been short 3-6 hours tests mainly, as of next week, we will be running fundraising banners for everyone who is logged out (with an impression cap at 10x). As you mentioned, if you are logged into your account, you will not see the banners. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Despite being logged in, if I just browse to wikipedia.org, I'm still getting the fundraising propaganda. This shouldn't be the case as I've explicitly disabled the option for this on my user preferences. Please fix this. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joseph2302 You can't be "logged in" to wikipedia.org; you should not see this on projects you are logged in to such as https://en.wikipedia.org — xaosflux ^Talk 17:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Bot spam

User:2603:7000:3EF0:2D10:493:90:E517:5BCA Is spamming my talkpage and their own. Lankyant (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. Galobtter (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you :) Lankyant (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Dcpoliticaljunkie's vandalizing edit behaviour.

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

---

User:Dcpoliticaljunkie has kept vandalizing multiple wikipedia pages including Elissa Slotkin, Hill Harper and Blue Dog Coalition For example, these are his last 4 edits that are all clear vandalizing.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hill_Harper&diff=prev&oldid=1186520363 in this edit he deleted the whole section about hill harper rejecting 20M$ bribe, even though it has 6 differrent secondary sources fffrom reliable, notable sourcces.

2:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Dog_Coalition&diff=prev&oldid=1186460852 in this edit he added"Most Blue Dogs are elected in competitive, Republican-leaning districts" while the soure only says "There are five women among the Blue Dogs, including four who won GOP districts in 2018." which can only show most of the women in blue dog coalition, not most of all the members in the blue dog coalition, is from competitive, Republican-leaning districts

3,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elissa_Slotkin&diff=prev&oldid=1186459136 in this edit he claims "She moved back to her family farm in Holly outside the 7th congressional district in August 2023." while the source says "Slotkin, who is running for U.S. Senate, left Lansing after her lease on a condo there ended before the holidays and while she and husband Dave Moore were working out the terms of their divorce, spokesman Austin Cook said. The divorce was announced publicly in February." which means in fact she moved before February,but he just add this wrong information anyway.

4,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elissa_Slotkin&diff=prev&oldid=1186458884 in this edit he fully deleted the fact that Slotkin advocated for a government program that Hollister's company benefited from, while one of the two sources clearly emphasized it."Slotkin also advocated for a government program that her landlord's company benefited from. That's made Slotkin's residency in Lansing a topic of debate in her hotly contested race for a third term against Republican state Sen. Tom Barrett of Charlotte, which is among the most competitive U.S. House contests nationally."

Please clean this up as soon as possible and prevent him from doing this again. NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Notwithstanding adherence to sourcing, vandalism is a very different thing. This is not vandalism. ANI is not for arguments about content. And you've not notified them about this, which is required by the big red notice. It looks to me like this is retaliation for Dcpoliticaljunkie's AN3 report against you. Acroterion (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Acroterion, there's also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Elissa Slotkin. This article is the most weirdly-contentious-but-doesn't-actually-look-contentious article I've ever seen. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that there's like four or five people on Twitter who have been posting about their attempts to make her article more critical, and so every time one of them goes down, they post about how corrupt WP is there, and then a new one joins the fight. Cpotisch (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Example 1 is a WP:ECR violation and should have been reverted. The rest are content disputes. Vandalism has a highly specific meaning on Wikipedia, and this is not it. Referring to good faith edits as vandalism is a personal attack, so please stop doing that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

Topic unban request

I'm asking the admins to please consider removing my Syria topic ban. I know what I was banned for, edit warring, causing disruption, not using a civil language with other users, sockpuppetry, and failing to reach an agreement through discussions. and I apologise to all of the Wikipedia community and promise that I will never engage any any disruptive activity again. During my topic ban ( more than 1 year ), I contributed so much to the community portal by fixing hundreds and hundreds of grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes across many articles Whatsupkarren (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The topic ban was applied here on 2022-08-11 and reads, "The community imposes an indefinite topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed; this ban may be appealed after 6 months (and every 6 months thereafter)." This ban was logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Active_editing_restrictions. I have not verified that Whatsupkarren has avoided editing about Syria-related topics. --Yamla (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

From what I found, it seems that, at least on this wiki (hint), they didn't edit Syria-related topics. Nobody (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

They seem to have skirted the edges with a series of edits on people of Kurdish ancestry in October last year (example) but appear to have stayed very clear on en:wp since. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to add to the info, the topic ban was a step-down restriction from a full block/ban as a condition of a successful unban request. I've looked through their contributions and agree with the others, they seem to have abided by the terms of the ban and have edited constructively and without controversy. I'm all for rehabilitation so I'm minded to support the request. I'd be interested to know what kind of editing they plan to now do within the Syria topic area, but my support isn't conditional on an answer to that. WaggersTALK 15:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Waggers There are so many notable Syrian figures that do not have articles on English Wikipedia, to name a few: Paul Daher, Farid Boulad Bey, Benedicto Chuaqui. I’ll work on creating many of these.

I will also work on expanding articles such as, palmyra, Ebla, Ugarit, Umm el-Marra, and Tell Abu Hureyra

Wikipedia doesn’t have a lot of active users interested in Syria, I believe I can add so much value Whatsupkarren (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Support They seem genuinely constructive, and I don't see any further disruption their ban would prevent. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Extra eyes at AfD

Hi all, I have taken some pretty drastic action at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Porter to reduce the impact of disruptive canvassing and potential sockpuppetry. I don't like restricting access to AfD participation via semi-protection when I can avoid it, but felt like this was so egregious that I had to - open to review of course, and if anyone disagrees please let me know.

Seeking more eyes on the discussion as a whole as well as the talk page of the AfD (when the inevitable edit requests come), I am travelling back end of this week so may not be quite as available to handle. Thanks in advance, Daniel (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Daniel: Not an administrator, of course, though I wonder if pending changes might have mitigated this, just to ensure an extra eye on the !vote before fully being visible instead of fully prohibiting the edit. I agree with the decision to protect, and I suppose any non-autoconfirmed editors can make an edit request on the talk page of the AFD, though it feels almost a little off to have it semi-protected, especially an AFD. Not an objection, though, just a thought I had. The SPAs lately seem to be out of control, though. (I'll point out as a side-note that even I would've discounted all or pretty much all of those collapsed !vote's if I were the one to close the discussion.) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Over the years, semi-protection has been the usual route. I've seen many of these in over two decades, and this is far from the most egregious case. ({{Not a ballot}} dates from 2005, and the fact that we had to come up with a boilerplate notice in the first place shows you how regular it was then.) My long experience is that the talk page comments end up being just more of the same when a whole load of non-editors confuse fame and importance with notability and swamp a deletion discussion in noise that doesn't help we encyclopaedists to make a decision properly. Uncle G (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Locking of this account

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, please lock my account globally on all connected projects. If this is not possible here, please let me know that I can take care of it elsewhere. Thank you, RandomDuck5000 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want to get rid of this account, you can always change its password to a random one that you won't save, having changed its email to a random disposable address. This way the account will be unrecoverable. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's functionally what a lock is anyways (it prevents users from logging in). Galobtter (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Only a steward can globally lock your account. I have no idea if stewards grant self-requested locks, but you can ask at Meta.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Recent Deaths proxy IP vandalism

There has been an individual vandalizing pages on RD with things that are apparently bad enough for RevDel. Can we set up an edit filter or something to get it to stop? DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 17:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

EFMs are aware, but for obvious reasons we won't be discussing any filters in public. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, apparently that IP might be that one banned user who posts revision deletable edits. — 64andtim (chat • see here) 03:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Internal project discussions

I was informed on WP:RPP that all non-EC editors are not allowed to participate in internal project discussions (e.g., AfD, RFC, RM). Can administrators please share their opinion on this ruling, according to which non-EC users are forbidden on all talk pages even if a WP:RFC/A is ongiong ? 89.206.112.13 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: that statement was made specifically about topic areas covered by WP:ARBECR. Schazjmd (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that IPs cannot become extended confirmed (and regardless, you don't meet the requirements for extended confirmed since you only have 68 contributions, far short of the 500 required across a minimum of 30 days), your only two options would be to request amendment from the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA to the remedy as a whole to exempt you from its provisions (highly unlikely, though I'd be interested to see how it might be implemented), or, open an RFC to overturn the decision of ArbCom, (even less likely, as you'd need to actually convince the community that there is some value in your input and that ArbCom's remedy is, for some reason, a grave mistake that harms the encyclopedia, which I'm not really seeing). EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The reason for this restriction is that certain topic areas are extremely controversial and tend to attract bad editors. Requiring a significant number of edits and a significant amount of time serve 3 purposes: They prevent someone from coming just in order to screw up these articles; they guarantee that an editor who edits them must gain some idea of what Wikipedia is; and the amount of investment makes sockpuppetry much less likely - especially given the difficulty in the user in question preventing it's detection while accumulating this level of activity. ARBCOM has further decided that even discussions in these areas became problematic, so they made these restrictions apply there, too. Animal lover |666| 10:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, which is why I noted both of the available options would be basically impossible. Of course, I suppose they're welcome to try, but it'd be far easier to just create an account and get extended confirmed than to go to ArbCom. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 17:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I just realized that this is actively discussed in three different venues now: here, at an AE appeal, and at ACN (two sections). Which seems... inefficient. El_C 15:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, it seems like the 500/30 thing continually causes this type of problem. I suppose it's probably the least of evils that prevents sockpuppets from taking over discussions at contentious topics, but I always wonder why it's not just applied the same as WP:BANREVERT (where if a contribution is useful, there's no real need to remove it). Similarly to that, it seems as though even a banned editor would still have more standing in CT discussions than a non-extended-confirmed editor acting in good faith. I suppose that's probably more of an ArbCom thing, but it seems needlessly hostile to not differentiate between unhelpful (i.e sockpuppetry) and helpful (i.e making suggestions in good faith, participating in RFCs, and showing a legitimate interest in keeping the encyclopedia up to date and knowledgeable). I'll go a step further and state our current templated messages for ECP/CT restrictions seem bitey to a new user. To an experienced user, it's just a normal process to make them aware of contentious topics, but to a new user, it seems frankly as though we're trying to scare them off or that their contribution isn't welcome at all. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I get this can be a little confusing, however certain WP:Contentious topics now have WP:ECR attached to them, which among other things means no participating in RFCs unless you are extended confirmed. Gotta love how we continue to make internal WP:WIKISPEAK jargon that means something specific and different from normal English.

Recently, there has been somewhat of an expansion to the restrictions limiting participation from non-EC editors in certain contentious areas, first with RMs and related (though arguably that was simply a clarification), with some of the more recent changes seemingly limiting talk page discussion even further if my understanding is correct too busy too really keep up with things and mostly inactive these years anyway. More importantly, the areas covered continue to grow.

But the prohibition on non-30/500 editors participating in certain "internal discussions" which was clearly intended to cover RFCs is quite a bit older, and as applied to topics associated with the Israeli–Palestinian conflict predates ECP itself. Even before that, reverts of unregistered users were exempt from the 1RR applied to the topic area.

There's a certain etiquette that's appropriate when approaching fraught areas as an unregistered user, especially when you don't have too many edits on your current IP. Much of the time when you leave a comment that all users in a dispute will find helpful, especially if couched with careful reference to our policies and guidelines it will be welcomed. However if you are reverted it's usually best to shrug and move on. Of course sometimes we all stumble into theses areas accidentally or without really having thought things through, misunderstandings happen; it's easy to get frustrated over unthinking adherence to procedure. But at the end of the day it's just probably not something worth fighting over.

One of the advantages of staying unregistered is that page protections serve as automatic guideposts to when you might cross into one of those areas with a poor input-to-output ratio. True, there are some quick fixes you won't be able to make, but for the most part you'll be able to spend your time far more efficiently elsewhere.

Sorry this got long, I hope you find this helpful. (Non-administrator comment) 184.152.68.190 (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I need to be unblocked.

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 has been a misunderstanding people have lost their tempers there are insults being embedded into texts and I want to add new texts about other subjects that interest me. Vergara Acosta (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't appear to be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, here's the block https://es.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:UsuariosBloqueados&wpTarget=%236514564 Vergara Acosta (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that Spanish Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a difference? Do I need to go somewhere else? Vergara Acosta (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK, you need to be unblocked by administrators at Spanish Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Vergara Acosta See here es:Ayuda:Guía para apelar bloqueos --Orgullomoore (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Opabinia regalis resignation

In light of the voting phase of the arbcom election starting soon, I've decided to make official what has been de facto true for a while now and resign from the committee. Obviously I have been overtaken by real-life commitments and haven't had the time to contribute as I'd hoped this year, and I don't see that changing in the short time left in my term. Apologies and appreciation to those who picked up more work than they signed up for in my absence. I will also be giving up CU/OS, since I don't have time to do those jobs either. For everyone running in this year's election, good luck, and best wishes to the 2024 committee! Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Opabinia regalis resignation

Alalch E.'s topic ban rescinded

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Alalch E. (talk · contribs)'s December 2022 topic ban (imposed under the username Twsabin (talk · contribs)) from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed, is rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, — Wug·a·po·des 09:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Alalch E.'s topic ban rescinded

Community ban proposal for Andrew5

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

---

This editor has a long history of deception and socking starting in 2019. They have persistently socked since then, trolled others by obsessing over certain aspects of editing, trying to justify the abuse of multiple accounts, and even on some of their good-hand accounts such as HurricaneTracker495, they had engaged in some bad-faith behavior, such as abusing multiple IP addresses to vote in the same discussion. More recently, there has been the recent creation and usage of bad-hand accounts and IP addresses such as SPIhelper5, 69.118.232.58, and WėatherWritor (impersonating WeatherWriter), which he has used to disrupt discussions (example 1, example 2). In addition, when blocked, he often makes abusive unblock requests, such as lying about his sockpuppetry, and making legal threats with his most recent account. Because of this long-term, increasing disruption, I propose that we formally ban this user from editing Wikipedia. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 17:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 17:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Aren't they are already de facto banned per WP:THREESTRIKES? They have way more than two sockpuppets used to evade a block, with documentation. I don't see any need to re-do a ban discussion for someone who would already be banned by policy. The only real difference is changing the tag on their user page to say banned instead of blocked. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  @EggRoll97: Hmm, that's true. Should we update the tag though so it indicates that they're already banned, so discussions like this aren't started in the future, or should they remain without the "banned" parameter per WP:DENY? ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 18:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Image issue on Philadelphia Museum of Art article

I don't know if this is the place to report this issue. If it isn't, refer to me where to report this or forward it over. Anyway, something weird is going on the image in the Philadelphia Museum of Art at the popular culture section. There is an image there that is not showing up on the article, but when you edit that section, it does show up and when you try to fix it, it doesn't show. See what you all think. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan, WP:VPT would probably be a better place to bring this up. That is weird behavior and I can't see anything in the source to cause it. Schazjmd (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. This wasn't a technical problem. Amusingly, I've just been writing in the introduction of the bracket article how brackets nest. ☺

The brute force methodology for finding the error was — in preview and being careful never to publish — progressively blanking earlier and earlier sections one by one until the error went away. That led me to which section had the markup error that was affecting everything below it.

Uncle G (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

John Hawkins (naval commander)

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.

---

Does someone else want to deal with the article, Some of what Desertarun put in the article is wrong. For instance "In June 2020, Plymouth City Council announced that due to Hawkins's links with the slave trade, it planned to rename Sir John Hawkins Square" And not 2023, for what he was adding. Why remove the legit citations that say correct dates? Some of the grammar on the article? Anyway, I can't do anymore per the WP:3RR, I can't be bothered to reply to him on the talk page. Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a talk page for a reason, and you decided not to use it why? You've misused this noticeboard. Desertarun (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to reply to him on the talk page – this is an extraordinarily confusing thing to say while escalating to WP:AN. You are an experienced user, and you clearly know that using the talk page is what you should be doing at this point. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup. If I was an admin (unlikely prospect...), I'd possibly be contemplating a short block of Govvy, to enable time for contemplation of the relative merits of bothering oneself, rather than bothering multiple other people with better things to do with their time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

14:18, 25 November 2023‎ Govvy talk contribs‎ 23,997 bytes +687‎ Restored revision 1186619993 by Renewal6 (talk): Rvv, due to inconsitencies of information, removal of citations, and grammer. (pun my bad spelling),

18:59, 25 November 2023‎ Govvy talk contribs‎ 23,997 bytes +687‎ Reverted good faith edits by Desertarun (talk): Rv, you added incorrect information and remove refs which prove that. And you restored some bad grammer from my postective. Please don't remove the older refs.

Hence, I feel I posted enough in the edit summary, why on earth would you want to block me? That would simply be an abuse of admin powers to do that. I raise what I see as an issue, I felt a response from someone else was needed, I did not expect comments like "I'd possibly be contemplating a short block of Govvy, to enable time for contemplation of the relative merits of bothering oneself," That is a hostile response and an unacceptable response. As for Maddy's comments, there are talk pages all over the place. Which ones people choose to use is also not an excuse to suggest sanctioning someone. Govvy (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Don't Delete the Main Page

Gotta love Twinkle misclicks. Though I'm not sure which is funnier, the actual misclick itself, or the fact that it resulted in such a casual talk page note simply stating "please delete it" as if the Main page is some ordinary page. Can't stop laughing. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Trout OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Twinkle should be aware of a small number of pages which definitely should never be deleted (the Main Page, core policies, major notice boards and complaint boards) and not even give deletion tagging as an option. Animal lover |666| 06:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Taking Out The Trash I did that too once! You are not alone, see entry 35 for September in my CSD log. Also, be careful with the unlink tool, as I unlinked about 20 backlinks to the page Wikipedia once without realizing it. Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why the hell the unlink tool is so easy to click on. It's a gigantic footgun, I accidentally did it (or started to) a couple times too. It seems like a rare enough thing that you'd be fine putting it behind a confirm dialog. jp×g🗯️ 23:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG It was quite confusing when I had tagged a page for G11 and just checked for backlinks just in case the SPA who created it had managed to spread their handiwork. Turns out I was accidentally on the page Wikipedia and I got very confused when the tool started to undo hundreds of links before I got rate limited. Seawolf35 ^T--C Seawolf35 ^T--C 00:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I've completely turned off the unlink feature since I had no idea what it does or what it was supposed to be used for. Though I too wonder if highly visible pages should be prevented from being CSD tagged as was suggested above. Don't think an edit filter could do it, but maybe some changes to TWs and other related scripts in the backend should throw an error message or send people to WP:DDTMP instead of just posting on the talk page. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought this was a prank for a sec, then I checked the Twinkle code...

talk_page.setNewSectionTitle(pageobj.getPageName() + ' nominated for CSD, request deletion');
:talk_page.setNewSectionText(code + '\n\nI was unable to tag ' + pageobj.getPageName() + ' so please delete it. ~~~~');

Learn something new every day. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This user has nominated the Main page for deletion.

I don't know if I violated WP:BEANS by making this but... Seawolf35 ^T--C 03:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Taking Out The Trash All yours Seawolf35 ^T--C 03:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You should probably add the Special:Diff in that too, nobody is going to believe it. I personally couldn't. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps {{uw-delmain1}} and the rest of the set needs a parameter so the message can be customized for non-sysops. Incidentally, there's a little php hack that prevents accidental deletions of the Main Page by sysops, wouldn't want that deletion log getting any longer. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

if i'm reading the relevant village stocks entries correctly, the hack failed. ltbdl (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

That hack was only added after the deletions listed in the stocks. You now get a permisions error if you try to delete or move the main page. --Chris 15:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, hence the part about not making it any longer. Granted much of the log length comes from deliberate deletions of the Main Page, though that at least now requires non-trivial effort. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Swalors

Swalors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) @Swalors is disruptive and edit warring in articles Gayur-khan and Simsim despite my requests to stop. He's removing WP:COMMONNAME supported by number of WP:RS (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - here he added AI image that he presented as the image of Gayur-khan, 6, 7) renamed the article without discussing (1). I recommended the user to use talk page to explain his concerns there but he instead continued on edit warring despite his edits being reverted by me and another user (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You are required to notify the user of this complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely forgot about that as it's been long since I've made a complaint. I notified the user. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Another sockpuppets of Holiptholipt

Another one. @Drmies: Holiptholipt (talk · contribs) is back with 2800:810:48E:80D0:5DDF:CB58:9CFB:D1AA [30] now, a week after he was banned for the same sockpuppet edits on the same pages.[31] I really don't think this guy will ever stop looking at how many accounts he has made every week in the last year, should a page protection be implemented again? BastianMAT (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• BastianMAT, OK--but listen. A few things: he's not banned; he's blocked. When you put diffs in here, link to the edit, not the version. In the last report you put mobile diffs and that's complicated for most editors. In this case, it would be helpful if you had a look at those articles to see if similar edits were made from similar IPs, so that we can more easily consider a rangeblock. And finally, yes, we all know this guy is not going to stop, and page protection--he's active on a bunch of different ones and we can't protect them all, so if there are frequent targets, note those either in a report, or at WP:RFPP. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Suspension of Beeblebrox

The Arbitration Committee has determined that Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) has repeatedly failed to [p]reserve in appropriate confidence the contents of private correspondence sent to the Committee and the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations by making disclosures on off-wiki forums. These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums. Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Conduct of arbitrators, Beeblebrox is suspended from Arbitration Committee membership for a period of six months from this date. During this period, Beeblebrox's CheckUser and Oversight permissions and his access to applicable mailing lists (including the functionaries' mailing list) are revoked. Following this period, Beeblebrox may request reinstatement of his permissions or mailing list access by applying to the Arbitration Committee. Beeblebrox may also regain access via election to the committee.

Support: Barkeep49, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Enterprisey, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, Izno, L235, Primefac, SilkTork, Wugapodes

Oppose:

Abstain: Moneytrees

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Suspension of Beeblebrox

Topic unban request

I'm asking the admins to please consider removing my Syria topic ban. I know what I was banned for, edit warring, causing disruption, not using a civil language with other users, sockpuppetry, and failing to reach an agreement through discussions. and I apologise to all of the Wikipedia community and promise that I will never engage any any disruptive activity again. During my topic ban ( more than 1 year ), I contributed so much to the community portal by fixing hundreds and hundreds of grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes across many articles Whatsupkarren (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The topic ban was applied here on 2022-08-11 and reads, "The community imposes an indefinite topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed; this ban may be appealed after 6 months (and every 6 months thereafter)." This ban was logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Active_editing_restrictions. I have not verified that Whatsupkarren has avoided editing about Syria-related topics. --Yamla (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

From what I found, it seems that, at least on this wiki (hint), they didn't edit Syria-related topics. Nobody (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

They seem to have skirted the edges with a series of edits on people of Kurdish ancestry in October last year (example) but appear to have stayed very clear on en:wp since. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to add to the info, the topic ban was a step-down restriction from a full block/ban as a condition of a successful unban request. I've looked through their contributions and agree with the others, they seem to have abided by the terms of the ban and have edited constructively and without controversy. I'm all for rehabilitation so I'm minded to support the request. I'd be interested to know what kind of editing they plan to now do within the Syria topic area, but my support isn't conditional on an answer to that. WaggersTALK 15:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Waggers There are so many notable Syrian figures that do not have articles on English Wikipedia, to name a few: Paul Daher, Farid Boulad Bey, Benedicto Chuaqui. I’ll work on creating many of these.

