Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) at 12:21, 5 October 2024 (→Partial block appeal request: closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
    CfD 0 0 13 0 13
    TfD 0 0 4 0 4
    MfD 0 0 2 0 2
    FfD 0 0 13 0 13
    RfD 0 0 65 0 65
    AfD 0 0 1 0 1


    A month later, Telegraph RfC hasn't been reclosed

    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444 § RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues was reöpened (correctly, IMO) on 18 August. Well, less reöpened and more un-closed, since it's sitting in an archive. An edit just came across my watchlist citing The Telegraph on a gender article, and given all the work people put in to expressing their opinions on the matter (including me, full disclosure), it would be nice to have something to point to as the current community consensus, even if it's just an admin-approved finding of no consensus. A key issue in both the original close and the original overturn was that they were unilateral non-admin closes. Could we maybe get a panel of two or three admins to finally put this to bed? Otherwise I fear all that discussion will have been for naught and we'll be doomed to repeat it all in 6 to 12 months. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 18:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to mention, this is listed at closure requests, but CR has a backlog of 44 discussions currently. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised. With close challenges becoming de rigueur and people pushing for the broadest possible interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, closing complex discussions is becoming an even more thankless task. – Joe (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean putting aside the general problems with closing, that Telegraph RfC is very long (68k words from a simplistic counter) and an extremely fraught issue in recent times. The re-opening happened after it spawned a 50k+ word review. (For clarity I mention the review not because anyone closing has to read it, but because it indicates the mess anyone closing probably fear awaits.) So I'm not particularly surprised anyone looking at closing who's even vaguely aware of the background goes "no way!" perhaps with some swear words thrown in. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The irony of it is that it should be closed as generally reliable, which I suppose is the status quo, but it's such a sprawling swamp of a discussion—not counting the review referenced above!—that everyone will demand a panel* and/or a 5,000-word closing statement to feel justice has been done, and more importantly, seen to be done—writ large. And then there will be another massive discussion about the reclose of the reopening of the close. SerialNumber54129 14:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    * Present company excepted; I didn't spot that Tamzin had already mentioned a panel  :) SerialNumber54129 14:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey S Marshall, please reclose it. SerialNumber54129 18:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall's point is a good one, to clarify: we have a situation in which those who took part in an RfC appear to have decided (with some room for dispute, of course) that X is a reliable publication on Y issue, but the broader community