I will also work on expanding articles such as, palmyra, Ebla, Ugarit, Umm el-Marra, and Tell Abu Hureyra

Wikipedia doesn’t have a lot of active users interested in Syria, I believe I can add so much value Whatsupkarren (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Support They seem genuinely constructive, and I don't see any further disruption their ban would prevent. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

My topic unban request was removed by a bot before being closed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1187091102 Whatsupkarren (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed malformed copy and paste. QoH's dirty sock (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Selfstudier

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

---

User @Selfstudier deliberately deleting comments and marks off edit request not yet resolved in attempt to obtain consensus on issues raised regarding reliability and verification of sources + overciting.

This is disruptive editing that requires immediate admin intervention. I call for reverting the deletions and other changes done by this user and to consider revoking his editing permissions. EmbeddedReason (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@EmbeddedReason, their post to your talk page explains the removal of your comments from the article talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, you are required to notify the other editor (see banner at top of this page). I have done so for you this time. Schazjmd (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks EmbeddedReason (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletions were done few minutes after comments were added.

Including last deletion of comment addressing this disruptive behaviour of the user

@Schazjmd deleting suggestions trying to obtain consensus to resolve ER - under the pretence they're "speeches" is not an explanation. Marking off the whole issue while users still addressing it is too not beneficial. EmbeddedReason (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR is very clear that Selfstudier was correct, and EmbeddedReason was not entitled to make the edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. @EmbeddedReason, that article is subject to an extended confirmed restriction. Per that restriction, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. You are not extended-confirmed yet (it requires 500 edits and 30 days). You can make an edit request on the talk page, but nothing else until you reach extended-confirmed. Schazjmd (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger@Schazjmd

I'd like to point out that WP:ARBECR amendment was on 11.11.23 (2 weeks ago)

Reading the discussion leading to it, I can't see how anyone would agree the circumstances match those discussed.

Are we implying that instant deletion of constructive comments just for sake of revert is what this policy intended to fix or how its meant to be enforced?

As non-ECR editor I find it highly disruptive and without reason to just blindly erase constructive feedback and discussions just for the sake of "gotcha". Reminding you we're talking about 2 short constructive comments, not what I'd consider 'disruptive editing or talk' EmbeddedReason (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

When you have sufficient experience making constructive edits to Wikipedia in less contentious areas, you will be welcome to come back and contribute to RfCs in this subject area. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an Arbcom decision, it's not something admins or other general editors have any say in. Those are indeed the rules at this time. Canterbury Tail talk 20:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The edit request was made by me and my comments on it which were insta-deleted are replies to questions.

When several users were reaching agreement that issue demands addressing, Selfstudier decided to block further discussion on the ER, even though not resolved, mark it all off and erase future comments to it!

The aforementioned policy, with its very weirdly timed baked amendment, isn't the issue here.

Schazjmd Phil Bridger

Canterbury Tail

JayBeeEll With respect, hope Wikipedia still isn't China run. EmbeddedReason (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As a non-EC editor, you essentially have no standing to make edits related to the topic. You can make an edit request, but any other editor can remove it, even without providing reason. Further, making a complaint against another editor as a non-EC editor in the WP:ARBPIA area is fully not allowed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Request to re-open Georges Feydeau infobox RFC

This a request to reopen an RFC and allow it to run longer, because:

• Legobot tagged the RFC on September 29; the DNAU was dated Nov. 3 (tomorrow).
• On October 30, further input was requested at VPR
• That day, 2 editors voted (including me)
• On October 31, 4 editors voted
• On November 1, 1 editor voted
• On November 2, 1 editor voted
• Five hours later, the RFC was closed as "no consensus."
• The closer wrote, "It's right to close it now," but I disagree. There is no rule that says an RFC must be closed after 30 days, and this one was still attracting new participants daily -- this is contrary to WP:WHENCLOSE
• Of the 8 new votes that had come in after the VPR posting, 5 were "yes" and 3 were "no," so this was trending towards consensus, rather than away from it.
• The final tally at closure was 18 yes, 13 no, or 58% in favor (18/31).

Aside from being closed too early, I think the closing statement itself does not meet the standards for closing statements, because:

• It provided no explanation for how it arrived at a no-consensus result -- as WP:CLOSE says, "A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached." This closing statement didn't do that.
• The closing statement did not summarize, or even identify, any arguments, on either side
• It did not weigh any votes, although some votes seemed to lack any meaningful rationale (such as the final one)
• It did not count the votes (if you think that sort of thing matters)
• What it did was simply assert "no consensus," and then write a generic description of how WP:ONUS works after a no-consensus RFC.

Because there was still active, daily participation from new editors, because the trend line was towards consensus rather than away from it, and because the closing statement didn't explain the no-consensus result or otherwise follow WP:CLOSE or WP:ACD, I think this should be re-opened and allowed to continue running until participation dries up, and then re-closed. This will be more efficient than having to re-run the RFC later, and so will save editor time in the long run. Levivich (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"It did not count the votes. See Wikipedia:Consensus: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote". Given there was no consensus in the weight of the arguments (based on policy and guidelines), the "trending towards consensus" claim is a straw man. Vote counting has never had a place on WP.

In your little chronology, you missed the point that Legobot removing expired RFC template on 29 October after thirty days, so it's already run over a fair period already. The advertisement at VPR on 30 October was the second time it had been advertised at that venue, the first time being on 29 September. Is creating more heat and dramah and dragging out a timesink rfc really beneficial? It wasn't on 30 October (when I requested a close at WP:RFCL, and I doubt it is now either. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closer: Levivich gives me two substantive points to respond to.

1. I closed the discussion prematurely. No, I didn't. That discussion had gone on for more than the requisite amount of time. It was eligible to be closed. With AfDs, there's a deplorable tendency to relist them when they don't reach consensus, but RfCs aren't the same; they're 30 day discussions that suck up a lot of volunteer time. We only want them relisted in exceptional circumstances. The "trending towards consensus" argument reduces to "if you'd closed it at a different time you might have got to the result I wanted".
2. I didn't say how I got to "no consensus", and I didn't summarise the arguments, and I didn't count the !votes, and I simply asserted that the outcome was no consensus, all of which are just the same point said four different ways. The arguments reduce to "Infoboxes are useful" and "The infobox information is redundant to the first paragraph". Editors cited no policy or guideline that says we should or shouldn't have infoboxes, because no such policy or guideline exists. It's just an aesthetic judgment.

Changes to an article need consensus; the consensus wasn't there; and at some point we have to draw a line under it.—S Marshall T/C 20:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closed when !votes were still coming in, better to re-open it now and let that continue to see if a consensus can develop. nableezy - 22:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do we have to draw a line under it? That is how filibustering works, when you have what you want in place you can block changes by "no consensus". If anything, your close opens the door to a brand new rehashing of the same discussion, because you didnt draw a line under it, you left it unresolved. If the discussion is continuing to get new input it should be allowed to continue. Because right now, the way I see it, anybody is totally justified in opening a brand new RFC on the exact same question. Because there is no consensus against the change. nableezy - 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying I "had what I want in place" and I was trying to "block changes"?—S Marshall T/C 20:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, of course not, sorry if that was unclear. I am not accusing you as closer of anything, but what I am saying is that when users feel they have their position in place as the status quo that they can, and often will, filibuster discussions to the point of aiming to prevail by no consensus. And since this was continuing to draw in more participation, that process should have been allowed to continue so that a consensus could form even with the volume from the people who really really care about the issue. nableezy - 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You can't filibuster an RFC. !Voting and walking away still counts in the end judgement and adds no more time to the process. RFCs are timesinks and should only be used sparingly, which is why WP:RFCBEFORE "RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable". If anyone does decide to open a new RFC right now, it would be disruptive in the extreme. Those that care about the article and the subject are likely to have had it on their watchlist ahave had ample opportunity to comment on it in the previous 30 days. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes you certainly can, and Id say as a rough definition that making 20 out of the 115 comments in a discussion qualifies. Add to it the *involved* support of a no consensus close here because, surprise, that results in your (minority) position prevailing, and Id say that is actually a solid example. Besides, the whole point of an RFC is to get outside perspectives, presumably the reason an RFC is opened is because the people who do care about the article and the subject are likely to have had it on their watchlist have not come to a consensus locally and so they seek out more views from the wider community to find what consensus may be. And for the record, I probably would have voted no infobox. nableezy - 20:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, you can't: filibustering is about extending or prolonging a discussion to stop other people getting their argument in.This is not the case with an RFC. If someone is replying to a point, it doesn't stop anyone (or 5 or 10 people) from !voting at the same time.

Just a little correction: I did not make 20 comments in the !vote section. I made about 15 comments to the that section (not the discussion section), and that is less than at least one editor who was vocal in his support for an IB, so if you want to make something of it, we cancelled each other out. And, as a reminder, "no consensus" for a change is an entirely acceptable and common end to an RFC. - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, filibustering is about talking so much that no change happens. Anyway, I think this should be reopened and more input sought out. nableezy - 21:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Filibustering is about extending a discussion to stop others talking (or at least it was when I did my politics degree - maybe its definition has changed considerably in the meantime). And it's not possible at RFC because one person commenting doesn't stop a hundred others from adding their input. It's a false parallel. If you think I've tried to extend the discussion, you've missed the point, but perhaps the others who commented multiple times (including at least one who commented more than me), may have had a different idea, but you'll have to ask them. - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, when people see a clusterfuck of a discussion they will stay away. Which is one of the reasons why people turn them into clusterfucks. Hey look, its happening here. nableezy - 21:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it possibly is, but at the RFC (as with elsewhere) it takes more than one to tango - and this is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, as is an RfC. I'm not going to get into a finger pointing game, but you should count up comments made by people, if you want to try and have a go at me for something: in the !vote section, one IB supporter made 16 comments; I made 15 (yes, I acknowledge that's too many); a second IB supporter made 14. I don't think they were filibustering any more than I was, and I don't think they were trying to turn it into a clusterfuck any more than I was. I do, however, resent your implication that I tried to turn it into a clusterfuck, or I did so as part of some malicious gameplan. Neither of those are true, and you should strike the implication. - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Is "Clusterfuck" one of those bird names they're trying to change? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see a strong reason to reverse this closure. S Marshall is correct in that there isn't a clear-cut policy on whether an article should have an infobox; as such, infobox discussions are essentially a headcount, and there isn't a good reason to give "I don't want this article to have an infobox" less weight than a more long-winded argument. Under the circumstances 18/31 is on the border between weak consensus and none, and I cannot fault a finding of no consensus. Aside; this is why the infobox CTOP designation should remain in force. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry to "badger opposes", but I'd like to respond to there isn't a good reason to give "I don't want this article to have an infobox" less weight than a more long-winded argument. While it's true there isn't a clear-cut policy on whether an article should have an infobox, there is also no clear-cut policy on whether a stand-alone article should exist. WP:N is a guideline. There isn't a clear-cut policy on when a close should be overturned. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is an information page. There isn't a clear-cut policy on when to use WP:IAR, which is probably the least clear-cut of all policies. But in all these situations, we weigh votes based on strength of arguments. Why shouldn't we weigh votes based on the strength of arguments in infobox discussions?

  If there were a clear-cut policy, we wouldn't need to consider strength of arguments at all, because the policy would be clear, and all we'd have to do is apply it. Strength of arguments is exactly what we need to look at when we're talking about anything that doesn't have a clear-cut policy. It makes no sense to me that we should approach it as: (a) if there is a policy, apply it, or (b) if there is no policy, take a headcount. That seems to be the very opposite of WP:NOTAVOTE.

  I submit that there are good arguments for, and against, having an infobox, and editors make such arguments in every infobox RFC (though not every editor), and you can see examples on both sides in the RFC at issue here.

  On the other hand, if we accept that infobox discussions are essentially a headcount, why is 18/31, 58%, on the border? Is "consensus" 60%? Why not 51%? Is that in any clear-cut policy, guideline, info page, or anything?

  Finally, if we accept that it was on the border between weak consensus and none, and there were new votes coming in daily, isn't that exactly the reason to leave the RFC open, because it's on the border, so a few more votes could make a difference, one way or the other? Levivich (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Levivich, with respect, you're splitting hairs between policy narrowly construed in Category:Wikipedia policies, and policy broadly construed, meaning documented principles. We have documented policies and guidelines about notability. On infoboxes, we don't. We therefore have no basis to weigh votes besides setting aside entirely off-topic or ad hominem commentary: strength of argument is based on policy, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. And you're quite wrong that clear guidelines obviate the need for discussion; we have tons of guidelines about notability, yet AfDs remain contentious.

  As to the timing issue that BK49 raises below (I appreciate the note, Barkeep, I agree it's rare for us to disagree) I wouldn't necessarily object to this RfC being open for longer, but I don't see a strong reason to extend it purely on the basis that comments were still coming in. Infoboxes are contentious on Wikipedia, and contentious topics draw attention, especially if the RfCs are advertised widely long after they've begun. If we left the average AMPOL RfC open until comments stopped coming, we'd never close most of them. TL;DR: after the 30-day timeframe has long lapsed, I don't see a handful of new comments being enough to overturn an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  strength of argument is based on policy I think it can also be based on principles, practice, and/or logic. I don't think the three options are WP:PAGs, off-topic, or ad hominem. (And I'd suggest our notability guidelines, though voluminous, are not clear.) Levivich (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Rare is when I find myself so disagreeing with Vanamonde but this is such a case. I think this this was closed too soon. WP:RFCEND says An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. and it later says Conversely, whenever additional comments are still wanted after 30 days... so our RFC information clearly contemplates situations where longer than 30 days would be an appropriate length. With the post to the Village Pump it was no longer clear that consensus wouldn't be achieved and so leaving it open for a few more days to see if that was the case, or not, would have been appropriate. However, given that momentum behind that will have evaporated by the time this thread reaches conclusion, I think this harm can't be cured. But that doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't have been closed at that time in my opinion. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think we absolutely do contemplate situations where longer than 30 days is appropriate. For example, where a new source emerges during the discussion, or a sudden news event affects the topic we're discussing; or where it's one of the difficult matters that demands a panel close. But an infobox dispute? I disagree that that's the kind of situation envisaged.

  I would not want it to become custom and practice that we're not allowed to close an RfC if it's recently been cross-posted to another venue. I feel that would have negative consequences.

  I'm becoming concerned that we as a community might be losing our institutional memory of the infobox wars of a decade ago.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  it's precisely because I haven't forgotten that I think you made a mistake being impatient because now the war will continue there. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  If it continues it will be disruptive and can be dealt with as such. I know you've made at least one difficult close in the past on this matter and have a better awareness of the arguments than many, so are in a good position to take a measured approach looking both forward and back. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Impatient?—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved) - Closing discussions is difficult enough and rehashing this does little to help anyone. My comment today wasn't to overturn or challenge this close but to ask the closer to remove the part of the close that admonished me for extending the RFC. I didn't violate any rules by extending the RFC and per WP:RFC it's perfectly reasonable thing to do to find consensus. Plus, it was working to get more comments. Most of the RFC infobox discussions over the past year have ended in consensus inclusions. The few that have not have been close and they suffered from the type of "flood the zone" commentary from both sides that was wisely observed by nableezy. The wall of text responses in the survey do little to change minds and only discourage others to comment. This particular RFC appeared to be contentious as soon as it started. The exact same scenario is playing out in a similar RFC that started a couple of days ago. I would encourage the participants on both sides to dial it back. If you are unable to find common ground speak your piece and move on. Thanks and happy editing. Nemov (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• (Uninvolved) I agree with Barkeep, who already wrote out a bunch of words, so I'll keep it simple. When new editors are continuing to join an RFC it's not ripe yet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Fwiw, the exact opposite happened here on James Joyce and complaints were made when more !votes trickled in before the 30 day period expired. Victoria (tk) 23:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close (involved), the text of the close goes in-depth on the closer's reasoning. Seems like a fair and well described close. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - The RFC was opened for over a month & it was time for closure. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Bad Close (uninvolved) Having an absolutist fixed set time view as the closer suggests is a no bureaucracy violation, and as comments were still coming in, the close rightfully should have been forestalled. Moreover, the stated rationale for the jump to close makes little sense, because that RfC was taking basically no effort by the community as a whole, and it takes very little effort and mere minutes to leave a comment there. It is neither a complicated, nor unfamiliar matter for the community to deal with, and is in total a small content editing decision. So, this close wrongfully interfered with community consensus gathering by cutting it off while the community was commenting. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: In the RfC I suggested the article would benefit from an infobox. The closure went against my suggestion. But I'd find it truly pathetic were I to offer an opinion here! The two sides are already split along the lines they chose in the RfC. The Ayes to the infobox find the closure premature or otherwise problematic; the Nays find nothing wrong with it. I'd suggest, although I suspect this is how it's going to play out anyway, that only the opinions of uninvolved editors should be taken into account. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse closure In the last two years, of the 14 infobox RfCs I've reviewed (that's all that I'm aware of), only 2 have failed to find consensus against inclusion, and those two look far more similar to this discussion than any of the ones which succeeded. The 2013 ArbCom decision states that editors should "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" and MOS:INFOBOXUSE makes clear that the discussion regarding infobox inclusion or exclusion is a page-specific content decision. Since 2021 closers of these discussions have generally not weighed general comments highly, with more weight given to arguments which focus on the specific attributes of the infobox proposed based on the article state and information available at the time (see Ian Flemming for an overview of this argument and Calude Debussy for a no-consensus example of its application). The arguments against in this RfC generally focused on the specific state of the article and proposal: there wouldn't be much information in the infobox and the little information there would be is found in the first sentence. The comments in favor of an infobox were rather general, and the late-breaking supports especially focused on how infoboxes were generally useful to readers rather than how this one helped this article specifically. Those kinds of comments are not weighed highly. We weren't having a referendum on whether infoboxes are generally useful, so keeping it open longer for more comments which don't address the main oppose argument doesn't help form consensus. Closing it after the usual 30 days and in line with precedent on infobox discussions is perfectly acceptable so I see no reason to overturn. On the merits, it adequately sums up the discussion and correctly interprets it through the lens of existing policy, so I see no reason to overturn on those grounds either. — Wug·a·po·des 22:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Closure was reasonable. Additional push for input toward the end of the traditional 30 days probably wasn't ideal and additional input that came in because of it shouldn't be sufficient to hold off closure--otherwise it makes RfCs too easy to game. But most importantly, it seems very unlikely that the proposal was going to get consensus. And for the record, given control of the issue, I'd have included the infobox, so the outcome isn't how I'd have !voted, but the close is how I'd have closed. 04:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
• Endorse closure Marshall's close was nuanced, analytical, policy-based and ultimately a fair assessment of consensus. I took no part in the discussion. ——Serial 13:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close - I am an advocate for infoboxes and I personally think that a majority of articles, longer than a few sentences, will have one sooner or later. It's the trend and with good reason, although I agree there is an issue with the content of infoboxes they do serve a purpose for readers that need quick info neatly compiled in a list and don't want to parse through an article to find it. However, one size does not fit all, also, one size does not fit all. I'm endorsing the close partly because there was clearly no consensus in this case, and this case is all that need be considered. As a side note, these discussions always turn into this because one side or the other refuses to acknowledge their contribution to it's lingering negative affects. The incivility in these discussions exhibited by both sides only serve to discredit both sides. There is no winner whether the outcome benefits one side or the other. I admire, respect and truly care about many of the editors involved that I have been fortunate to get to know through discussions and all involved are part of my community. I wish we could have infobox discussions where we genuinely discussed the article at hand and didn't resort to drudging up past block history or staunchly clutching to the same reasons for or against infoboxes. If there was less immediate vitriol more editors might be inclined to get involved with reasoned discussion. --ARoseWolf 15:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close/disagree with conclusion !votes were 19-13 in favor of keeping the infobox from what I saw (feel free to correct my math if I'm in error). When the majority want a change and it's denied, it's antithetical to the consensus-building process. This is a binary decision keep it or don't. Several "no"s were "it shouldn't be required" and such opinions could be discounted as that was not the proposal. The idea that we have to have our almighty WP:Consensus needs to be tempered with the reality of effectively endorsing the minority viewpoint. In this manner, Wikipedia is tone-deaf and seems to miss the basic democratic principles upon which such knowledge contained within it has flourished. Such actions drive away users because "I was here first" takes precedence over "what most people want to do" and stifles creativity/development over the opinions of gatekeepers who routinely obfuscate advancement. I'm not saying the closer here specifically has that intent (I can't possibly know that nor would I impugn their character over complete speculation). My point is that it is not wise to do so. Buffs (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Principles of timing discussion closes

I've been trying to extract the principles that underlie Levivich's, Nableezy's and Barkeep's dissents here, and I think their basic position is that consensus is better than no consensus. (Am I being fair?) They're saying I should have waited to close because consensus might have formed, and if I understand them right, then I actually disagree with them at a philosophical level. On a philosophical level, I think that where there isn't a consensus, we shouldn't try to make one happen. We certainly shouldn't wait for a moment when consensus appears and then pounce. I think that we should close the discussions before us when they're eligible to be closed and participants who want them closed, and if there isn't a consensus there at that time, then as a matter of principle we should close it then and there as "no consensus". If I'm wrong -- if it's actually right to use timings to engineer or construct a marginal consensus out of a no-consensus outcome -- then we need to write that up and put it in Wikipedia:Closing discussions because it's nowhere to be found there!—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It is on that page, WP:WHENCLOSE, last two bullets. In this case, second bullet point, discussion was not slowing down, it was picking up (8 new participants in the four days prior to the close, including one on the day of, and one the day before), and, third bullet point, further discussion would have been useful because it was trending towards, not away, from consensus (the majority in favor over the course of those 4 days got larger, 5/8 is 62.5% in favor, and the discussion in tots ending up at 58% in favor at the time of close, which is either consensus, or close to it, depending on your view).

Continued new participation + further participation would make a difference = keep it open, per WHENCLOSE. Levivich (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think you're entirely missing my point.—S Marshall T/C 15:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I am. I'm also missing Vanamonde's point about strength of arguments above. This seems clear to me for the reasons I've said above. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Its if there is a chance of a consensus developing it is better to let that happen than to close it on some timeline, and if there are people still coming in to comment then there is still a chance of a consensus developing. I dont really care which way this goes tbh, I have zero interest in the infobox wars or the "content creators" vs the "wikignomes" or any of the other battle lines that appear to exist here. But just on a process question, if things are looking like more time will potentially lead to a consensus, then it is better to allow that to happen than to close it as no consensus. Its why we relist things. nableezy - 16:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let me help you with that. We agree that the key paragraphs are the last two bullets of WP:WHENCLOSE. They read:

• When the discussion is stable: The more contentious the subject, the longer this may take. Two signs of achieving this state are the same editors repeating themselves, and the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing.
• When further contributions are unlikely to be helpful: If additional comments, even weeks or months later, might be helpful, then don't close the conversation. Most conversations do not need to be closed. On the other hand, when further responses are likely to result in little more than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same widely held view, then it should be closed sooner rather than later. In between, wait to see whether enough information and analysis has been presented to make the outcome (including an outcome that editors do not agree) clear.

You understand that to mean I should have left the discussion open.

Well, on the first of those bullets, we haven't reached the point where the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing, but we've certainly got to the point where the same editors are repeating themselves. There's an opportunity for a sysop to consider whether or how to manage the conflict between SchroCat and Dronebogus.

On the second, the further contributions are definitely unhelpful. Infobox decisions are straight up votes. I can tell that you're amazed and horrified by this fact, but it's how it is. Arbcom has specifically asked the community to come up with a guideline or at least a set of principles about infoboxes but after the last lot of infobox wars, nobody had the stomach to start the RfC. Everyone was either sick of it or topic banned.

I don't get why I should care that it was "trending towards consensus". It's not my job to find a consensus. It's my job to read, understand, think, and decide if there's a consensus or not. I make that determination at the time.—S Marshall T/C 16:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think both SchroCat and Dronebogus should have been formally warned for their suboptimal behavior in that discussion. In fact I started to fill out the paperwork to do so but decided I wouldn't have had the time to defend the action in the following days so I didn't take that action. I was getting ready to take SchroCat to AE for continuing that less than optimal behavior in this discussion but then he left me a friendly and productive talk page message and so I decided to try responding there in a softer approach. But that sub-optimal behavior doesn't change that that new and productive comments were being left - it is my opinion that the comments from October 30th on were collectively quite productive. I think this idea that we need 30 days to find consensus was a bad mindset for you to have had when approaching this close. Consensus can, and often is, found faster than 30 days even in an RFC and there are times - and this is one - where consensus might take longer than 30 days to find. The goal of an RfC is to gauge what the community thinks about a specific issue not to have a time limited discussion. Hopefully, there consensus can be found. If it can't it should be closed as such, but yes you shouldn't prioritiize some 30 day deadline over the finding of consensus, which is exactly what the information pages tell you to do. I think you misapplied those principles when doing this close and sadly that misapplication has caused a harm that we can't easily fix just by reopening. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

^ I agree with this, and would add: it should matter that it was "trending towards consensus" because any closer's job, first and foremost, is to not get in the way of consensus by closing too soon--exactly what WHENCLOSE says.

I don't really care about this infobox or infoboxes in general, either, but what I do care about is that individual editors do not singlehandedly shut down productive discussions by other editors. I care that closers don't start closing things just because 30 days have passed when new participants are joining the conversation. If we don't wait for discussions to run through before closing them, we short-circuit the consensus-building process. This is especially true when the close is "no consensus" -- what is the point of closing a discussion as "no consensus" if it's still ongoing? What good does that gain? There is a perception amongst some that stopping discussion is a good thing. I disagree, strongly. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Building off what Levivich says here, one thing I wish more closers would do is distinguish between "no consensus" and "consensus against". In any number of RfCs there is a consensus against something which is absolutely as valuable to know as if there is consensus for something but it's instead closed as "no consensus". But that's a periphery concern to the facts of this case where the outcomes were realistically going to be either consensus for or no consensus and a couple days more of participation could, and should, have let us know which was the true opinion of the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

If the community agrees with you and Levivich, then what edit would we make to Wikipedia:Closing discussions to summarize these points?—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

None. I think you didn't properly apply what is already there in WP:WHENCLOSE: it was too soon, it wasn't stable, and further contributions were likely to be helpful. If the community agrees that the timing wasn't correct - and I will note that of the editors discussing that point a significant number of editors seem to agree, with Vanamonde offering the most strident defense of timing as opposed to the overall content of the close which I don't object to - I hope the outcome of this will be for you to factor that feedback into your future decisions about when you close a discussion. Of course Levivich has already said the outcome he wants - for the discussion to be reopened. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Because I think it's clear, my answer is also "none," but I'd put the question back to you, S Marshall: what words, had they been written at WP:Closing discussions, would have caused you to conclude "not yet time to close" for this particular RFC on Nov 2? Personally, I generally don't think bright-line rules are helpful, so I wouldn't be in favor of anything like "X days with no new comments," and I think the current description on the page is clear enough, but not everyone agrees with that, so perhaps there is some other/additional language that would clarify it, that isn't a bright-line rule. Levivich (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's surprising that you'd to ask me to write the words that justify your view when I don't agree with you... but okay, let's try it.

Straight votes: In rare cases, the community needs to make a decision about which no policies or guidelines are germane. These tend to be aesthetic judgments, such as which of two photographs to use, or whether the article should have an infobox. Before deciding to treat a discussion as a straight vote, the closer should make sure that nobody has cited a germane policy or guideline in the discussion, and should then use their personal knowledge and searches to make sure that no policy or guideline is germane. Where the matter is a straight vote, try to avoid a "no consensus" outcome. You should instead leave the discussion unclosed until the !votes swing one way or the other.—S Marshall T/C 18:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Break: "Manage the conflict"

The Gnome, I've inserted a break here as this is a separate topic from the RFC close, which warrants further examination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• S Marshall|, you wrote "There's an opportunity for a sysop to consider whether or how to manage the conflict between SchroCat and Dronebogus." I wouldn't know about such an opportunity. What I do know is that the recommendation in WP:BLUDGEON is treated with a lot of indifference by everyone, including administrators. When a discussion develops into a conflict, then, more often than not, the reason is that one or more contributors are permitted to attempt and force their point of view by the sheer volume of their comments. For instance, SchroCat was twice warned they're all over RfC, bludgeoning the discussion, once by yours truly, but the admonition to allow others to contribute was ignored. (Schrocat even came to my talk page to accuse me of "incivility".) I strongly believe that the discussion would have proceeded much better, irrespective of conclusion, if the noise was forced down. -The Gnome (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  You made only one less comment that me in the !vote section, including the disgusting comment "The hatred against infoboxes per se, however, exhibited openly by some contributors, as I've witnessed in the past, is amusing, though it verges on the pathological". That was followed up by Dronebogus's comments "SchroCat, I agree your obsessiveness here is pathological and disruptive" and "SchroCat is acting obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive". And I thought Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions was supposed to mean something. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  I did write that. I'm not the civility police: as a discussion closer, I do content, not conduct. All I do is determine what the community thinks about something and write it up. Anyone can see that a conflict between SchroCat and Dronebogus exists but that's conduct. It's for uninvolved sysops to determine the rights and wrongs, i.e., not me.

  Having said that, the conflict touches on my role because of how it affects discourse. Infoboxes are a designated contentious topic and they generate one heck of a lot of RfCs, so if two prolific editors are often arguing about infoboxes, then it's in the best interests of the encyclopaedia for that conflict to be managed.

  You've mentioned WP:BLUDGEON and measured it in terms of the number of comments someone writes in a discussion. I don't measure it in those terms, though. Consensus-seeking editors talk to each other. They reply to each other's points. Each tries to understand the other's position and address their arguments and that's awesome and it's what a request for comment is for. And some editors are passionate about their subject, which is one of the things about Wikipedians that I find most endearing. I'm a discussion closer because I rather enjoy reading such conversations. And let's remember that WP:BLUDGEON isn't a policy or guideline, although it is certainly widely cited.

  I'm saying that the number of contributions someone makes to a discussion isn't a problem. Where editors talk about each other and restate their own positions while ignoring the other's points, that's the problem.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Indeed, that was the case in that discussion, i.e. editors talking about each other and restating their own positions time and again, as in parallel monologues. The epithets flew! The above missive by Schrocat is indicative of the discussion's tone - and still believes the comment was about them, which would be funny under other circumstances. Your point about passion in Wikipedia and extensive discussions finds me in agreement, the latter of course only if long discussions are constructive and educational. The whole kerfuffle rendered an admin's intervention critical, in my opinion. (And I don't think being a "closer" affects such an intervention.) Finally, WP:BLUDGEON is a very useful recommendation, which is why, as you also note, is so often invoked. In any case, I simply wanted to submit this remark for potentially a future consideration. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I took the time yesterday to step back through the diffs of this dispute (because it's always instructive to see how something unfolded in real time, which can give a better impression than just reading what remains on the page).

The dispute began as the article was featured on the main page – a high activity, high stress day for any FA – with the first callous arrogant post (followed rapid fire by someone who should know better than to launch such a proposal on TFA day). The misrepresentations of what happened at this article (in a recurring pattern [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] ), the pretentions of innocence on this page, and the lack of adminning of issues that would be sanctionable even without two arbcases and a contentious topic designation, are astonishing. That the goading, failure to confine comments to the specific merits of an infobox on this specific article, and doubling-down without striking of personal attacks (sanctionable even without CTOP) have not been adminned – and the issue has been reduced to the idea of a "conflict between SchroCat and Dronebogus" – does serious disservice to all that actually happened here. Clearly unacceptable personal attacks,[37] [38] [39] only partially struck,[40] and goading that precipitated those personal attacks,[41] [42] [43] haven't been adminned in spite of CTOP restrictions in place, and there is a one-sided representation on this page of who did what to lead to that.

S Marshall, as a non-admin, did their job in closing the RFC, which was gamed and had no consensus before or after the inappropiate notification, and in which one person followed arbcom guidance on how to discuss merits of infobox inclusion while others didn't (strength of argument was clearly in play, and new feedback was adding more heat than light); S Marshall's job was not to admin behavioral issues, and those who should do that, haven't. On strength of arguments, those against the infobox generally stayed on the topic of this particular article and presented clear reasoning or questions towards seeking consensus without invoking the infobox dispute generally (samples: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]), while those in favor flaunted the ARBINFOBOX2 reminder to discuss the merits at this article, rather than infoboxes in general, or gave no reasoning at all, or wouldn't engage consensus-seeking questions (samples [51], [52], [53], [54]). SchroCat's intemperate remarks were all struck. There was an edit war that, while unfortunate, raises valid points about the context in which these RFCs have been presented, and how ARBINFO2 has not been enforced by adminning. Outright unacceptable personal attacks (by any definition of civility, "obsessive and pathological") -- goaded by the initial use of the word pathological -- were only partially struck after two independent editors called them out; that remains on the page for every admin who has looked thus far to ignore. A frequent bludgeoner (The Gnome) professes innocence and blames another for bludgeoning-- of which there is no evidence for weeks into the dispute. SchroCat, a word of advice: you must stop taking the bait. You were clearly baited, yet if you hadn't taken the bait, we'd probably see sanctions in place today against a couple of other editors in the dispute.

What doesn't remain on the talk page is how the issue began, pre-RFC, on TFA day, now in archives. Why is someone who can call another editor "obsessive and pathological", in a CTOP area subject to civility restrictions, and then only partially strike that, still allowed to edit in the Infobox topic area? Must we have a third arbcase to examine why the recurring behaviors are being ignored? The bludgeoning came from one who projects innocence, and the blatant personal attacks haven't even been discussed on this page, except to be ignored and labeled as the "above missive by Schrocat" followed by a smiley emoticon when referencing a blatant personal attack (more goading); the presentation of this dispute on this page is not even-handed, leading me to wonder if a third arbcase will be needed to understand why that is happening and to deal with the recurring behaviors, which are a repeat of ARBINFOBOX1. Admins: deal with the misbehavors, and watch the Infobox problem go away. The case before us is not about bludgeoning; it's about blatant flaunting of WP:ARBINFOBOX2 by a very small group of editors.

I suggest a temporary halt to infobox RFCs by involved individuals until these behaviors can be examined before arbcom. I don't see how re-opening this RFC, without dealing first with the misbehaviors, will lead to any different outcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus noticed of this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

And nothing of Tim Riley’s “civil incivility” antics here, with remarks about a “kampfpanzer” directed at a German editor notable for her politeness, “infobox zealots” and “infobox absolutists”? Nothing about WP:OWNership being practiced and denied by editors who vehemently oppose infoboxes on certain articles? Nothing about SchroCat’s laundry list of incivility blocks? About the fact that he basically called me stupid multiple times here and here? Yet everything about civil editors offering opinions you think are invalid. Dronebogus (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You are responsible for your own behavior regardless of the actions of others. With no acknowledgement of the problems with your own editing, only more digging in, I see more evidence that we need a new arbcase, with removal of those individuals extending ARBINFOBOX1 and ARBINFOBOX2 from the infobox RFC "battlefield" that has been created, including those doing it "politely" and surreptitiously by proxy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I have admitted my behavior was unbecoming and even offered an apology. I would like to see a similar admission of wrong from the other parties. Dronebogus (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus, I see. I wasn't aware that discussion had continued after it was closed. I'm happy to see your partial acknowledgement, and sorry to hear of your editing difficulties. I wonder if you see that the discussion might have proceeded differently had you fully retracted all three personal attacks on the original RFC? Or that you appear unaware or ungrateful that you escaped being blocked for those attacks, when you throw up here SchroCat's block log? Would you contemplate -- to reduce your stress and that caused on others -- removing yourself voluntarily from the Infobox RFC campaign for at least a year or two, and removing yourself from the possibility of being exposed to "polite" requests to proxy for other individuals who might not be having the best effect on your editing experience? [55] [56] I suspect that if you focus elsewhere for a while, you will find that a better experience, and ARBINFOBOX3 can be entirely avoided, because there are so very very few editors furthering this ongoing infobox discord. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt notified of this discussion. [57] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Have to think about it Dronebogus (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus Thanks for considering it; sometimes things can look so different a few years down the road. Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict twice, with the new section below, and then also with the notification above: I compiled the diffs before the notification.)

Diffs then. Two diffs preceding the collection above.

02:53 Infobox added by User:Valentinejoesmith

11:50 Infobox reverted by SchroCat, edit summary "Let's just go back to the PR/FAC version - the talk page awaits if people disagree" - I disagreed, and followed this invitation, and found that Dronebogus had reacted to it before me. Those two reactions to the revert of an infobox are the first two diffs above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt I see you referred to above as someone who is "notable for your politeness". As you have dealt with TFA before, and know it can at times turn stressful, do you think it "polite" to launch an infobox proposal-- knowing the likelihood of it turning acrimonious-- on TFA day? And I'm also curious to know if you think you have been acting in the best interests of Dronebogus, who seems to trust you and have taken guidance from you in these infobox matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's past midnight here. I launched nothing. I was provoked by the edit summary of the revert, admitted. Had the revert come with some good reasoning, I'd probably remained silent. Just imagine the revert had not happened ... - I saw a user who was new to me stepping into the kafkaesque field around infoboxes of which they were possibly not aware, and helping them was my intention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Allrighty; perhaps we have different definitions of "polite". I wouldn't do that to a fellow TFA participant; I'd instead mention to everyone else that it would be best to hold off on such a discussion until after the article is off the mainpage. My concern that you should remain under infobox sanction remains, especially now having seen the influence exerted on Dronebogus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don’t like the way you’re casting Gerda as a bad influence and enabler because she doesn’t agree with the status quo, which I think she and I both agree is unfair and not reflective of broader community mores. My incivility is the real issue and entirely my fault. Dronebogus (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that, but I think there are bad behaviors being modeled throughout. User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned is good reading; you have been engaging in sanctionable behaviors in infobox discussions supported by diffs months deep and miles long, and those behaviors seem to have been "politely" encouraged by Gerda, which did you no favors.

Gerda Arendt, also, while we're here, maybe you can help me understand your statement that there's only a single-digit number of editors opposed to infoboxes? I'm curious about how that could be, considering the difficulty in finding consensus in discussions, and wondering if that might support my hypothesis that the problem is not so much with infoboxes per se, as the methods that have been used to advance them. If that's the case, it might mean that removing more quickly those editors who further disruption, or maintain lists for going after entire topic areas, or ask others to proxy for them, might solve the whole problem of disruption in this area. If there's really only a handful of editors who oppose, why then do we need to keep seeing the kind of disruption visited upon this RFC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw that question only now. We talk about a comment made in August, and I said "dislike" (not "oppose"), and I meant "dislike enough to revert". Let's look where we are today and be more precise. On my user page, I have - for years - listed the names of articles where I noticed that an infobox was reverted. In 2023, I noticed 14, seven of which have no infobox today. If you follow the article histories you will find that the reverts were made by no more than four users. In 11 cases, I did nothing. For Feydeau, Cosima Wagner and Robert le diable, I posted on the talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt do you think it might be time for you to stop maintaining lists, which render you "infobox advertising central" and may be serving to further the battleground? If readers and editors really want infoboxes to the extent you say they do, why not let those completely uninvolved in past infobox disputes pursue that without your shepherding and intervention at every turn? I submit that your input had a detrimental effect on Dronebogus, whether or not they recognize that. It seems that Dronebogus got the impression that keeping lists of targeted areas was collaborative editing. And they were going to be the one to end up sanctioned-- not you. Maybe it's time to completely and voluntarily step away from infobox disputes, and remove all lists and references to same ? There are plenty of others who can and will opine if and when they think an infobox helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe that infoboxes should never have become battleground, and will do what I can to stop the "wars". I have tried to explain the conflict to a younger generation, and they couldn't understand. In the infoboxes case 10 years ago, I made a list of articles where infoboxes were reverted, because I believe - contrary to some other editors - that removing content is worse than adding it. Those were mostly operas and classical compositions, because the introduction of {{infobox opera}} and {{infobox musical composition}} were the reason why the case was requested. The list was been deleted, regarded as an attack page, in 2016.

Since, I have only listed the article names where reverts happened (no dates, no editors), but if you think it helps I can do that privately. As explained, in most cases I just made a note and did nothing.

I have begun a list of articles where infoboxes were established peacefully. I don't see how that is detrimental to peace.

My advice to Dronebogus is on my talk page (because asked there) for you to check.

I believe that the RfC for Mozart was as close to the centralised discussion that the 2013 arbitrators demanded as we can get: high participation and quality of arguments. That can indeed speak for itself, - there were plenty of others who opined, namely Voceditenore: "Infoboxes are an integral part of editing and more importantly of the reader experience. They allow us to cater both to the reader who is looking only for the basic facts concerning the person quickly and easily presented and to those who want a lengthy and more detailed artcle. The "repetition" argument is simply a canard. The Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't have a problem with "repetition" via infoboxes [58]. Nor does the Australian Dictionary of Biography [59]. ... The main thing is that we are producing an encyclopedia that benefits all kinds of readers on all kinds of devices, not simply our own notion of how they should be using it. Voceditenore (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)"

I think our best approach would be to follow the good advice by Brianboulton: take a fresh look. For peace.

Could you perhaps draft the Infoboxes Accord? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Since, I have only listed the article names where reverts happened (no dates, no editors), but if you think it helps I can do that privately. And now, in a discussion about canvassing and coordinated editing, we have a proposal to further same privately? I may be very confused, but this seems to be the heart of the ongoing discord. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

How would you describe the present discord? What I see is that a good faith edit was reverted with no better edit summary than status FA. Imagine a better edit summary would have been offered: no discussion, no RfC, no AN thread. 14 articles in a whole year: do you really think we can't do better than claiming this is a war? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes it would “solve” the problem by, essentially, systematically eliminating the loudest opposition. Not a good look when you’re complaining about “maintaining lists for going after entire topic areas”. I’ve already stated that most editors probably don’t have a problem with infoboxes, but the status quo is so aggressively entrenched that trying to change it inevitably means butting heads with those who passionately support it, which is both draining and leads to anyone who does so being labeled part of some violent radical infobox extremist cell. Dronebogus (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I trust her because she actually displays common sense here and is involved in a project that otherwise seems like an anti-infobox advocacy group. Dronebogus (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus, We are all influenced by and known by the company we keep; your infobox involvement has only led to problems. For your consideration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And by "common sense", you mean "views that align to your own"? To me, you appear to be suggesting that those with whom you disagree on this subject, lack "common sense". Personal attacks extend to groups of people, remember that. Cassianto^Talk 07:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a better way to “manage the conflict”?

I think there’s a better way to tone down the infobox wars than dragging every regular who’s done something objectionable to ArbCom and instituting mass sanctions to “make an example of ‘em” and scare contributors into submission (because this is what it would be in practice, no matter how you frame it as “preventative”). I think two simple rules could be implemented: state your argument once and leave and only discuss content if a consensus to include has been formed. Because as discussed above there’s very little actual debate on individual merits— it’s largely an aesthetic preference with some philosophical components added in, and rarely is anyone interested in actually listening to the other side so much as stating the same thing they always say in these arguments over and over (yes that includes me, I feign no innocence). Dronebogus (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes; just stop conducting "infobox wars". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

They’re going to happen whether I’m involved or not. A simple solution is to stop them from becoming “wars” by making them straight consensus votes with no capacity for back-n-forth sniping. Dronebogus (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it. There's only three editors furthering the issue. But you can take me up on my offer, and then open the possibility of "I told you so" a few years down the road :) Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia. The best way for an individual editor to deal with infobox wars is to decline to participate in those pointless, time wasting debates. Boycott all those debates which do nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Go write or expand an article instead. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I could also argue there’s about the same number maintaining the status quo; the fact that most RfCs do, in fact, end up pro-infobox is telling. I’d rather the opposers just drop the issue and stop fighting against an emerging meta-consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can argue ad nauseum about anything. These debates are an utter waste of time for all concerned. Cullen328 (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

People act like suppressing infoboxes from certain articles is a free action because it’s the status quo, but it’s not— it has to be enforced by reverting any attempt at adding one and constantly explaining to new users on talk pages why x doesn’t have one. So the status quo is just as much of a waste of time on the whole. Dronebogus (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, you are unconvinced by my long held view that these debates are a complete and total waste of time. So go ahead, and waste your own time. Cullen328 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a better way to manage the conflict?

Well, not really, no.

There are three choices. Either (1) everyone manages their own behaviour; or (2) someone else steps in to manage their behaviour; or (3) we leave the behaviour un-managed. (3) is undesirable and (1) isn't happening, so we're at (2). QED.

Those of us who aren't sysops have one tool in our box to help with (2). We can politely remind people that they need to manage their own behaviour. Where that fails us, as in this case, we use our sysops as referee. They deploy the excellent judgment and top class interpersonal skills that RFA is meant to test for and all sysops therefore undoubtedly possess. Where that fails, all we have left is sanctions.

I would suggest to you that the feelings of alienation from and persecution by Wikipedians that you mention are avoidable and your sysop-imposed departure from the project isn't inevitable at all. Never revert anyone, but proceed directly to the talk page; speak your mind mildly and politely; say it once and then move on. Accept that sometimes other people are wrong, and that's okay.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It took a few years for me to learn, it's best to practice 'not repeating' oneself in any RFC, RM, etc. Trying to convince an editor who disagrees with you, will most likely have the opposite effect. Concerning posts in an RFC, RM, etc? Less is more. GoodDay (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Dronebogus (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Query about use of Village Pump Proposals

• Queries for Barkeep49 and Levivich; at the point you made your (initial) posts to this thread, were you aware that the October 30 VPR post followed on a September 30 post of same? How is this not thinly-disguised canvassing or easily gamed (as in, if I haven't yet gotten the result I want, I'll keep cross-posting 'til I do)? And is even the first VPR an appropriate use of VPR; that is, what is the scope of VPR (I was under the impression it was for meta issues, not individual article disputes), and how does repeated use of it for individual articles, rather than issues of broader impact across all articles, not facilitate "asking the other parent" and gaming of the system? I'm truly confused about why we would stall closing an RFC because someone repetitively asks for more feedback, worried about the slippery slope acceptance of that, and wonder how VPR is intended to be used, and how allowing an RFC to continue running as long as people are cross-posting about it elsewhere will not lead to gaming the system, and make anyone reluctant to come in and close an RFC. As a non-admin, I'm not in a position to state whether the close was premature, but S Marshall is a most sensible editor; I'd not want us to be discouraging sensible editors from tackling tough closes, and I'm truly confused about why multiple cross-posts about an individual article isn't gaming the system, and why we want to open that door. Why should VPR be used to canvass editors to infobox discussions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't really have an opinion on RFC notifications at VPR. Levivich (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Levivich ok, just me trying to understand whether VPR was used appropreately in this case, and maybe someone will clue me in, but for your part specifically, when you said in your opening post that "On October 30, further input was requested at VPR", were you aware it was a duplicate of a September 30 post? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't remember whether, a month ago, I saw that post on VPR or not. Also, I have no idea where else, besides VPR, this may or may not have been advertised. I only mentioned the Oct 30 VPR post because that is what brought me and other voters (I assume) to vote between Oct 30 and Nov 2, when the RFC was closed, and I'm asking for this RFC to be reopened because there was active voting on the day of, and in the days prior, to the close. I don't mind answering your questions of course, but tbh I don't understand why the earlier VPR post, my thoughts on its propriety, or my awareness of it, is relevant to whether this RFC should be reopened because there were new votes coming in. Levivich (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's me wondering how many times someone can "ask the other parent", and worrying where that will lead if we truly endorse same, and concerned that such a trend will turn VPR in to the go-to place to canvass. Re you in particular, just wanting to doublecheck whether the knowledge of the earlier post changes your initial impression. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't change my view. I think when an RFC is "tied" (or close to it) after 30 days, it's a good idea to advertise for more input. If editors have already invested time into an RFC and it's "on the border" of achieving consensus (like 58%), trying to get more editors to participate is the most efficient route to a clear result. Also, I don't really see how a post to any village pump can be canvassing, so long as it's neutrally-worded, since the village pump isn't an audience with a particular viewpoint. As to VPR being overrun by RFC notices, yeah, that could be a problem, but I don't think that is relevant to whether this RFC should be reopened. Levivich (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thx, Levivich; now I understand your viewpoint. (And glad you acknowledge my concern about VPR being overrun by RFC notices, but I guess we'll have to cross that bridge if we come to it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  There's nothing wrong publicizing a RFC on VP per WP:RFCTP. It's particularly strange accusation of "thinly-disguised canvassing." What particular group is being canvased here? Are you opposed to getting more input? Nemov (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:RFCTP says you can post on Village Pump forums "if related to it". Can you explain how a content discussion is "related to" the Village Pump forums? I'm not convinced it's "related to" it enough for posting once, let alone twice. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I was not aware but I disagree Sandy with your idea that it's thinly disguised canvassing. Both posts meet the criteria laid out in the guideline, with the only questionable piece being the repeated posting. What I think that shows is a belief by Nemov that broader participation will support their POV which may or may not be correct but seems like the kind of action we want to avoid WP:LOCALCON issues. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  They don't meet the criteria. The VP forums are not there to be used for advertising content RFCs. Only RFCs that are "related to" the particular forum should be posted there. We have a feedback request service for advertising RFCs, not every other forum that people think they want to clog up once, let alone twice. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  You're right that content doesn't belong on the Village Pump. However I think, for a number of historical and practical reasons, that I wouldn't label Infobox disputes as purely content ones and this is why I did not find a single notification to a pump objectionable but instead in keeping with the CANVASS guidelines. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  We will have to differ on whether it ever appropriate to post to the VP for something that is not supported related to VP activity. It's certainly not justified by the RFC guidelines and I personally think it wholly inappropriate. In this case, if only it were "a single notification": the notification that was put on the VP was left after Legobot removed the RFC tag and after I left a request at WP:RFCL was the second one post on that board about the same RFC. The RFC had run for over 30 days, been on the Feedback Request messaging service and been advertised inappropriately on a VP forum and there was still no consensus before it was inappropriately added to the VP forum for a second time. Disruptive much? However, as it seems that people are not going to bother with the the guidelines at WP:RFCTP, it does now mean that any future IB discussions are likely to see such notifications at other semi- or un-related forums - FAC, etc, is likely to now have such notifications neutrally notifying of the process. I wonder how long it will be before someone is accused of gaming the system by doing just that. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, BK, that answers my question then. It's ten or fifteen years too late now, with the fait accompli accomplished, but it's interesting that posts to WT:FAC and other places were avoided for so many years while IBs were imposed on FAs, as posting there was thought to be a breach of the spirt of canvassing. I've continued my discussion of broader concerns at User talk:SchroCat, as they're beyond the scope of this closure discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  But since we're here at AN, where admins can opine on such things, and because the last Arbcase requested a community-wide discussion of infoboxes, why are (most often, the same) editors being allowed to pursue individual article infoboxes, and not admonished to open the community-wide RFC instead? How is the arbcase not being flouted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Never mind, SchroCat located a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 143#Infobox RFC. And I even participated in it (growin' old ain't for sissies, apologies). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Use of Village Pump Proposals

Back to the concern about how to publicize RFCs, and whether Village Pump Proposals is best used for meta-issues, or should be used for individual article disputes, and why the approach taken here seemed to breach the spirit of the canvassing guideline. If publishing RFCs to VPR is to become the accepted norm, it could overrun Village Pump Proposals when there are other options available to more directly engage editors knowledgeable in a specific content area. WP:RFCTP mentions that RFCs can be publicized on talk pages of relevant WikiProjects.

Nemov you have notified VPR of five infobox discussions on four Featured articles, but have never once notified the relevant WikiProjects, which is the place where (theoretically) editors knowledgeable about that specific content area are more likely to congregate, follow or respond. The four FAs all passed FAC without infoboxes. The five articles are:

1. FA Rod Steiger, 21 March, which 3 WikiProjects have tagged, in addition to WT:FAC which could have been notified
2. Colleen Ballinger, 27 April, which 5 WikiProjects have tagged
3. FA Richard Wagner, 11 July, which 6 WikiProjects have tagged, and FAC could also be notified
4. FA Felix Mendelssohn, 17 July, which 6 WikiProjects have tagged, and FAC
5. FA Georges Feydeau, September 30 and again on October 30, which 5 WikiProjects have tagged, and FAC

If WikiProjects and other more directly involved pages were approached first, this whole matter would seem much less like a problem waiting to happen, where key pages and players weren't notified, and more like an attempt to reach those editors most likely to understand the content issues, rather than appear only because of a stance on infoboxes. I hope we can agree that moving these acrimonious discussions into the realm of what a useful infobox would convey on a given topic-- rather than just IB yay or nay-- would benefit both the articles and the participants, and that one goal should be to engage those who best know the content and sources. Absent that, it still seems to be that the approach taken on those five articles is more likely only to pull in editors who have strong views about infoboxes, which is likely to continue to result in heated discussions along the lines of yea or nay on IBs, rather than specific benefits to specific articles.

My suggestion continues to be that this was not an appropriate use of VPR, which should be reserved for meta issues; if it is an appropriate use of VPR, then we should expect to see all RFCs posted there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

As others have mentioned, this isn't an issue and neutral worded notices that encourage more feedback are good. I will continue to do so when it's necessary to help find consensus. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I've always seen neutrally worded notifications of a discussion to WikiProject talk pages, noticeboards, or village pumps as best practice and not canvassing. I think canvassing only comes into play when you start going offwiki or you give notifications to individuals (rather than groups). I appreciate that others may have a different interpretation of WP:CANVASS, and I have been surprised in the past at how vague WP:CANVASS is. I think that page would benefit from a bulleted list of allowed notifications and disallowed notifications, rather than its appropriate/inappropriate/scale/message/audience/transparency table. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if the tension here between general notifications and project specific notifications arises from the fact that disagreements about infoboxes are sometimes between general supporters of infoboxes who believe in good faith that they practically always add value to an article, and specific cases where editors working on an article feel that an infobox is not justified (as I argued in this RfC, for full disclosure) because there is not enough information that is true and not misleading to include in one. General appeals for more participation in an RfC are likely to move the needle away from the subject-specific or article-editor preference. That doesn't mean it's wrong to post these notifications to places like the village pumps, but I think it's likely they'll have that effect, whatever the intent of the notification. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Mike Christie did you mean to include a link on "as I argued in this RFC")? Yes, that is (one) part of the issue. Considering the view expressed here on the use of VPR for notifications, then fora like FAC and GAN should also be noticed in future infobox discussions. And I continue to request that Novem (who as far as I've seen, is the only editor using VPR for infobox discussions) first use the more typical avenue of notifying the WikiProjects tagged on the article page, or at least do both. As Mike says-- to avoid moving the needle away from people who work in the specific content area. Realistically, because FAs have been targeted for infobox inclusion, the FA-process community should have been a bigger part of the discussion all along, and yet were not notified historically. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No. The Village Pump is called that because it is the place where any and all Wikipedians can come together to discuss anything.

We have some loosely topic-defined VPs simply because having one page would be too long. But VP/Misc does exist for everything else.

Let's not try to hyper-control what should be an open forum for discussion.

If the concern is that VP/Proposals has been getting too long of late, then let's talk about adding another sub-page. not curtailing open discussion. - jc37 15:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think this should be allowable, then WP:RFCTP (which suggests that you can only post RFCs on Village Pump forums "if related to it") needs to be re-written, because this goes in the face of the current guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

First of all, that's an essay, but let's sidestep that as immaterial at the moment.

I don't see an issue with the text. The sub-pages are topical. And MISC is there for the rest. - jc37 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a natural hierarchy of notifications for content issues. An RfC about how to present Rotten Tomatoes reviews in a film article may only need to be notified to the films project. Some RfCs might benefit from notifications to multiple WikiProjects, and perhaps to FA/FL/GA pages if good/featured content is involved. The broader the question at the RfC (a matter of editorial judgement, of course), the higher up the hierarchy the notifications should go. But I can't see a reason why anyone would want to notify village pumps and not notify the lower (i.e. more focused) levels of the hierarchy. I'd interpret RFCTP to mean this when it says "if related to it". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Getting hung up on controlling the venue of a discussion, kinda gets into WP:CREEP territory. The important thing is that the discussion be somewhere where interested editors may join in the discussion in question. - jc37 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it's also true that notifications shouldn't omit appropriate pages, and that doing so can unintentionally introduce biases. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Can and has introduced bias. Many of us who held what are now apparently old-fashioned views of what comprised Canvassing, and followed the spirt of what we believed the guideline meant, never dared discuss an infobox proposal outside of the article talk page, for fear of arb sanction. And yet today, centralized "what was once viewed as canvassing" is allowed, while talk page misbehaviors are the norm. Standards of acceptance have apparently changed, after the horse already left the barn while others were sidelined by previous ideas about (not) canvassing; the guidelines need to reflect the changed attitudes. I can't decipher any useful purpose for escalating to VPR when more relevant WikiProjects are ignored and bypassed. Perhaps we should just have a message board dedicated to infobox proposals if VPR is to be used as a beacon for proponents of one side of a discussion, while bypassing fora where others are present. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If your concern is notification, then as I mentioned below, Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification, has you covered. The list of accepted options is pretty extensive. And that list has been stable for years.

But also remember - no one is "required" to notify of a discussion. But if you think an appropriate place should be notified, Be Bold - anyone can presumably notify about a discussion, following those guidelines. - jc37 15:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, WikiProjects that relate to an RFC, is the best place to notify interested editors. The Village Pump pages? are kinda like a dusty attic or basement. Unless you have'em on your watchlist? you ain't gonna visit them much. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification has had this covered for a very long time. - jc37 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it says to use Village Pump "for discussions that have a wider influence such as policy or guideline discussions". However you want to look at this, the guidance is all about only using VP for non-content matters. As I said above, if they are going to be used for content matters in future, then the guidance will have to be re-written, because at the moment the use for advertising individual content discussions on individual pages is inappropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• I suggest we say that it's okay to cross-post to the Village Pump but if it's a Featured Article then WT:FAC is a more relevant venue.—S Marshall T/C 19:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  I know nothing about FA, but if there isn't already, it seems like there should an FA RFC page that lists all current RFCs on FA talk pages (not just infobox). Levivich (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  These last two proposals still bypass WikiProjects and, for example, GAs. The problem is bigger than just FAs (although FAs seem to have been targeted because ... well, they're FAs, so they're the best place for establishing fait accompli. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Closing time?

Anybody wanna close, as this discussion has petered out? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I just read through the discussion with an eye on closing it, but having done so I think I'd rather just let the thread quietly archive itself away. Essentially, I agree with SandyGeorgia and Cullen328 - any discussions about infoboxes are a waste of time, partaking in them is a waste of time, and trying to change the minds of people who oppose your views is a waste of time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a discussion about whether to close a discussion about whether to reopen a discussion. I think we might have reached peak Wikipedia. WaggersTALK 15:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point! I think this calls for a discussion about the discussion about whether to close a discussion about whether to reopen a discussion.—S Marshall T/C 15:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I just figured, it doesn't look like the RFC closure is going to be overturned. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't have enough subheadings yet. Levivich (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You spoke too soon; another one needed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Does this need a formal close?

I agreed with Barkeep above so I can't close this. But it doesn't meet the threshold for needing a close anyway. Closure is endorsed, no consensus about anything else regarding infoboxes except that everyone agrees there's no consensus on anything regarding infoboxes. Don't need some fancy colored box to spell that out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Closure or archive. The general discussion has moved 'away' from the RFC-in-question, to RFCs on infoboxes in bios over all. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Concrete proposal

[Putting this here because I don't know where to put it now] -- Just another thought while we're talking about ways to manage the conflict: everyone who has found themselves jumping in to opine in infobox debates on at least five articles in the past two years is now topic banned from discussing infoboxes on article talk pages for the next two years. Exceptions only if someone is a major contributor to the article in question. Sort of a shortcut to the sort of thing ArbCom might find through other means. I dare say the reason this turns into a problem is because of entrenched "sides" that turn up every time and resume the same personalized disputes. Does something like this have any chance of finding support? I suspect not, but this has been going on for so many years that it feels like it's time to just thin the number of "[pro/anti]-infobox regulars". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That would likely solve (most of) the problem, and I think it a proposal worthy of its own section before this is closed. I say "most of" because one of the editors who turns up every time may also be a contributor on some articles, so "major contributor" would need to be more tightly defined. It would also eliminate the whole problem of the Village Pump. @SchroCat:.

In fact, considering how game-able "major contributors" could be, if the general idea behind this proposal has traction, it might be more expedient just to list the editors to whom the restriction would apply and be done with this. There are no more than ten. I went through and analyzed several dozen infobox disputes the other day, and the complete list of those who regularly show up is less than 10 editors, but some of them seem to be just editors whose editing habit is to respond to all RFCs (not only infobox RFC), and some are regular contributors in the content area of the article (eg, following article alerts). Would those be included?

Additionally, as I've diffed some proxying in the discussions above, should it be user talk pages as well as article talk pages ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I'd widen it to include all pages except article talk pages and during article reviews (there would also have to be an obvious exception for AN/I, AE, ArbCom, etc if the restriction is breached). It would stop the proxying and other disruption - and I'd make it as broadly construed as possible - including pasting diffs but not specifically mentioning IBs, this sort of thing and anything that can reasonably be considered mischief-making or pointy on the topic. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That diff occurred during this discussion, to which Gerda was pinged, so it's as if WP:ARBINFOBOX never happened. I've looked further at my notes from the analysis of a few days ago, and if we broadly take everyone out of the game who has opined at five RFCs in two years, that would encompass severl good faith editors who seem to be only routinely responding to (all) RFCs, without any behavioral issues. I suggest for Rhododendrites' proposal to be workable, someone should propose a formal restriction on the editors most prominent in this and recent discussions, who have furthered what continues to be called "infobox wars"; there is an extremely small handful of editors furthering the agida. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

how game-able "major contributors" could be - I'd probably pick some arbitrary numbers based on xtools, for example "prior to the infobox dispute, a 'major contributor' is someone who contributed at least 5% of the current article (not including an infobox) or made at least 20 edits to the article". The numbers are low enough to include anyone we could reasonably consider to be a major contributor and high enough that any attempt to WP:GAME them should be pretty obvious. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This seems like it could work. Sandy, would you be willing to provide the list of RfCs you analyzed and the stats on which editors contributed the most? I think that data would have to form the basis of a formal proposal to implement a restriction like this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

A little reluctant to start singling people out unless the proposal has traction, but I'll put forward (for now), some examples that demonstrate problems in how to frame the restriction:

• PackMecEng has contributed on at least four infobox discussions this year (I could miss some by not knowing where to look). But analyzing their overall contributions, they seem to be an editor who responds to many RFCs on many subjects; it seems unjust to lodge a restriction in such a case. That is, context matters-- they don't seem to be engaging in "infobox wars" for the sake of infoboxes per se. There are several other similar cases-- don't want to single them all out unless we're going somewhere with this proposal-- this is just an example for fine-tuning the thinking.
• Taking another example, what do we do when highly prolific and long-involved FA writers (who are likely to have many FAs watchlisted since the article's FAC) show up in infobox discussions on FAs, which have been targeted? For example, I won't meet the five delimiter, because when infobox discussions start, I (until this recent bit) unwatch the article and leave. But what to do with editors who are our top content contributors in a topic area who would naturally have those articles watchlisted, even if they don't meet a threshhold of percentage contributions as set out by Rhododendrites? Particularly since the method of working at FAC, FAR and on FAs is generally to propose changes at the FAC or FAR or article talk page, and leave the actual changes to the FA nominator? These highly involved contributors won't show as major contributors in the stats, even though they are.
• Another tricky bit for the data: it is abundantly clear that certain content areas have been targeted (and I gave several diffs above for that). So it's to be expected that editors who edit in those content areas are going to show up five times. The goading that has been allowed to go on was largely focused on certain content areas, and specifically on FAs; why would in effect penalize editors whose specialty is FAs in a certain content area (generally performing artists)?

So, before I start with data (meaning, before I walk myself into a landmine, and before I take the time to convert my scribbled notes to something thorough and in a useful format), how would we handle things like these examples ? I think it fairly clear by now that there are four editors who not only show up regularly, while often being responsible for initiating the infobox RFC to begin with, and whose behavior is less than conforming to the intent of the two arb cases. I think there may be too many other factors to go for a strict five limit, and it would end up restricting good-faith editors who either do or don't agree with certain infoboxes, but haven't done that in a disruptive fashion; the aim is to end disruption, and not all of the editors who show up repeatedly are a) non-contributors by edit count, or b) disruptive "infobox warriors". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

But what to do with editors who are our top content contributors in a topic area who would naturally have those articles watchlisted, even if they don't meet a threshhold of percentage contributions as set out by Rhododendrites? - Same rules as anyone else IMO. If they've a "major contributor" to that article (however that winds up being defined), then go ahead; if not, you can still participate but at some point if you keep showing up to infobox RfC after infobox RfC without being directly involved with the article, you become part of the problem and it shouldn't matter if you've helped with other FAs or have it on your watchlist. Just from a practical perspective, a proposal that creates an exception for a special class of FAC participants even if they haven't edited the article will never find consensus around these parts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

There should also be a method to easily add people to the list (in advance and once it is set up) who breach the restrictions imposed by ArbCom’s ‘Civility in infobox discussions’ ruling, those who ‘soft canvass’ on multiple talk pages about IB discussions, etc. If your analysis picked up some of those too, Sandy, that would be good to see for inclusion.

Again, I'd ensure this is cast widely, but I think there would need to be clarity on, for example, where there is already an IB, but individual fields are being discussed (eg, where there may be errors, incorrect/misleading information or whether to include a field at all), rather than whether to have a box or not. (I'm not pushing for or against the point here, just flagging where there needs to be clarity to avoid future problems of editors stepping over a boundary they didn't realise was there. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Also to consider is 'wider activity on the article', (similar to Sandy's FA reviewer point above), on activity on article talk (on topics that don't cover IBs). I've left dozens of mini reviews, joined in discussions on points of article development etc, but done very little editing of an article on an article of interest. Should that also be taken into attention? Or is that too easily gamed (or would turn the straightforward basis of the original idea into something too complex to manage in a meaningful way)?

I don't think the process will be complicated to police if the individuals are aware of the strictures of the restrictions and have a 'safe place' they can clarify with an admin/responsible person whether they are exempt on an article before jumping in (coming to, for example, Rhododendrites's talk page to say 'I've done x edits, comprising x% of the text, am I OK to join the discussion', etc). SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

You would also have to be clear about the punishments for breaching: clearly defined blocks that lengthen with each occurrence would probably be easiest, but automatic AE provisions too? - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting idea: exclude anyone who has participated in 5+ infobox RFCs in the last two years, except editors who contributed >5% to the article. Does that mean 5% by edits, text, authorship? However defined, I'd be curious know:

1. How many infobox RFCs total in the last two years
2. How many editors participated in 5 or more of them (the "participants")
3. How many of those editors (the participants) had contributed >5% (however defined) (the "contributors")
4. How often do those editors (the contributors) vote yes/no

I'm going to guess: 10-20 RFCs, 20+ participants, 5-10 contributors, and they almost always vote no. Looking forward to seeing the data! Levivich (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

See my note above about problems determining significant contributors. From my scribbles (which are not in shape yet to summarize), I looked at 16 Infobox RFCs, found repeat contributors going both directions, and found a preponderance of the RFCs started by a small group of editors, who most often had no prior engagement at all at the article. If this analysis is going anywhere, we'd need to figure out how to define major contributors, and how not to penalize the main contributors of the FAs within one or two content areas that were targeted (authors and performing artists). Since I don't use the visual editor, it will take me some time to get this data into a useful table format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'd oppose this because I don't think there's a real problem. Most of the infobox RFCs have found consensus over the past year. This particular RFC was created in a problematic way that was in contentious manner. I believe the editors will behave themselves in the future or there could be actions to remedy it. Most of the other RFCs haven't had that issue. This proposal idea would be super complicated to police and also has WP:OWN/WP:LOCALCON issues. Thanks Nemov (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  First, it is important that one declare one's involvement in proposals like this; I would expect you to oppose the proposal, as it would directly impact (i.e., restrict) your ability (along with Dronebogus and others) to participate in Infobox RFCs. I'm unsure if these restrictions will be necessary even, should some of the frequent participants agree to voluntarily step back.

  You, Nemov, have participated in or initiated at least nine recent RFCs (this year only) about adding infoboxes to articles (I'm still tallying), including the double post to VPR discussed throughout this AN.

  1. Talk:James Joyce

     (Where, in terms of declaration, my own involvement was unproductive. The disruption that occurred in that RFC is not evident unless one steps through diff-by-diff, as Dronebogus frequently altered posts after the fact, leading me in exasperation to unwatch an FA I have curated for 17 years.)

  2. Talk:Jenny Lind
  3. Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 16
  4. Talk:Rod Steiger
  5. Talk:Colleen Ballinger/Archive 1
  6. Talk:Richard Wagner
  7. Talk:Felix Mendelssohn
  8. Talk:Georges Feydeau
  9. Talk:Fred Sullivan

  Second, I don't think it will be "complicated to police" at all; the data is not unclear about which editors have furthered infobox discord (as opposed to simply weighing in on infobox discussions), and once that data is tallied, we can then expect to see diffs for those editors of disruptive or other behaviors not in the spirit of the INFOBOX and INFOBOX 2 findings.

  Third, per Rhododendrites post at 15:20, the criteria would probably be refined once data is tallied. I am unconvinced that the initial proposal nails down the criteria we'd likely end up with (which is why I floated examples for discussion); more relevant is whether participants are engaging productively in the spirit of WP:INFOBOX and WP:ARBINFOBOX2, or simply following lists of articles to target, proxying for others, or campaigning outside of their normal editing area to get their personal preference installed, often without providing relevant reasoning for an infobox, rather falling back on the general "infobox wars".

  And finally, I will tabulate the data in sandbox, but I have two full days (Mon and Tues) in medical appt's with my husband, followed by all-day driving Wednesday for Thanksgiving Thursday-- so I'm unsure how quickly I can get that data in presentable format, but surely before this weekend.

  ARBCOM has visited this area twice, and yet disruption continues: bright line criteria like Rhododendrites proposes may not end up being the final criteria in stemming the disruption; examining in detail the participation of those who have furthered the disruptive elements of Infobox discussions may be more relevant than absolute cutoffs, but I suggest some allowance will need to be made for editors and content areas that have been consistently targeted. I don't expect the community will find the data unclear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think we should give this a chance. This incivility and disruption has been going on long enough and even ARBCOM action hasn't been able to quell. The community will be involved in every step of the process and many more discussions will transpire over criteria and exact wording of any restrictions but this has got to stop. There is no time limit. Good luck with the DR's appointments, SandyGeorgia. I hope it is nothing serious. Be safe on your travels. --ARoseWolf 16:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thx, ARoseWolf: appreciated. It's been serious for a long time, and will continue to be so, some days I'm grouchier than others (to the extent that some days I don't recognize my usual self in my posts, and have had to apologize). I only raise it as I'm usually quicker at pulling stuff together than I can be lately.

  I wanted to add that the targeted areas are all artists: composers, musicians, actors, comedians, playwrights, writers. And almost always FAs. And quite frequently as the first foray into that subject by the infobox proposer. I do promise to tally the data into a table, hope we will take our time on this, do believe that the community can have an effect here where the arbs have been unable to stem the disruption, and apologize for not being able to move as quickly as usual on the data; my scribbles are clear to me, but in an indecipherable format for others. I suspect if we can sideline a very few participants, the rest of the community can then peacefully decide on infobox use without so much agida that people who contribute and curate top content feel their efforts futile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sandy, you may want to include Debussy's RFC too. (Another one with many familiar names where there was no previous discussion and a non-neutral opening statement.) It was another closure from 2023. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thx; my scribbles started with James Joyce in January this year, and I haven't even looked at 2022. Honestly, considering restraints on all our time, my hope is that (before I have to spend even more time compiling this data), that we'll see a push here for certain problematic editors to voluntarily step back; that could my old Pollyanna peeking out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Two others closed in Jan 2023: Tchaikovsky and Mackenzie Ziegler (the latter not technically an RFC, but all the hallmarks of one and was advertised from her sister's RFC (closed 32 December 2022), so many of the same attendees); also closed as an RFC by the same person who closed Mackenzie's RFC. I think that's all the 2023 ones, but I don't watch out for them and don't comment on all of them, so I cannot be 100% sure that's all. - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I commented on a lot of RFCs and since October of 2022 been struck at how passionate people are about the subject. That's why a few months ago I attempted to create a proposal to help move these discussion out of RFC since they getting approved anyway. Those of us who worked on the proposal were mostly editors who were blissfully unaware of this issue 15 months ago. Anyway, the proposal failed to gain consensus, but many editors argued there wasn't a real issue that needed to be addressed and the status quo was fine. Nothing has changed since that was discussed.

  I understand that since a majority of the infoboxes discussions have gained consensus over the past year there's perhaps an urge by some to create more bureaucratic measures to stop this trend. If there's an editor problem there are measures in place to address that. I suggest moving forward with that if you believe there's case. Thanks Nemov (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites what is your reaction to the statement that "I understand that since a majority of the infoboxes discussions have gained consensus over the past year there's perhaps an urge by some to create more bureaucratic measures to stop this trend"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have much of a reaction to it, apart from to observe that if one of the relatively small number of people who would be affected by an objective, quantitative measurement of involvement has the initial response of assuming conspiratorial bad faith, I might be inclined to think we're on the right track. If there is indeed a trend that depends on a group of editors with no connection to the articles going around just to support the addition of a kind of template they like, then we can frame it either as coordinated bureaucratic bad faith or as an intervention to ensure that participants are focused on the article rather than advocating for a personal stylistic preference or defending their friends' preferences. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, @Rhododendrites, we agree on a lot of things but characterizing one side as "advocating for a personal stylistic preference or defending their friends' preferences" while seeming to imply the other side is doing the opposite is exactly why we are in this position and why there is such an impasse. The other side is doing the exact same thing and their argument against the infobox is purely stylistic. One side says it helps, is beneficial and aids readers who don't want to parse through text while the other says it servers no benefit, is redundant info and does not look good when viewing the article on mobile. The arguments for or against have little to no policy merit and that's why we have this issue. That's why arbcom's solution was no solution. And because there is little to no policy solution to this, editors have resorted to incivility in discussion. This proposal should be about limiting the incivility not determining to choose to accept one style and punish another. If the goal of this proposal is the latter rather than the former then it has already lost my support. --ARoseWolf 20:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  And for the record, I don't believe either side is acting in bad faith. Are they both passionate? Yes. Do they let their passion rule their judgement in how to communicate with fellow editors? Absolutely. --ARoseWolf 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  On the other hand, I read "since a majority of the infoboxes discussions have gained consensus over the past year there's perhaps an urge by some to create more bureaucratic measures to stop this trend" as a failure to acknowledge that it's not results that are the main concern, rather the methods and behaviors. I read that statement as an implicit assumption of bad faith. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  @ARoseWolf: ?? I didn't characterize one side that way (or didn't intend to, at least). I characterized the parties on both sides whose participation should be limited that way. The other side is doing the exact same thing - yes, exactly. The arguments for or against have little to no policy merit and that's why we have this issue. - Yes, exactly. The distinction I'd like to make is sometimes it's advocacy for a stylistic preference based on investment in the article/subject, and sometimes it's advocacy for a stylistic preference based solely on that stylistic preference or allegiance to a side of a dispute. The idea behind the "concrete proposal" is to try to reduce the number of people in these latter categories. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I apologize if I read your statements incorrect, @Rhododendrites. Perhaps I latched on to it because it's usually the characterization made against one side of this argument but it was unfair to pass that on to your statements. From your clarification we agree in principal as I find we typically do. Investment in an article is poor reason for advocacy of certain style. We as editors should be just is dispassionate about others editing articles we create as subjects should be about an article about themselves. Policy based edits, yes. Stylistic edits, no. --ARoseWolf 21:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I read the statement by @Nemov and disagree with this characterization just as much. I do want to know Sandy's proposal and I believe it should be given a chance to be heard. I don't believe Sandy wants to create more "bureaucratic" anything and we shouldn't make assumptions about it until we've heard the details. These discussions have caused enough hurt, damage, and disruption. --ARoseWolf 21:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Of those 9 articles, 7 of them have an infobox. The two that don't are the one that's being appealed here (haha, remember back in the good old days when this thread was an RFC appeal?), and one that is still open.

  So Nemov initiated or participated in 9 infobox RFCs in the past year, 7 of which had consensus for an infobox, one didn't, and one is ongoing. 7-out-of-8 is 87.5%.

  Right 87.5% of the time, and you want to TBAN them for that? lol! Good luck with that. Levivich (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  See my query to Gerda back on 01:53, 7 November; if there really are only a handful of editors who oppose infoboxes, and 87% of the time they will be installed, then theoretically there would be no change in content outcome if the list-keeping, targeting of certain editors/topics, proxying and any other disruption identified were put to end by the community, but there would be a change in how pleasurable we could all find our editing experience to be. As, theoretically, there would be no change in outcome if some editors stepped back voluntarily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

We must be cautious about limiting editor participation on RFCs about infoboxes on certain bio pages. Suggesting who can or can't participate, based on how much they've contributed to a bio page? might create an WP:OWN situation. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Unarchiving bot archival per my promise to have the data table by this weekend; still working on it (offline in a spreadsheet). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox data: November 2022 – November 2023

Data is at User:SandyGeorgia/2023 Infobox discussions.

I manually tallied, so errors are possible; please point out any additions or corrections needed at the talk page, User talk:SandyGeorgia/2023 Infobox discussions, so the discussion here can stay focused on interpretation of the data.

Generally, I don't believe the five cutoff notion raised above is the way to go, as it impacts good faith editors causing no disruption. Some !voters are merely following the RFCs, many are main contributors of articles that were systematically targeted, and a few don't always !vote in one direction. Focusing the discussion better on where the actual disruption has been coming from would be more productive. That is, rather than limiting participation, limit the goading, prodding, poking, proxying, failure to notify in ways that engage major stakeholders, and otherwise failure to drop the stick and move on to something more productive.

If this moves towards a concrete of the concrete proposal, I believe it possible for the community to end the infobox disruption in ways the arbs haven't yet been able to, but I don't yet think that Rhododendrites' proposal is the best way to approach that. I also didn't have the energy to look back at two years worth of data; the last year captures the trends. Repeating what I said above: it's possible that the problem is less infoboxes per se, than the behaviors and tactics that have been seen continuously since the first arbcase, that have kept the area contentious. The problem is not infoboxes; it's editor behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest separating actual RFCs from non-RFC discussions in that table, otherwise it skews the results. Levivich (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Not really. At least one of the non-RFCs was linked from another, had much the same attendees and was closed by the same person. - SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

With only 17 articles, I trust readers to be able to sort that. Could we keep suggestions about improving the page on the talk page there, so we can focus here on what to do with this data, if anything?

Tomorrow, I will try to add something about total number of editors opining in infobox discussions relative to the "Frequent Flyers", but the way I tallied the "everyone except the Frequent Flyers" means that will take some time and more manual work.  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the table so the non-RFCs are at the bottom.

Looking at RFCs closed within the last year, looks like there were 13 of them, 9 resulted in consensus to include, 4 resulted in no consensus, 0 resulted in consensus against. Of the 4 that resulted in no consensus, they were started by 3 different editors, and the two that were started by the same editor were about related subjects (siblings).

I don't see any problem with too many RFCs being opened, either by the same person or otherwise. I see no reason for any kind of group TBAN or, frankly, even changing infobox RFC policies or guidelines--the system seems to be working fine overall (I'd feel differently if they were mostly no consensus results).

The conduct in RFCs--bludgeoning and incivility--is a separate issue (not limited to infobox RFCs), and should be handled on an editor-by-editor basis. Levivich (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

For that, I think you need to look not at the numbers, but at the behaviors (bottom of the page, intentionally kept to only that which has already been raised in the discussion above, as I'm sure others can offer more diffs of the disruption). That is, I have no doubt that Dronebogus and Nemov have caused disruption in this area, and it's not because of the raw numbers, but the behaviors. Similarly, we have those who almost never !vote, but keep the disruption alive, as I've also touched on in the discussion above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to ping Robert McClenon to view the results of the research (see this, Robert). It may educate you in light of the egregious errors you've made with this error-strewn post. You may wish to reconsider/strike/reword your comment - parts of which come close to personal attacks, as it's so badly written and phrased. - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell's response best summed up the data trend I see: "I don't think it's healthy or constructive to have roving bands of editors who turn up in every infobox discussion." But we have not only repetitive voters: we have very few editors actually initiating the discussions without having had any prior involvement in the article (in every single case), prodding the discussions, and poking at the topic continuously to keep it contentious. Rhododendites' proposal is to figure out how to address those "roving bands", as the restrictions ArbCom imposed over a decade ago did not stop the poking, prodding and behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there also a problem with roving bands of editors who turn up at articles they've never edited before and fix typos, or change links, categories, citations, images, short descriptions, navigation templates, or talk page banners, or ask questions or make suggestions on the talk page? I thought "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" means we want roving bands of editors who go around to various articles and try to improve them.

Here's some counter-evidence: of 9-out-of-13 RFCs in the past year, how many different editors removed the infoboxes from those articles, and for how many years had those editors been removing the infoboxes from those articles, and how much editor time would have been saved in terms of unnecessary RFCs, if those editors who removed the infoboxes had simply not removed the infoboxes? Hint: it's many of the same major contributors to those articles.

See, the major contributors to those articles don't want an infobox -- that's why the articles don't have an infobox -- but most everybody else does, most of the time -- that's why most RFCs come out in favor of an infobox. If it's decided by contributors: usually no infobox; if it's decided by non-contributors: usually infobox.

The problem in that situation isn't the non-contributors, it's the contributors, whose local consensus is out of alignment with global consensus. The RFCs kind of prove that.

I still don't think that's a problem that needs solving: that's just the consensus process at work. Local consensus is inevitably overridden by global consensus, as it should be. One infobox RFC per month or so is not too much when there are over 6 million articles. Levivich (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No, there's definitely a problem. A small group of people targeting a defined set of articles is a problem. (I know you're pro IB, which explains the blind eye turning to the problem, but there is a problem). Part of it is that people are not turning up to "fix typos, or change links, categories, citations, images, short descriptions, navigation templates, or talk page banners". They are there to vote (after an RFC has been inappropriately advertised on the Village Pump). Not !vote, but vote. They don't know the subject, don't argue on specific factoids within the article and many don't even bother to look at the article, but they just do a knee-jerk "I want an IB", without considering the drawbacks on that specific article.

"how much editor time would have been saved in terms of unnecessary RFCs, if those editors who removed the infoboxes had simply not removed the infobox": How much editor time would have been saved if people who had no feeling or real understanding for the topic worked on any of the rest of the 6.7 million articles, rather than opening an RFC on what is normally a GA or FA rated article?

Blaming contributors is the lazy option. It's the vote-counting option. Trying to blame contributors for being out of step with the global consensus is misguided: there have been attempts to change the MOS to move it towards including biographies infoboxes on all biographies. They've all failed. The community has rejected that idea multiple times (something you may wish to dwell on), but the community has also got bored of the constant pushing on IBs and tends to ignore RFCs on the point as the timesinks they are. Those pushing for IBs have meta bludgeoned a large section of the community away from the topic as a whole. That's the global consensus. The RFCs kind of prove that, as one might say. - SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat, I assume you meant to say "infoboxes on all biographies"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mike - corrected. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Levivich re "is there also a problem with roving bands of editors who turn up at articles they've never edited before and fix typos, or change links, categories, ... ", I think of this as more akin to the old date-delinking arbcase, or a matter of Engvar/Citevar. There's much more than gnoming/copyediting going on in these disputes; it's a group of editors who seem fascinated with the infobox issue, and particularly fascinated with the infoboxes of one subset of Featured articles nominated by one group of editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We have rules against going around changing engvar/citevar; we do not have rules against starting or voting in infobox rfcs. "a group of editors who seem fascinated with the infobox issue, and particularly fascinated with the infoboxes of one subset" is disproven by your own data, maybe I'm misreading it, but this is what I see:

• The 13 infobox RFCs that were closed in the past year were started by 8 different editors
• Those 13 articles had 9 different top contributors
• Most of the 8 editors who started RFCs didn't vote in most of the RFCs
• 200+ editors participated in the RFCs, only 20 of them you categorize as "frequent flyers" -- most editors didn't vote in most RFCs, only 6 non-article-contributors voted in half or more RFCs
• The diffs of problems you posted are by 5 different editors, only 2 of the 5 are on the frequent flyer list

Unless I'm misreading it, your data demonstrates that there is not a group of editors who are repeatedly starting these RFCs, that at least 95% of editors participating in infobox RFCs (194/200+) aren't part of any roving band of anything, that most of the 6 editors who do frequently participate aren't causing any problems, and that most of the problematic editors don't participate frequently. (Assuming the diffs show problems--I don't know, I didn't read them closely.) Levivich (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We have rules against going around changing engvar/citevar It is worth reflecting on the reasons that we have these rules. It's because they're questions that lack and will always lack a global consensus, that have generated a lot of contention, and that are fundamentally ancillary to the goals of encyclopedia-writing; sound familiar? You're very focused on the outcomes of the discussions, but that misses the point that it would be better if people were not arguing about infoboxes, regardless of what that means in terms of outcomes. --JBL (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Why would it be better? What's the problem with 13 RFCs in a year? Levivich (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the high level of contention it causes, which results in people wasting time and energy in many layers of discussions and meta-discussions and meta-meta-discussions about an essentially unimportant and uninteresting question. --JBL (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

What high level of contention? Where? Is this -- what -- the first and only infobox RFC appeal in the past year? I don't recall any infobox AN/ANI/AE threads in the past year? Maybe I'm misinformed, I haven't been around much this year. There are like 5-10 editors on this website that have been, shall we say persistent, about infoboxes for like 10+ years AFAIK, but that's really a constant background noise that doesn't much affect anyone outside of that group. 13 RFCs in a year in which over 200 editors participated, and outside this group of 5-10 (it might even be less than 5), who is bothered, or gives a shit, about any of it?

The community, in its wisdom, decided infoboxes should be done case by case. So that means a lot infobox discussions, and RFCs. 13 in a year isn't much, and the 200 editors participating don't seem to have a problem navigating the "noise." Now, kick the noisy editors out by all means, but I am not seeing any evidence of any broad problems concerning infoboxes outside of a few noisy editors. Levivich (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• So we've got combative and argumentative people, deeply entrenched positions, and no agreed policies or guidelines, in a contentious topic area. No wonder it's so intractable. May I suggest one of the old-fashioned RfCs where we ask the community for ideas about how to solve it? I'm concerned that AN is not a venue capable of solving complex and difficult issues like this.—S Marshall T/C 09:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • There have been so many threads about infobox disputes already. At the risk of nearly reproducing my suggestion above, I'd say the only possible way this could be productive is if that discussion absolutely excludes every person who has ever jumped into an RfC on an infobox for an article they weren't previously a major contributor to (that would exclude me, too, fwiw). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

    I agree. Looking at Sandy's data I wonder if the right approach is to ban RfCs about the inclusion or removal of an infobox on individual articles unless the RfC is started by a major contributor? I've written scores of magazine articles, and I think about half or more have infoboxes -- probably a few more that don't have them could have them added. However, there are a few where I think it doesn't make sense. At Talk:Amazing Stories there have been a couple of discussions about infoboxes, but no RfC was ever started -- instead editors who had the page watchlisted participated. I think if all infobox discussions occurred that way it might reduce the temperature. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

    But Rhodo, the whole point of an RFC is to get people who haven't edited the article to vote. Levivich (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

    Yes. But that seems to be what causes the problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

    The data presented by Sandy disproves that. The overwhelming majority of people who have not contributed to the articles have not caused any problems. Even the people who have most often voted in infobox RFCs without ever having contributed to the articles, even the overwhelming majority of those people, have not caused any problems. What Sandy's data shows is that very many people who haven't contributed have voted (like ~200 editors), and very few people have caused problems (like less than 5). The data literally disproves this idea of "ban everyone who voted without contributing." Levivich (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

    I think we may be in violent agreement; as I said from the outset, there is a very small handful of editors causing the issues, and if we focused on those, and took them out of the game, the community could more peacefully decide how to handle infoboxes. And by "out of the game", I'm including "polite" proxying, list keeping, targeting, and badgering. In my initial count (four or five), I (mistakenly, and based on only one RFC) thought The Gnome was one of the repeat offenders; they are not. Those who simply can't drop the stick, and whose behaviors have not been constructive, are clear in my data, and if the community truly wants infoboxes, perhaps those few editors can be encouraged or forced to let the rest of the community decide. (And, no, Rhododendrites, editors like you, who have contributed constructively, should not be included in those who should be encouraged to step aside -- you are one of many who have contributed constructively.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

    Violent agreement is the best kind! :-D I hope those few editors you mention just look at the diffs, get embarrassed, and do better going forward. Thanks for putting that together, I actually think it'll have a positive effect on the issue just by virtue of gathering data and diffs in one place for everyone to look at. Levivich (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

    I didn't really attempt to gather all diffs; just what I noted as I tallied, and what was already raised in the discussion above. I was mostly focused on tallying, and assuming others would add behavioral diffs if someone besides those already mentioned was misbehaving.

    I had a Wikifriend once who specialized in summarizing every arb case and remedies in 30 words or less, emailing them to me to keep me laughing and show what a timesink arbcases were, only to come to the 30-word obvious. Even I (with my classic verbosity) could craft a 30-word remedy to end the disruption here.

    Three editors stand down from all engagement with and discussion of infoboxes, broadly construed, and one agrees to confine commentary on infoboxes to articles where they are a significant contributor.

    Done, 30 words. No topic bans, negotiated settlement, no more lists, targeting, goading, proxying, and overfocus on installing infoboxes, find another way to spend your time, there's plenty out there ... and watch the problems go away.

    I'm becoming more concerned about the number of misrepresentations and memes one sees throughout the arb candidates questions, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but as someone who has participated in a few infobox discussions over the past few years, and has read quite a few more, this is patently ridiculous. To act as though the only behavioral issues in infobox discussions are confined to the people you assembled your data against is absurd. I'm hesitant to call out specific names here, as I don't really have the time to create a similar analysis to yours, but you know as well as I do who does this. I can only assume, having read that entire thing, that you think that bad behavior is justified because they're being 'poked' and 'baited' and because they're Significant Contributors, so it just makes sense, is exactly the problem that makes those discussions so toxic! A reasonable person cannot be 'baited' into acting poorly by posts on wikipedia. If someone can be bear-baited on this website, they should work on not being a bear.

    The undertone that we have to restrict participation in RFCs based on contribution to an article is counter to the exact reason that RFCs exist. You might as well submit a proposal to ban them on FAs, that sort of seems like what this is angling towards anyway. Parabolist (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

    ... but you know as well as I do who does this? I do? Thanks for letting me know ... before this discussion, I knew of two editors furthering infobox discord. As I said, I made no attempt to assemble diffs beyond what was already raised in the discussion above (methodology). Not my mission. Further, at no point have I said we should "restrict participation in RFCs based on contribution to an article"; we have frequent flyers who are frequently disruptive and have furthered discord. I have constantly said to examine diffs, not numbers, and remove those who are furthering discord by poking, prodding, goading, keeping lists and targeting -- not those who are peacefully weighing in on RFCs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

    No, Parabolist. This isn't about 'Significant Contributors' reacting to baiting. It's clear on the Feydeau RFC that the comments of Dronebogus and The Gnome ("The hatred against infoboxes per se, however, exhibited openly by some contributors, as I've witnessed in the past, is amusing, though it verges on the pathological", "your obsessiveness here is pathological and disruptive" and "SchroCat is acting obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive") go way beyond "baiting" (and don't forget, this is supposed to be a contentious topic where behaviour like this should not occur). There was no angry response or harsh words in response to either of them, only a different editor asking them to remain civil. No-one baited them into making such disgraceful comments either; I'm not sure how these comments are in any way defensible anywhere, let alone in a contentious topic. Have a look further, if you wish: the Wagner RFC has Dronebogus telling Johnbod "your opinions are not good" and similar incivility to people. Not great. Have a spin over the Joyce RfC. Charming stuff in there from the same editor. He started the RFC by breaching a stack of instructions on RFCs and then dives straight to incivility with unfounded accusations. If incivility and pushing from a small co-ordinated group isn't considered disruptive, I don't know what is.

    You don't think there is proxying going on? It's a couple of years old now, but this is a great example from Arendt, telling someone at the Kubrick RFC to go to the Sibelius page to vote. A few days later that user followed her directions and voted in favour. Arendt opened the thread – one of her seven comments. (The main editor of the article (Ipigott) wasn't even pinged to the discussion). SandyGeorgia, you may want to add those links onto your list of substandard behaviour from Dronebogus, Nemov and Arendt. If I could be bothered to go back through the thousands of talk page posts on the topic of IBs, I would find countless examples of soft and hard canvassing on the topic.

    I've put in a general support for Rhododendrites 'concrete proposal', above, and I'll repeat my support for it again. In fact I will go further on it: I will agree not to comment in any other IB discussion (unless I am a formerly significant contributor to the article, its talk page or its FA review) or about IBs on any user's talk page, on the condition that Dronebogus, Gerda Arendt and Nemov agree to the same restrictions. If they agree to those relatively minor self-policed restrictions, I will do the same. – SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for pinging me. I'm not going to add to my previous comments above as they're sufficient. Nemov (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• It strikes me that we could exapt the principles from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan#Principles to infobox discussions and RfCs?—S Marshall T/C 17:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Indefinite block 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.

---

Hello, this is Scorpions1325, who was previously known as Scorpions13256 requesting an indefinite block on both of my accounts with talk page access revoked and email access disabled. Long story short, I have come to the conclusion that many editors on this site are just as bigoted as the average Trump supporter, and that working with a number of editors is bad for my mental health. I say this as someone who recently left the Republican Party. Furthermore, I have become disillusioned with many of the site's core policies, as I no longer believe that WP:NPOV is as attainable as it was 10 years ago. A group of editors have seized control of a variety of contentious topics, and they will do whatever they can to push their POV, regardless of how out-of-policy their edits are. A test I often use to assess an article is the Joseph Goebbels test that I came up with. Many conservative BLPs are treated less neutrally than Joseph Goebbels, so reality has a liberal bias doesn't work outside of Creationism, Murder of George Floyd, Climate Change Denial, or January 6.

This year, I got my OCD under control for the first time since 2013 via Deep Brain Stimulation. My OCD is gone, but my Autism remains. I also recently moved out for the first time. Altogether, these changes made me realize how damaging Wikipedia, reading the news, and social media are to my mental health, and how they prevented me from getting better sooner. My biggest obstacle to living a normal life is Wikipedia, and I feel that completely changing my lifestyle is the only way for this to happen. Nearly all of my family and friends agree with me.

I do not hold any animosity towards most individual editors as a whole. In fact, I came to like most of them. Sorry if I come off as offensive Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Scorpions1325  Not done Take a deep breath. Wait 48 hrs before doing anything that you may regret. Then if you still really want to leave, scramble your password, log out and block Wikipedia on your browsers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't think I'll regret this. I have been tempted for over a year to do something that will ensure that I am not welcome here ever again so that I won't be able to create another account. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Scorpions1325, you've done a lot here as an editor and we appreciate those contributions. You should be proud of your work even if it caused problems for you.

I'm happy your life has gotten better. It sounds like you've done some really hard-to-do personal work - that's something to be proud of, too. The average person is likely to give up before changing.

Your point is well-taken about Wikipedia's liberal bias. I've observed this, too, although I'm not especially conservative myself. It's something we all have to keep working on.

If Ad Orientem can't talk you out of leaving, I hope your future endeavours elsewhere go well. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have reached the point in my life where I can no longer let my childhood Autism (bad responses to stress) dictate what decisions I make from now on. My mood is unstable due to the uncertainty of where my life will go from here, and for the time being, I believe that my existence here is inherently WP:DISRUPTIVE. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't block productive editors and I do not agree that your presence here is inherently disruptive. If that was the case, you'd have been shown the door a long time ago. You're stressed. You're annoyed by the occasional idiocy that we all have to put up with. And you're tired of the left-leaning bias. I get it. It's real. It very nearly drove me off a couple years ago. At the time of my "retirement" I'd have wagered good money that I wasn't coming back. But I came to the conclusion that I can do more good here than by sitting at home collecting stamps or reading books and never sharing anything I learned. Nothing on this side of the Great Divide is perfect. We all have to deal with that fact. How we choose to respond to that reality is one of the things that I believe we will all be judged on one day. Take a long break. You probably need the down time. Come back when you are ready. If you are really ready to move on, no block will be needed. And if you're not, then a block won't keep you away. Any self-requested block can be undone on request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A lot of this is also that I am adjusting to a normal lifestyle that I previously never had access to, which the neurologist said could be stressful. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. Like I said; take a break. We all need to now and then. Some people do actually burn out and leave. If it really is time, you will know it and any desire to return will simply fade with time. This is not what blocks are for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I also believe in WP:NOTTHERAPY. Over the past few hours I have calmed down, but I have come close to making posts like this no less than 20 times since March. In my opinion, that is the biggest sign that I shouldn't be editing here. I have a busy week, so I wouldn't have edited anyway. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Think about this a little more @Scorpions1325. I'm always willing to talk on or off-wiki. The Night Watch (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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

IP addresses persistently removing information related to international sport bans on Russia and Belarus

IP addresses have been removing information regarding Russia's ban by the IIHF. The problem exists across multiple articles related to ice hockey and figure skating, and possibly other sports with respect to Russia and Belarus.

Here are the regularly vandalized articles I am aware of:

Ice hockey

• International Ice Hockey Federation, Ice Hockey Federation of Russia, Russia men's national ice hockey team, Russia men's national junior ice hockey team, Belarus men's national junior ice hockey team, Luc Tardif

Figure skating

• Figure Skating Federation of Russia, 2022–23 figure skating season, 2023 European Figure Skating Championships, Alexandra Trusova, Anna Shcherbakova

Here are some of the problematic IP addresses:

• 85.160.0.13
• 85.160.1.205
• 85.160.3.255
• 85.160.4.67
• 85.160.12.47
• 85.160.20.178
• 85.160.34.133
• 85.160.39.136
• 85.160.41.122
• 85.160.43.11
• 85.160.43.122
• 85.160.43.136
• 85.160.47.41
• 85.160.49.19
• 85.160.58.235

Extended content

Sorted 15 IPv4 addresses: 85.160.0.13 85.160.1.205 85.160.3.255 85.160.4.67 85.160.12.47 85.160.20.178 85.160.34.133 85.160.39.136 85.160.41.122 85.160.43.11 85.160.43.122 85.160.43.136 85.160.47.41 85.160.49.19 85.160.58.235 Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 16K 16384 15 85.160.0.0/18 contribs 5126 4096 5 85.160.0.0/20 contribs 1 1 85.160.20.178 contribs 1 1 85.160.34.133 contribs 1 1 85.160.39.136 contribs 1024 4 85.160.40.0/22 contribs 1 1 85.160.47.41 contribs 1 1 85.160.49.19 contribs 1 1 85.160.58.235 contribs 2312 2048 4 85.160.0.0/21 contribs 1 1 85.160.12.47 contribs 1 1 85.160.20.178 contribs 1 1 85.160.34.133 contribs 1 1 85.160.39.136 contribs 1 1 85.160.41.122 contribs 256 3 85.160.43.0/24 contribs 1 1 85.160.47.41 contribs 1 1 85.160.49.19 contribs 1 1 85.160.58.235 contribs 1162 1024 3 85.160.0.0/22 contribs 1 1 85.160.4.67 contribs 1 1 85.160.12.47 contribs 1 1 85.160.20.178 contribs 1 1 85.160.34.133 contribs 1 1 85.160.39.136 contribs 1 1 85.160.41.122 contribs 128 2 85.160.43.0/25 contribs 1 1 85.160.43.136 contribs 1 1 85.160.47.41 contribs 1 1 85.160.49.19 contribs 1 1 85.160.58.235 contribs 525 512 2 85.160.0.0/23 contribs 1 1 85.160.3.255 contribs 1 1 85.160.4.67 contribs 1 1 85.160.12.47 contribs 1 1 85.160.20.178 contribs 1 1 85.160.34.133 contribs 1 1 85.160.39.136 contribs 1 1 85.160.41.122 contribs 1 1 85.160.43.11 contribs 1 1 85.160.43.122 contribs 1 1 85.160.43.136 contribs 1 1 85.160.47.41 contribs 1 1 85.160.49.19 contribs 1 1 85.160.58.235 contribs 15 1 1 85.160.0.13 contribs 1 1 85.160.1.205 contribs 1 1 85.160.3.255 contribs 1 1 85.160.4.67 contribs 1 1 85.160.12.47 contribs 1 1 85.160.20.178 contribs 1 1 85.160.34.133 contribs 1 1 85.160.39.136 contribs 1 1 85.160.41.122 contribs 1 1 85.160.43.11 contribs 1 1 85.160.43.122 contribs 1 1 85.160.43.136 contribs 1 1 85.160.47.41 contribs 1 1 85.160.49.19 contribs 1 1 85.160.58.235 contribs

• 85.160.0.13
• 85.160.8.188
• 85.160.12.47
• 85.160.13.25
• 85.160.34.15
• 85.160.33.188
• 85.160.34.202
• 85.160.40.33
• 85.160.42.41
• 85.160.42.156
• 85.160.43.76
• 85.160.43.136
• 85.160.44.43
• 85.160.44.111
• 85.160.49.19
• 85.160.59.111

I believe it's time for either a range block or perhaps a sock investigation. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Note - Disruptive edits appear similiar to those of globablly blocked editor Max Arosev. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello - is there anybody out there? GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) No edits from this IP range since October 11, report is probably stale. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Name change

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, if possible, to change my username in "14 novembre". Thanks 14 novembre (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have already done so. Name change requests are made via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS anyway. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Marcelus 0RR appeal (now restored more times than the House of Bourbon)

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 the community to remove the 0RR restriction imposed on me. I received 0RR on March 7, 2023 ([60]), this restriction was reduced to 1RR on July 3, 2023 ([61]), for appreciating my trouble-free editing history. On September 27, however, after my 2nd revert on the Povilas Plechavičius article, I received 0RR again ([62]).

I accept the penalty, but as I explained at the time, this second revert was not a deliberate action, nor the result of edit-warring. It simply resulted from my misinterpretation of what a revert is. My previous edit was removed on the grounds of not providing sufficient sources, thinking that it was not making a revert I restored that edit with the addition of new and better sources. At the time I understood it as simply working together on an article, I did not think it could be construed as acting in bad faith. If I thought otherwise, I simply wouldn't have done it. However, I understand that it was my mistake.

I have since tried to continue editing Wikipedia without making reverts. Basically, it seems to me that given my entire editing history since March of this year, I have proven myself to be a user who tries to avoid conflicts, and if they arise resolve them on the talk page. I understand that the issue of the revert on Povilas Plechavičius casts a shadow over my track record. But given that it was an isolated incident I hope it doesn't completely cross it out. Marcelus (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: At this point I understand a revert as any restoration of previously deleted content, even if this restoration is intended to create a third version of the content, it is still understood as a revert. As in the example I gave, my mistake was that I took into account the context of the previous deletion (i.e. undermining the sources), now I understand that the context does not matter at all. What matters is the mere fact of restoring the previously removed content.

@Grandpallama, that is correct, everything is in the discussion I linked.

@Canterbury Tail, I invite you to browse through my edits, mainly from March 2023. Initially, I planned to let go of editing because I found it impossible with 0RR. But then I decided to prove that I can edit within the rules. Therefore, in the list of my edits, you can see a much greater engagement on t/p since then. Even on Talk:Povilas Plechavičius and the related Talk:Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force you will notice that I tried to discuss my propositions of the articles and reach a consensus. Hence my mistake of misinterpreting the situation and trying to restore the content with new sources. However this was the only such situation, in my opinion, it should not invalidate several months of hard work, long discussions, and searching for sources. Marcelus (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: could you point out in which articles I removed "Lithuanian" from "Polish-Lithuanian"? Because I can't think of a single instance of that. I only sometimes insisted on taking into account the Polishness of some characters with mixed self-identification. But not by replacing the word "Lithuanian" but by using phrases like "Polish-Lithuanian" or "Polish and Lithuanian" and so on. Even in this example you gave in your 2022 report, you can see the opposite: I didn't want to remove "Lithuanian" from "Polish-Lithuanian," but rather keep the latter form, which I feel much better describes the identity of Antoni Mackiewicz/Antanas Mackevičius. Marcelus (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: these categories were changed over a year ago from Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation to Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation. This was a misguided move that the nominator himself backed out of. A situation arose that we have categories for 18th-century Lithuanian and 18th-century Polish-Lithuanian people, but no category for 18-century Polish people! I have since tried to reverse this, which you can see here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_19#Category:18th-century_Polish_people_by_occupation. Something you present as my obsession with "nationality," or the drive to "polonize" everything, is simply a concern that there should be categories for Polish people in the 18th century.

Contrary to what you say, I did not propose to remove the "Lithuanian" part, I only proposed to restore the "Polish" categories and make the "Polish-Lithuanian" categories parent categories of the "Polish" and "Lithuanian" categories. So no "Lithuanian" was never to be dropped. It's all in the discussion you linked: Proposed solution: create a separate category tree for Category:People from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, leaving Polish people category tree untouched and I'm advocating restoring previous state of affairs and creating Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation as a parent category for both. Marcelus (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Bot keeps removing thread, for unknown reason to me Marcelus (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin, @HJ Mitchell; can I expect any sort of conclusive decision here any time soon? Marcelus (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors (Marcelus)

• You've failed to notify Callanecc, but I'll do that for you. I've also separated uninvolved and involved editors, as that distinction matters for appeals of AE actions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Piotrus: I waived normal AE appeal rules on my block, in exchange for a 0RR and Marcelus agreeing to mentorship by you. Do you have an opinion on this appeal? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hmmm. I was somewhat surprised that at the beginning Marcelus did not seem to understand the concept of a revert well, despite being a moderately experienced editor. I think his understanding is better now, but is it good enough? 1RR would allow us to test it; that said, I'd hate to see him fail this test and get blocked again. But I do not see an alternative, really. If Marcelus says they have learned the lesson(s), well, they are responsbile for their actions and their learning. And we should AGF that editors are trying to honestly improve.As such, I'd support reducing the 0RR (which I consider very tricky) to more regular 1RR and seeing how this goes. In general, surviving 0RR is harder and than 1RR, so I hope things will work out. All that said, I'd caution Marcelus to avoid reverting or ping me on talk page before any revert for double checking, particularly if they made another edit to that article in the prior 24h. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry about that Marcelus (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• I was the user who reported Marcelus to AE for breaking his then 1RR. At this moment I would advice Marcelus to wait longer, preferably 6 or so months before appealing again. It's just too soon at this point. #prodraxis ^connect 23:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• I am involved because I filed this 3RR report from July 2022 against this user, from which moment it seems that they have been accumulating more and more edit-warring sanctions. From their contributions, I see that all they are editing is Central-Eastern Europe topics, with a focus on Lithuania and Poland and some of their edits, including to categories, being removals of "Lithuanian" from "Polish-Lithuanian" as soon as August - the reason their first partial ban was introduced in the first place.

I understand that this topic is a very heated one and there is a lot of fighting about who belongs to whom (for example, I heard one Polish doctor of history say that the Belarusian state media were spinning such a narrative of Adam Mickiewicz that he was "a Belarusian poet writing about Lithuania in Polish" - which kinda demonstrates the fixation some have about nationality in Central-Eastern Europe).

I would suggest, as a trial, let Marcelus edit areas outside Central-Eastern Europe without restrictions for now and see if they are fine. European football (I see they actively edit about Legia Warsaw)? Fine for me. History of Italy? OK. Maybe they want to translate an article or two about non-Central European countries? Great. There are a couple of great articles in Polish whose English equivalents are not so great. If they get along pretty well in that process, I think that we can loosen restrictions on Central-Eastern Europe based on good prior record or, if few people intervene in the process, great job on article creation/expansion.

I sadly see little reason to loosen them now. Sometimes you just need a break from what bothers you, and I suggest Marcelus take one for now. Giving them some rope in this case will probably be a not-so-good idea: If a user has already been blocked numerous times for the same behavior, they've already gotten all the rope they need; the hangman is just asleep at the lever (emphasis mine). But there are other areas where you will be more helpful. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus, I was referring to, among other things, your changes to categories on 19 and 20 August of this year where the effect was that you changed "Polish-Lithuanian painters" to "Polish painters". It appears you were reverted after that, because at later dates you started this discussion, also proposing that the "Lithuanian" part be dropped. What I'm saying is that from my vantage point it looks like too much preoccupation about nationalities while what you could do instead was all sorts of things that could have been much more productive.

You are within your rights to edit in the topic area since you aren't TBANNED, and you are within your rights to propose changes to categories, but I strongly suggest that you consider editing in other areas so that other editors have a record to compare to (e.g. "yeah, I see that they kind of like editing much in these areas and he may be a PITA sometimes, but I saw his brilliant work in, say, 19th century history of Canada and court cases of the High Court of Australia, so I think that he will likely be as productive in other areas, including Eastern Europe").

'Cause you know, from your record I think that if you are given another chance and you will still be getting complaints against you at ANI/AN/AE/3RR the next thing they will discuss here is a TBAN. Are you sure you want it? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors (Marcelus)

Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments, contentious topics sanctions may be overturned by "a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN".

Can you, as completely as possible, describe what your current understanding of a revert is? BilledMammal (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That's part of the definition, though not the full definition; the full definition of a revert is that any action that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.

I wouldn't be opposed to throwing them some final rope - 0RR is very onerous, and if they violate 1RR again with the justification "I wasn't aware it was a revert" I think it would be justified to just block them for WP:CIR, as if they still don't understand it after this point they never will. I am a little concerned by the broader context, but not enough to oppose this appeal. BilledMammal (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Just speaking more generally, perhaps part of the problem is exactly the fact that our definition of what a revert is is convoluted, overly bureaucratic, lawyer-speak, run-on sentence upon run-on sentence, written in as confusing way as possible and you need a graduate degree, four years work experience and three reference letters before you can wrap your head around it? I understand very well that the reason it’s that way is because people try to endlessly find ways to WP:GAME it, so with every innovative excuse something new gets added and tweaked in the definition, but at the same time, the nature of the beast suggests that if someone says “sorry, I just didn’t understood what Wikipedia’s definition of revert is” then leniency and understanding is called for? Volunteer Marek 06:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Important detail left out--you were actually blocked on September 15, as a result of a 1RR violation. That block was only downgraded to a 0RR restriction because another editor offered to mentor you, and the enforcing admins accepted that in lieu of a block and removed the block on September 27. Grandpallama (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

So you've been blocked for edit warring 3 times now. Why would we believe that this time you'll never do it again? Sorry but it's hard to accept. I think you should go 6 months on your current restrictions before requesting an alteration in the terms, the community is already being lenient. Canterbury Tail talk 23:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think BilledMammal has it right, a move back to 1RR seems reasonable given the nature of prior violation. I looked at the original case and I feel the sanctions were probably a bit more than would be expected/needed in that situation, so I'm inclined to cut them some rope... Hobit (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• I'd advocate reducing the restriction to 0RR on pages within the scope of WP:ARBEE only, and 1RR everywhere else.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Looking back, my feeling in the AE thread, based on HJ Mitchell's initial proposal, was that we were reinstating the ARBEE 1RR, not site-wide. Maybe Callanecc can clarify. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Oh... I understood Callanecc's restriction as meaning 0RR everywhere.—S Marshall T/C 21:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's only within the Eastern Europe topic area. The wording of the sanction on Marcelus' talk page is Indefinite 0RR restriction in the Eastern Europe topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Then I'd agree with BilledMammal.—S Marshall T/C 08:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Like others I'm happy to overlook last month's incident as a good faith misunderstanding. User:Volunteer Marek makes a good point about Wikipedia's definition of a revert being somewhat different to what most people would understand the term to mean. Let's loosen it to 1RR again. WaggersTALK 10:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• I too inherently dislike an 0RR restriction. Yes, even in a topic area such as Eastern Europe -- in fact, probably even more so, due to the heightened probability of gamesmanship occurring in that area. To me, with the definition of a "revert" indeed being as nebulous as it is (as Volunteer Marek points out), as well as the inherent desire for editors to after all edit an encyclopedia, such a restriction essentially is lying in wait for the editor to get caught breaking it, whether purposefully or accidentally. 1RR is more reasonable. For one thing, it allows an editor to check through an uninvolved third party as to whether the revert they just carried out is indeed a revert. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• I'd support changing the 0RR to 1RR, simply because 0RR restrictions severely hamper editing (almost any edit to existing text could be argued be a revert) and doesn't provide that much of advantage over 1RR. Galobtter (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Support a minor change that won't make much of a difference to anyone except Marcelus, per the principles of WP:ROPE, let's enact and finally archive this thread. Levivich (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Motion to close

Hi, administratively involved, but putting this in a separate subhead for attention, since this thread has now been archived without action twice. Unarchiving at Marcelus' request. The "clear consensus" standard for AE appeals is a high one, but personally I think that this can be closed at this point as "consensus to downgrade to 1RR, with understanding that further violations may lead to an indefinite block"—a caveat originating with BilledMammal and endorsed by Hobit and S Marshall, and not opposed by anyone else supporting a downgrade. Of course, again, I'm involved here, but that's my read of things. At this point any close would be welcome, either on those terms or otherwise. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Abuse of processs by Wikipedia administrators regarding Andrew5 and Long Island based IP addresses interested in weather and baseball

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.

---

(1) WeatherWriter claims that any user who edits weather and baseball in the same day is andrew5. LOL. That means users aren’t allowed to have the same interest. (That also makes users like @ChessEric: socks of andrew5, and an SPI should be opened up. (2) Yamla is now not even hearing cases of IP addreeses who are blocked, a deep violation of WP:ADMINCOND. (3) It seems highly likely WeatherWriter WP:PAID admins to block these accounts, a major violation of the TOU to get admins to agree with him.

JUSTICE FOR LI IPS! 96.57.76.226 (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was paid by WeatherWriter to report you all those times. United States Man (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Above comment was made by blatant impersonator United States Stan. I think the sock drawer might need cleaning out. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

IP, you are required to notify WeatherWriter of this discussion. I have done so for you. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 20:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This is honestly one of the greatest things I have seen this month. It is absolutely hilarious that coincidentally, all the WP:DUCK evidences (i.e. weather/sports edits on the same day) somehow all come from this one area in New York. The checkusers notice that as well. Very much abusive. You know. Well, if one wanted to investigate this further, maybe the Wiki Foundation could run an academic study to see how so many people in this one county in New York want to edit Wikipedia, more specifically, weather and sports articles. That would be one of the greatest academic studies in history, since it seems all these Andrew5 related IP addresses, which are all from this one area in New York, keep evading a single ban on Wikipedia and continuously want to edit weather and sport articles. I may have found my doctorial thesis now! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh great, another New York Dunkin Donuts customer. I'm collecting those. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll trade you a Baltimore Starbucks for 2 New York Dunkin Donuts... RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

ITN topic ban removal 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.

---

It has been 15 months since I was partially blocked from ITN project pages, and whilst the block was entirely sensible and proportionate at the time, I would like a chance to prove why it is no longer necessary. For reference, the discussion on the partial block was at User talk:Joseph2302/Archives/2022/August#Unblock request (I was initially indefinitely site-blocked, and this was reduced to a partial block from ITN area), and as a courtesy, I am pinging Deepfriedokra and RickinBaltimore as the admins that were involved with those blocks.

In the time since I've been blocked, I have continued editing constructively in other areas, almost entirely on sports events (around 95% of my last 500 contributions have been in that area), including current sports events, as these often get the most edits/problems/discussion topics. Therefore some of my edits will have benefitted the ITN project even if I wasn't editing specifically for that purpose e.g. 2022 London Marathon and 2023 London Marathon were both created and substantially edited by me as upcoming and then current events that I nominated to DYK, but both ended up on ITN after being nominated by other people. In the time I have been partially blocked, I have remained civil with editors with whom I have interacted. I have been avoiding areas in which I think I might get hot headed, which was the cause of the ITN block, and will continue to do so. My average editing has decreased slightly [63] (about 30% per month on average), and this has helped me not to get too laser-focused on Wikipedia editing, which was one thing leading to lots of frustration and then incivility.

If unblocked from ITN pages, my main intentions are to comment on articles that I've worked on/interested in, primarily sports articles and RD articles that I might have seen in the non-Wikipedia news outlets. I do not intend to get involved with other ITN debates about e.g. whether ITN has US/UK bias, which were the sorts of topics that led to heated discussions and my original ban. Aside from wanting to contribute positively to ITN in my area of expertise, an unexpected consequence of being partially blocked is that some of the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library resources are unavailable to me, which affects my ability to find historic sources. I believe this is an unintended consequence of partial blocks (as at the time the WP Library set the requirements to no active blocks, partial blocking did not exist on English Wikipedia), and so removing the partial unblock would help me to access these resources for editing, which has been an issue for me a couple of times at DYK when editors have used Newspapers.com sources that I was unable to access.

I hope that admins will consider my request, as I believe that my editing focus and record since my partial block does demonstrate that I can be helpful to the sports-related topics that arise frequently at WP:ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support the request. Indefinite =/= infinite, and the work OP has done since the block goes a long way in showing my good faith that they will stick to the mindset they have demonstrated in the past 15 months. I would want more of the community to chime in, but I am comfortable lifting the restriction. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support the request. per RickinBaltimore.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Has been civil in all things cricket I've seen. Desertarun (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per RickinBaltimore. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support an extremely convincing request. As a long-term editor, Joseph2302 has always been productive (to say the least!) and also, passionate. As he suggests, one can, perhaps, occasionally get too passionate. It's good to hear everything's all under control, though. ——Serial 20:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Good editor who has moved on, grown up, has a need, and both Rick and DFO consent. LGTM. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 22:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support I will take them at their word that they will avoid the UK/US bias debates that are one of the reasons ITN has become so toxic.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Request seems to appropriately address all potential concerns. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support The Wikipedia Library issue seems decisive as this actually obstructs construction of the encyclopedia while ITN is just an ephemeral sideshow. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Template-salt in mainspace?

I just found out that a bunch of articles (68 in total) in mainspace were somehow salted with template editor protection. Is there a reason for this, given that template protection is here to deal with the exact opposite — highly transcluded pages?

If there isn't, should these pages be downgraded to extended-confirmed protection? Or given another protection level?

Thanks a lot! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 23:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

In the process of notifying all the admins who have template-protected an article. Note that this was discussed on the Discord server. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 00:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 00:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's a slightly more accessible list. There's pretty much no good reason to use template protection for this sort of thing (and policy doesn't support it), so most or all of these should be either lowered to ECP or raised to full protection. I'd be happy to help out with doing that, although I'll wait for other comments first. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure they were either all misclicks or an old TW default etc. — would make sense to drop them all to ECP (and some of the older ones might be due a WP:TRYUNPROT!) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 00:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

A number of them, such as Charles Darwin (botanist), look like they were protected as deliberate redlinks in Template:Interlanguage link/doc. I'm not aware of this ever having been a valid use of protection, and they should be unprotected. If that messes up the template documentation, so be it. As for the rest, I've come across protections like this before and they are probably left over from before ECP was a thing, and should be downgraded to ECP or unprotected altogether. – bradv 00:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

For template documentation redlinks, my (non-admin) opinion is that template protection doesn't make sense, as it is the template that is massively transcluded and high-risk, not its documentation's examples. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

For the deliberate redlinks, seems like an IAR to improve something; in any case lets not mix that problem in with the primary issue here - can be dealt with on its own. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Deliberate red links used to be a big thing. Remember this? – bradv 01:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

00:35, September 6, 2005 MarkSweep (talk contribs block) deleted page The weather in London (content was: '#REDIRECT wiktionary:terrible' Haha. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redlink examples lists a few common deliberate redlinks. Wikipedia:Intentionally permanent red link failed as a proposal in 2006. Wikipedia:Creation of example red links as pages discusses the history a bit. Wikipedia:Red link/History of the example red link (my creation) specifically follows the one example link used at WP:REDDEAL. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Charles Darwin (botanist) should be a redirect to Charles Darwin rather than being a deliberate redlink anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree, one documentation choosing an example of red link shouldn't unilaterally prevent the page from being created. If it's really an issue (which I don't think it is as interlanguage links can also easily be made to work with blue links), changing the example wouldn't meaningfully hurt the documentation. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems really, really, weird that a demonstration of a template linking to pages which are notable enough for other language Wikipedias would have a salted link. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 04:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the problem is that if we used a real, creatable redlink, it would be created and the documentation would need to be rewritten. Whereas if we used a term that's salted for-cause but happens to exist on some other wikis, we'd be giving a very bad example, since such a term wouldn't be linked in a real article. A better approach might to just make examples use This is a red link (at least, until I get around to creating something notable with that title and ruining a bunch of documentation pages). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Like this and red link were once chosen as deliberate red link titles akin to your example, and now are rightly blue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I remember doing a huge-ass JWB run to fix a bunch of those to point to Like this one instead. jp×g🗯️ 19:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Dynamic list available here. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Went through a batch, 16 left. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  There are apparently five left, is there a reason to leave these ones in particular? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 04:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   Done — xaosflux ^Talk 15:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  There's a bunch in draft space too (looks like all of them done by Ohnoitsjamie). Galobtter (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, per Special:PermanentLink/1187026248#Mistaken page protection?, Jamie seems to had made a habit out of template protecting pages as less restrictive then full protection, but has stopped. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 04:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  I will work on cleaning up the draft space ones today. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

WikiCleanerMan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WikiCleanerMan keeps reverting edits that are fine. 188.143.109.163 (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I will say 2 things, 1. WCM is fully allowed to remove comments from his own talk page, per WP:REMOVED. 2. You must notify WCM of this thread. QoH's dirty sock (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No violation in policy. Users have the right to remove messages they don't want on their talk page. It's you that continues to be disruptive across several articles. You have continued to add information without providing sources and have thus also decided to remove sources from an article. No proof of French ownership of DS Penske. And removing sources from the Title Character article not just once, but twice. Similar editing pattern with another IP, 94.44.235.214, on articles such as Title Character. Wrong use of the Current Events template on Olivier Minne by 94.44 and by 188.143, and on the DS Penske article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

For Title Character, I was trying to remove all unsourced characters, as you did when I added Tartuffe. --188.143.109.163 (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking over Special:PageHistory/Title character, what I'm seeing is a bit of edit-warring, inadequate edit summaries, and no discussion whatsoever on Talk:Title character. Basically what things come down to there is that everyone involved needs to stop reverting and start discussing. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a different IP user who has no involvement with the conflict. Unless this is the same user trying to game the system. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately sometimes the beginning of differrent IPs can be similar, if you think using 188 and 184 as shorthand is too confusing, you could abbreviate using the last digits instead so that would make me 190, and the other IP 163. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Indeed so, and they make a very valid point. WaggersTALK 15:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like this would be best resolved on article talk pages rather than here. Strictly speaking (on DS Penske at least) it is 188.143.109.163 who should start the discussion as the one who wants to change long-standing content, but there is nothing stopping WikiCleanerMan from starting the discussion. I have not checked whether anyone has violated WP:3RR. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I've had a little look and can see several double reverts across several pages but no instances of more than 3 on the same page. It's reasonable to say that edit warring has taken place even if it stops short of 3RR, but as long as it stops and they start using talk pages I think sanctions would be overkill at this point. WaggersTALK 16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

188.143.109.163 has continued to edit-war with other users on the Penske article and has now been given another warning by another editor on IP talk page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tunisians and Tunisian Arabic edit war, Non neutral point of view

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.

---

These articles are constantly being raided by the same editor User:Skitash who tries to paint everything about the country as arab or islamic as possible (The user in question has been systematically removing sourced content that acknowledges the non-Arabic aspects of Tunisian ethnicity and language, as well as information about Berber ancestry. This raises concerns about the impartiality and accuracy of the content being presented on Wikipedia.more to it etc...)

I don't exactly know how to deal with these kind of edit wars, the editor seems to have started his work since this year and targets tunisian pages with the same pattern of article modification.

Could you help ?

I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view on Wikipedia and strive to adhere to its policies. In this case, my intention was to ensure that the information presented accurately reflects the diversity of perspectives and historical facts regarding Tunisian heritage. Asmodim (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Note: Notifying Skitash of this, which you should have done.[64]

Surely you have used the article talk pages??? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This is ridiculous forum shopping. This user has copied and pasted this same paragraph in multiple noticeboards, including the neutral point of view noticeboard, dispute resolution noticeboard and this noticeboard, without providing any revision links indicating any "raiding" carried out by me when I asked them to, but only making baseless accusations and personal attacks. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Tunisians and Tunisian Arabic. Skitash (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not confortable using wikipedia system of exchange, so I am trying to reach whomever is supposed to manage issues like that. Also I do not have all time to do edits on wikipedia and go into messaging, so don't expect me to answer you within 24h at all times. Finally I am more than happy to present the evidence of bias concerning the edits you make, if you just tell me what am I supposed to do.

You have been removing content about berber ancestry, non-arab origins, non-arab content and related information on Tunisian pages since 2023, this much is easily visible when you see the contributions on those pages done by you. If this is not griefing with a political agenda or a very specific pov I don't know what is. Might I remind you that those pages where created like that after a lenghty consensus in the past that you just solo with you own opinion and remove years of work and sourced content because they do not suit your tastes. Asmodim (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead. Enlighten me and provide the revision links. Skitash (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is funny, because the only instances where I have ever edited Tunisians were when I reverted the edits of a blocked sockpuppet[65] per WP:EVASION, when I reverted an editor for making an unconstructive edit[66], when I reverted your unexplained removal of sourced content (via your sockpuppet account)[67], and when I reverted a disruptive IP and a blocked SPA[68][69]. I don't see how any of these activities could be labeled as "raiding" or "griefing." Skitash (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging a user who may be involved @Bradv. Skitash (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Every single edit you made on Tunisian Arabic, Tunisians and most of your edits on Tunisia were to add more "arab" or remove anything that is not "arab". This is repeated arabwashing of Tunisian topic articles and diffs do indicate that there is a problem here. It is apparent that you have an article editing agenda and edited several articles in that vein.

==Tunisian Arabic==

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisian_Arabic&diff=1128182948&oldid=1128182567

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisian_Arabic&diff=1173783529&oldid=1173720629

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisian_Arabic&diff=1178570358&oldid=1178541747

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisian_Arabic&diff=1178743100&oldid=1178735808

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisian_Arabic&diff=1183859328&oldid=1182636323

==Tunisians==

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisians&diff=1165696657&oldid=1165004354

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisians&diff=1177634044&oldid=1177602598

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisians&diff=1177781332&oldid=1177776346

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisians&diff=1179170219&oldid=1179169727

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisians&diff=1179173097&oldid=1179171120

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisians&diff=1183628980&oldid=1181768748

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisians&diff=1185111924&oldid=1185111822

==Tunisia==

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisia&diff=1129659425&oldid=1129432854

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisia&diff=1131084426&oldid=1130853527

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisia&diff=1143782144&oldid=1143091954

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisia&diff=1144112927&oldid=1144034123

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisia&diff=1146615095&oldid=1146190226

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisia&diff=1151100098&oldid=1151073713

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisia&diff=1155121929&oldid=1155062820

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisia&diff=1158324061&oldid=1158275706

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisia&diff=1166792015&oldid=1166785644

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisia&diff=1170496980&oldid=1170459880

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunisia&diff=1183623846&oldid=1183409976 Asmodim (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Asmodim: why are you using two accounts to edit the same articles and why didn't you link them properly (Asmodim, your main account, is not mentioned on Asmodeusim's page)? M.Bitton (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I lost my password on this account so I had to to create another one at some point, since then I managed to reset my password and reclaim my account.

I don't know what you mean by link them properly, how do you do that ?

I'll add it to Asmodeusim then, I am not that experienced when it comes to this kind of stuff on wikipedia Asmodim (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

When did you reset your password for your main account? M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There should be a break between Asmodim and Asmodeusim, that corresponds to the period I lost my accesses. I no longer use Asmodeusim today. It appears 30th of September 2023 is when I managed to recover my account Asmodim (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

In the links regarding Tunisian Arabic, I have changed "Maghrebi language" to "Arabic dialect" because that's what Tunisian Arabic is after all. According to numerous reliable sources, Tunisian Arabic is solely a vernacular, and is nothing close to whatever a "Maghrebi language" is. I have removed "Tunisian" from the ethnicity parameter because Tunisian is not an ethnicity. 98% of Tunisia's population is ethnically comprised of Arabs.[70] The rest of those links involve me reverting addition of unsourced content by blocked SPAs such as Tikirwan.

Again, I have already discussed my edits on Tunisians, and not a single one of them constitute "raiding". How is this[71][72] (reverting disruptive editors, including yourself) raiding? Regarding this, edit[73] I don't see how adding basic World Factbook information on Tunisians and sourced content on Phoenicians (a non-Arab civilization) is raiding either.

Concerning my edits on Tunisia, I suggest you read my edit summaries as it seems that you're just copying links of random edits that do not support your argument at all. Skitash (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, Tunisian Arabic is not simply a dialect of Arabic, it is commonly considered a dialect of Arabic unintelligible to many other varieties of Arabic but the article is supposed to show much nuance in the matter. A language and a dialect are after all not different from one another, one is simply assumed as so. And Tunisian is being used in media, advertising, and social networks in its written form and in its vernacular form as a de facto official language and native language of the Tunisians. It is also taught around the world, is considered a minority language in France and it has associations in Tunisia that promote its standardization, official use and recognition. All of these are important information to mention as that gives it a special situation.

[74][75] Second, the Tunisians article was stable for several years before you decided that some parts mentioning the diversity or ethnicity and culture of Tunisia needed not to exist, how exactly:

"The migrants brought with them their culture and language that progressively spread from Tunisia's coastal areas to the rest of the coastal areas of Northwest Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and the Mediterranean islands."

makes any sense at all as a sentence when you don't mention the one that you removed

"The first people known to history in what is now Tunisia were Berber people of the Capsian culture related to the Numidians. Phoenicians settled Tunisia during the 12th to the 2nd century BC, founded ancient Carthage. "

How is adding emphasis on "purely arab" or creating repetition "From the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb in 673, many Arabs settled with Arab tribes" a proper way to write on wikipedia ? (btw we know there were also at least Persians and not just arabs, Kairouan etymology is from Persian, as an indo-european language, Karavan or Caravansérail in French.)

Thirdly again you're removing any and all nuance, the CIA factbook 99% took the number from the government in the ben ali era which self-reported sovietic numbers of 99% arab muslim and not from any proper research of statistic (btw even the CIA factbook is more nuanced than you mentioning from the get go Phoenicians, the Carthaginians, Romans, Vandals, Byzantines, various Arab and Berber kingdoms, and the Ottomans and French and Italians). Although we don't touch that source it is our duty to also mention clearly that 1- Genetically wise people of Tunisia are mostly of berber descent with european and arab/semitic admixture 2-studies concerning the religiosity of Tunisians find number very far from 99% muslim.

[76]Finally the way you use the Phoenicians is as an emphasise on Semitic Tunisia to better introduce Semitic Arabs (which let's not forget are 99% of your work). What about the fact that Carthage was a multicultural state, what about intermixing with the berbers/numids ? Asmodim (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

A published and peer reviewed version of Tunisian Arabic is actually available online from 2015 that used a older version of the current page. I invite you to compare it to the current one to realize how much damage was done when it comes opinion bias https://www.academia.edu/28846187/Tunisian_Arabic Asmodim (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Firstly, Tunisian Arabic is not simply a dialect of Arabic, it is commonly considered a dialect of Arabic unintelligible to many other varieties of Arabic but the article is supposed to show much nuance in the matter." - Claiming that Tunisian Arabic is a language merely because it is intelligible to other Arabic varieties is nothing more than your personal opinion. All varieties of Arabic exhibit differences with varying degrees of mutual unintelligibility. What distinguishes Tunisian Arabic from Algerian Arabic or Egyptian Arabic? Take a look at any other article about a variety of Arabic. None of them are considered languages.
• "de facto official language" - This is your own WP:OR.
• "...the Tunisians article was stable for several years before you decided that some parts mentioning the diversity or ethnicity and culture of Tunisia needed not to exist, how exactly: "The migrants brought with them their culture and language that progressively spread from Tunisia's coastal areas to the rest of the coastal areas of Northwest Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and the Mediterranean islands." makes any sense at all as a sentence when you don't mention the one that you removed" - I don't understand. How exactly did I remove this? This exact same sentence existed in the article since at least 2021.[77]
• "The first people known to history in what is now Tunisia were Berber people of the Capsian culture related to the Numidians. Phoenicians settled Tunisia during the 12th to the 2nd century BC, founded ancient Carthage." - I did not remove this. I suggest you check the page history and stop misattributing edits that I did not make to me.
• "How is adding emphasis on "purely arab" or creating repetition "From the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb in 673, many Arabs settled with Arab tribes" a proper way to write on wikipedia ?" - Again, you're misattributing edits that are not mine to me. I have only reverted an edit of yours where you blatantly deleted sourced content with this absurd edit summary "wtf is this".
• "btw we know there were also at least Persians and not just arabs, Kairouan etymology is from Persian, as an indo-european language, Karavan or Caravansérail in French" - I fail to see how the city's etymology constitutes proof that Persians inhabited the city. This is pure WP:OR from you as usual.
• "Thirdly again you're removing any and all nuance, the CIA factbook 99% took the number from the government in the ben ali era which self-reported sovietic numbers of 99% arab muslim and not from any proper research of statistic (btw even the CIA factbook is more nuanced than you mentioning from the get go Phoenicians, the Carthaginians, Romans, Vandals, Byzantines, various Arab and Berber kingdoms, and the Ottomans and French and Italians)." - This is pure WP:OR as well.
• "Although we don't touch that source it is our duty to also mention clearly that 1- Genetically wise people of Tunisia are mostly of berber descent with european and arab/semitic admixture 2-studies concerning the religiosity of Tunisians find number very far from 99% muslim." - I suggest you learn the difference between genetics and ethnicity. This clearly does not belong in the ethnicity parameter.
• "Finally the way you use the Phoenicians is as an emphasise on Semitic Tunisia to better introduce Semitic Arabs" - What are you talking about? What is that even supposed to mean? Are you implying that the Phoenicians were Arabs? Or are you trying to create another meaningless strawman argument?

Skitash (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"Claiming that Tunisian Arabic is a language merely because it is intelligible to other Arabic varieties is nothing more than your personal opinion. All varieties of Arabic exhibit differences with varying degrees of mutual unintelligibility. What distinguishes Tunisian Arabic from Algerian Arabic or Egyptian Arabic? Take a look at any other article about a variety of Arabic. None of them are considered languages."

I did not claim that Tunisian Arabic is a language because it is intelligible. I claim that the distinction between a dialect and a language is irrelevant. However I do claim that the Tunisian Arabic article needs to show more nuance in that Tunisian could be considered a language or a dialect depending on who you ask and that it enjoys a certain recognition and official use and over stressing "Arab" everywhere does not serve any purpose beyond planting a flag. [78]

"This is your own WP:OR. A de facto language is a language used for a role without having the legal recognition for playing such role. It is not my own pov, since Tunisians, well, speak Tunisian, it's not rocket science.

"I don't understand. How exactly did I remove this? This exact same sentence existed in the article since at least 2021.[22]

That sentence makes no sense anymore, as you removed the first part. The whole text followed a logical chronological suit, berbers-->phoenician-->Carthage-->punics. Now we don't even know who arrived, why, what was before etc...

"I did not remove this. I suggest you check the page history and stop misattributing edits that I did not make to me.

You did. [79]

"Again, you're misattributing edits that are not mine to me. I have only reverted an edit of yours where you blatantly deleted sourced content with this absurd edit summary "wtf is this".

Adding questionable emphasise like "purely arab" or sentences that are not even English like "many Arabs settled with Arab tribes" is sourced content ? I did not even change the sentence or remove any source (which I put, as I am the user who created the Tunisians page in 2018), I reverted it to its original wording "From the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb in 673, Arabs settled in Tunisia which was called Ifriqiya", compared it to your version "From the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb in 673, many Arabs settled with Arab tribes in Tunisia which was called Ifriqiya". Good thing many arabs settled with arabs and arab tribes of other arab on arab land from arabia, you know just in case we don't know they are arabs. Not to mention "several purely Arab settlements" god forbid if those settlement were not 99.999% arab.

But very well although you did defend it and protect it, it wasn't you indeed the source of those griefing [80] I found that an unregistered user/IP did them.

[81]

I fail to see how the city's etymology constitutes proof that Persians inhabited the city. This is pure WP:OR from you as usual.

You're right it doesn't serve as a proof and I did not use it at such, it was merely a fun fact that I wanted to share with you along this exchange as you seemed deeply enthralled by arab identity and migrations for some reason.

This is pure WP:OR as well.

What part ? 99% arabic/muslim is clearly a redflag number that any statistician would question in depth before even suggesting presenting it and there are no studies to support it either in any form. But as I said Although we don't touch that source: ie we keep it, we need to nuance it with actual studies of ethnicity and religion concerning Tunisia. The rest of my sentence is a direct extract of the same CIA handbook source, the very first sentence: [82] "Tunisia has been the nexus of many different colonizations including those of the Phoenicians (as early as the 12 century B.C.), the Carthaginians, Romans, Vandals, Byzantines, various Arab and Berber kingdoms, and the Ottomans (16th to late 19th centuries). Rivalry between French and Italian interests in Tunisia culminated in a French invasion in 1881 and the creation of a protectorate."

I suggest you learn the difference between genetics and ethnicity. This clearly does not belong in the ethnicity parameter.

Berber is both an origin and an ethnicity, now no one is saying Tunisians are culturally berber, far from that, very few speak berber if any compared to Algeria or morocco. However I am in favor of mentioning it in Tunisians as it serves 2 purposes. First genetics have their place on a people page as any relevant information on them, Tunisians are mostly of berber origin should be said and that dynamic be covered in relation with ethnicity, second they nuance out claims of flat arabity, it gives layer of complexity and nuance to an information much like the post arab Turkish elements, European elements and so forth that define the modern people.

"Finally the way you use the Phoenicians is as an emphasise on Semitic Tunisia to better introduce Semitic Arabs" - What are you talking about? What is that even supposed to mean? Are you implying that the Phoenicians were Arabs? Or are you trying to create another meaningless strawman argument?

Phoenicians were not arabs, they were only semites and in no way I imply otherwise. That aside, let's focus on this edit by you to clarify my point : [83] you've added: "The vast majority of Tunisians are Arabs who adhere to Sunni Islam." you've changed "Phoenicians settled Tunisia during the 12th to the 2nd century BC and founded ancient Carthage" to "The Phoenicians, a Semitic people, migrated and settled in the region of present-day Tunisia from the 12th to the 2nd century BC (...)" and then you added this part to ottoman Tunisia "By around the 15th century, the region of modern-day Tunisia had already been almost completely Arabized, establishing Arabs as the demographic majority of the population."

Although I am thankful that you develop the article on Carthage and do something else than promoting arab pov at least for a brief moment, considering your track record of doing the former I cannot help but wonder why adding Semitic people was really any relevant to the pace of the article if not for the fact that arab are also a semitic people within the same agenda of the rest of the edits you made at that time. But very well I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there for that part only. Asmodim (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"I did not claim that Tunisian Arabic is a language because it is intelligible. I claim that the distinction between a dialect and a language is irrelevant. However I do claim that the Tunisian Arabic article needs to show more nuance in that Tunisian could be considered a language or a dialect depending on who you ask and that it enjoys a certain recognition and official use and over stressing "Arab" everywhere does not serve any purpose beyond planting a flag."

I am not planting a flag. I've merely added well-supported and widely acknowledged facts to the article. Interestingly, the article used to be in the same state as my changes until a disruptive IP altered it a while back to enforce their own POV.[84] Now this is an action that might be more accurately described as "planting a flag".

"A de facto language is a language used for a role without having the legal recognition for playing such role. It is not my own pov, since Tunisians, well, speak Tunisian, it's not rocket science."

Indeed, Tunisian Arabic is spoken in daily use. However, the only official language of Tunisia is Modern Standard Arabic, which is used in law, legislation, mass media, literature, etc, as it is throughout the rest of the Arab world. To further reiterate, Tunisian Arabic is not officially recognized as either a national language or an official language.[85]

"That sentence makes no sense anymore, as you removed the first part. The whole text followed a logical chronological suit, berbers-->phoenician-->Carthage-->punics. Now we don't even know who arrived, why, what was before etc..."

I reverted the edit of a blocked sockpuppet[86] per WP:BLOCKEVADE. The content they tried to restore was not originally deleted by me.

"You did." [87]

No I didn't. Check the link again.

"Adding questionable emphasise like "purely arab" or sentences that are not even English like "many Arabs settled with Arab tribes" is sourced content ? I did not even change the sentence or remove any source (which I put, as I am the user who created the Tunisians page in 2018), I reverted it to its original wording "From the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb in 673, Arabs settled in Tunisia which was called Ifriqiya", compared it to your version "From the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb in 673, many Arabs settled with Arab tribes in Tunisia which was called Ifriqiya". Good thing many arabs settled with arabs and arab tribes of other arab on arab land from arabia, you know just in case we don't know they are arabs. Not to mention "several purely Arab settlements" god forbid if those settlement were not 99.999% arab. But very well although you did defend it and protect it, it wasn't you indeed the source of those griefing I found that an unregistered user/IP did them."

That's what the source says. It is not up to us to make WP:OR judgements.

"What part ? 99% arabic/muslim is clearly a redflag number that any statistician would question in depth before even suggesting presenting it and there are no studies to support it either in any form. But as I said Although we don't touch that source: ie we keep it, we need to nuance it with actual studies of ethnicity and religion concerning Tunisia."

The CIA World Factbook is not the sole source that supports these figures. Numerous other sources also assert these same percentages.[88][89][90]

"Berber is both an origin and an ethnicity, now no one is saying Tunisians are culturally berber, far from that, very few speak berber if any compared to Algeria or morocco. However I am in favor of mentioning it in Tunisians as it serves 2 purposes. First genetics have their place on a people page as any relevant information on them, Tunisians are mostly of berber origin should be said and that dynamic be covered in relation with ethnicity, second they nuance out claims of flat arabity, it gives layer of complexity and nuance to an information much like the post arab Turkish elements, European elements and so forth that define the modern people."

Feel free to contribute genetic content to where it belongs (the genetics section), but ethnicity is clearly different, and there shouldn't be any intertwining of the two.

"That aside, let's focus on this edit by you to clarify my point : [29] you've added: "The vast majority of Tunisians are Arabs who adhere to Sunni Islam." you've changed "Phoenicians settled Tunisia during the 12th to the 2nd century BC and founded ancient Carthage" to "The Phoenicians, a Semitic people, migrated and settled in the region of present-day Tunisia from the 12th to the 2nd century BC (...)" and then you added this part to ottoman Tunisia "By around the 15th century, the region of modern-day Tunisia had already been almost completely Arabized, establishing Arabs as the demographic majority of the population."

As far as I can tell, all my edits seem to be backed by sources and support widely acknowledged facts. Is Tunisia not predominantly Arab and Sunni Muslim? Are the Phoenicians not a Semitic people? Skitash (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not planting a flag. I've merely added well-supported and widely acknowledged facts to the article. Interestingly, the article used to be in the same state as my changes until a disruptive IP altered it a while back to enforce their own POV.[30] Now this is an action that might be more accurately described as "planting a flag".

Glad we agree on something, the article should be cleaned up to return to a state before those edits

Indeed, Tunisian Arabic is spoken in daily use. However, the only official language of Tunisia is Modern Standard Arabic, which is used in law, legislation, mass media, literature, etc, as it is throughout the rest of the Arab world. To further reiterate, Tunisian Arabic is not officially recognized as either a national language or an official language.[31]

Agreed and that's why I said it is the de facto language of Tunisia (instead of de jure which is arabic (do note though that tunisia doesn't specify in its laws modern standard, classical, literal or else, it's just arabic without distinction although we assume it's mostly MSA in regard to administration, legal documents and laws - which also officially exist in French even though it is not an official language to add complexity to this situation -))

To further reiterate, Tunisian Arabic is not officially recognized as either a national language or an official language.[31]

Yes, it is not recognized as such by Tunisia, although it is largely used. However The Bourguiba school (a public entity directly managed by the Tunisian ministry of education) teaches it [91] also it did happen that the Tunisian government uses Tunisian written in latin script/arabizi in official setting like this instance where the Tunisian ministry of youth and sports decided to go for it in its website for a brief moment before reverting back [92] [93] There are many other cases of official, professional or semi-official uses that are listed on Tunisian Arabic#Use and geographical distribution which I will not list there. On a seperate note, France does officially recognize it as a minority language (and teach it in some schools)

The CIA World Factbook is not the sole source that supports these figures. Numerous other sources also assert these same percentages. [94][95][96]

The CIA handbook and the US government are the same source. And the rest are not studies but simply poster-country websites.

Sources that give statistics need to justify those statistics and how they obtained them. For instance on religion, studies on the matter like the Arab barometer found that 31% of Tunisians do not consider themselves religious.[97] Another research from Pew Research center on muslims found that nearly 40% of Tunisian muslims do not see themselves as sunni but as non-denominational muslims [98], these show that a 99% sunni muslim number has little ground in reality.

As far as I can tell, all my edits seem to be backed by sources and support widely acknowledged facts. Is Tunisia not predominantly Arab and Sunni Muslim? Are the Phoenicians not a Semitic people?

My role is not to feed a pre-conceived narratives into someone's mouth. Is Tunisia muslim ? the majority of the population is, yet the country removed it from its constitution, yet it claims to to realize the concept of an oumma, yet it restricts religion, yet the president must be muslim, yet the first president who created that law (bourguiba) encouraged the minimization of religion in public life, yet many people have a different religion or no religion at all and are fully Tunisian like the rest and are free to chose as they like etc... so things are not so black and white. Are Tunisians muslim ? No, many tunisians are, but not all, being muslim doesn't define being Tunisian.

Is Tunisia arab ? Its population is of berber descent, yet they were arabized, yet their language is a gibberish ofshoot, yet they participate more in arab affairs that the rest of the maghreb on average, yet it has claims on Carthage a pre-arab civilisation, yet it's europeanized, yet it has its people claiming all kinds of ancestry and ethnic appartenance if at all. So are Tunisians arab ? some are but not all, again being arab doesn't define being Tunisian. The role of wikipedia is not to take a side in those matters, but to just present a neutral information and let the reader make up his own mind on what he chooses to do with that information. Asmodim (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Asmodim filed a request at DRN on 29 November 2023. I closed that report because there had not been extensive content discussion, because Asmodim had also filed a report at NPOVN, and because their report appeared to be as much about another user as about an article. I see that this report has been filed here, and now looks like a wall of text. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No Nazis

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

---

Could an admin or experienced editor please close the above discussion. The nomination has been withdrawn by the OP. I am involved. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Reminder: Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion

While no longer brand-spanking-new, Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion is still the place to go if you're puzzling over whether your reading of consensus in a discussion is correct, and you would like a second opinion from experienced closers. It's a relatively quiet and drama-free noticeboard, if you're into that sort of thing. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Seconding this post. DfD's the place to be... jp×g🗯️ 02:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I closed a difficult AfD recently and after I'd drafted my close and read it once, I literally thought "geez, I wish there was someone I could go to to sanity-check that I've interpreted this right". Turns out, there is! Daniel (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

And it has a talk page for discussions on Discussions for discussion! Seriously, thanks for highlighting what looks like a useful resource - it had slipped my radar too. WaggersTALK 12:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Topic unban appeal

I'm asking the admins to please consider removing my Syria topic ban. I know what I was banned for, edit warring, causing disruption, not using a civil language with other users, sockpuppetry, and failing to reach an agreement through discussions. and I apologise to all of the Wikipedia community and promise that I will never engage any any disruptive activity again. During my topic ban ( more than 1 year ), I contributed so much to the community portal by fixing hundreds and hundreds of grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes across many articles Whatsupkarren (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The topic ban was applied here on 2022-08-11 and reads, "The community imposes an indefinite topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed; this ban may be appealed after 6 months (and every 6 months thereafter)." This ban was logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Active_editing_restrictions. I have not verified that Whatsupkarren has avoided editing about Syria-related topics. --Yamla(talk) 14:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

From what I found, it seems that, at least on this wiki (hint), they didn't edit Syria-related topics. Nobody (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

They seem to have skirted the edges with a series of edits on people of Kurdish ancestry in October last year (example) but appear to have stayed very clear on en:wp since. ~~ AirshipJungleman29(talk) 16:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to add to the info, the topic ban was a step-down restriction from a full block/ban as a condition of a successful unban request. I've looked through their contributions and agree with the others, they seem to have abided by the terms of the ban and have edited constructively and without controversy. I'm all for rehabilitation so I'm minded to support the request. I'd be interested to know what kind of editing they plan to now do within the Syria topic area, but my support isn't conditional on an answer to that. WaggersTALK 15:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Waggers There are so many notable Syrian figures that do not have articles on English Wikipedia, to name a few: Paul Daher, Farid Boulad Bey, Benedicto Chuaqui. I’ll work on creating many of these.

I will also work on expanding articles such as, palmyra, Ebla, Ugarit, Umm el-Marra, and Tell Abu Hureyra

Wikipedia doesn’t have a lot of active users interested in Syria, I believe I can add so much value Whatsupkarren (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Support They seem genuinely constructive, and I don't see any further disruption their ban would prevent. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

My topic unban request was removed by a bot before being closed 2X. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1187091102 Whatsupkarren (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed malformed copy and paste. QoH's dirty sock(talk) 15:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Whatsupkarren (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Since the topic ban includes a single-account restriction I ran a check; checkuser cannot prove a negative but I found nothing to suggest that the restriction has been violated. Support based on the other endorsements here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

WikiCleanerMan again

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

I was trying to sort the edit war with WikiCleanerMan and he deleted my message. This is just too far. 78.131.72.186 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Also reverted SOURCED edits. - 78.131.72.186 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

So your last IP was blocked for continual edit warring, and you were told multiple times that an editor can remove any messages from their talk pages with no reason needed, and yet you come back and jump straight into the edit warring again and harassing another user on their talk page. Not sure how you think this is going to go. Canterbury Tail talk 18:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"Harassing"

I literally only sent WCM the PROOF that DS Penske is French. I don't see what's harassment about that. - 78.131.72.186 (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You restored comments on their talk page yet again, after being told previously not to do it. You're harassing them by doing so. Canterbury Tail talk 19:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Citadel Securities user deleting factual information is being paid by Citadel Securities

User Cduffymal is paid by Citadel Securities and has repeatedly removed my factual modification of the Citadel Securities Wiki page.

as this user is being paid by Citadel, it is obvious that they have a conflict of interests with regards to editing rights over their articles.

I have repeatedly tried to post factually verifiable information to the article regarding charges against Citadel in which Citadel agreed to pay fines, and this user has systematically been reverting my factually verifiable edits.

this is a violation of the content policy.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citadel_Securities&action=history 24.119.180.86 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks more to me like two different editors are removing it because your referencing is bad and the source - an unattributed list article - is worse. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing doesn't guarantee inclusion. This is a content issue that you should discuss on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Sanctioned Suicide

Should edits that includes the URL of Sanctioned Suicide be revision deleted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctioned_Suicide&diff=prev&oldid=1183173022 Trade (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion, but it might be helpful to know that it has not been done in the past. There have been some revision deletions at that article, but none were about the url. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If someone found their way to that article, they aren’t going to need to sift through its edit history to reach the site. Hy Brasil (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The community decided that the article can't link to the site for a reason Trade (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Which of the listed criteria do you assert such a revision delete would meet? 331dot (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Linking to a website encouraging violence and self-harm plainly falls under RD3. Or at least that's the criterion I normally use for such things. I don't know if Sanctioned Suicide rises to that level, but being banned in several EU countries suggests we should consider it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Would context matter though? Certainly encouragment to visit the website would be disruptive, but the edit cited here is just adding the link. RD3 says it applies to material "that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project", it also specifically excludes spam links. Adding a link to a website on the article about the website seems relevant, even if consensus is to exclude it(which users new to the article might not be aware of). I suppose editing against the consensus to not include the link would be disruptive, given the subject matter. I'm not sure what I think yet, I can see this both ways. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, context matters. The edit in question was reverted for being an inappropriate external link in the article body, not necessarily because it was spam (and I don't think it was). Providing an official link to the website in our usual context is probably sufficient, but I think other links should be on a whitelist basis, as the risk of contributory harm is fairly high if we're hosting multiple links to a site known for encouraging people to perform suicide and instructing on how to do so. Do they need to be revdeleted? Probably not - they're not harmful in the sense of hosting malware - but I can see the argument either way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't links to The Peaceful Pill Handbook be removed under the same logic? Trade (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite the same thing: Peaceful Pill is a guide for people seeking compassionate euthanasia or assisted suicide in jurisdictions where they are not legally sanctioned. It's not encouraging suicide, it's providing information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I see no point in this. If you copypaste the title of the article in the search engine, you will get the website.

Also, under RD2, mere statement of fact, which copypasting the URL relevant to the article's topic is, should not be revdeled.

One could possibly argue that we should ignore all rules and proceed with revdel, but because you can easily find the forum through your Google search (at least where I am), that simply won't work. It's against the RfC consensus, but revdel won't help.

Also, instead of publicizing the edit here, the best course of action would have been to privately contact an uninvolved admin and see if they agreed to do that rather than to publicise this case here (you know, Streisand effect and all that). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The point was to figure out whether or not we are supposed to revdel "banned" URLs in the first place Trade (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not "banned" as in blacklisted, triggering a filter or getting you instablocked for mere mention of the link. It's that the RfC participants decided to keep it out from an article.

If you want to keep out all mention of the website, you could ask to disallow/warn about all edits carrying a certain regular expression. Whether this is implemented depends on how the edit filter managers see it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

there's also MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Treading less carefully than usual—I was not present for this RFC, and reading over it, I struggle to really see a distillation of consensus that is not "WP:Wikipedia is not censored, except here." I don't want to challenge an RFC that occurred just this year or clog up the talk page with repeated arguments, so I guess I'm briefly soapboxing here about it. Remsense留 04:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive, bigoted editing by IP likely still under admin block

Divisive, WP:UNCIVIL, bigoted editing in Israel/Palestine WP:CTOPS by 142.126.191.102. Based on activity and tone, likely the same individual as 142.126.112.238, who was banned for 2 weeks on 27 November by @Acroterion for trolling and bigotry. Clear WP:NOTHERE and suggest indef.

• [99] In response to block, calls Acroterion "an overfed pig"
• [100] Doubles down on Acroterion in response to block, calling them a "dupe of an Israeli operative" and a "goof"
• [101] Triples down, calling Acroterion a "pig", calling users "Nazis" and telling them to "go back to Germany." (I guess referring to the Jews?)
• [102] Calls article lede "bullshit" and to "just rename it Israpedia already, goofs"
• [103] Removing sourced material, uses edit summary to dismiss "Zionists"
• [104] Removed more sourced mateiral

Longhornsg (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked, page ecp'd. Let me know when they pop back up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)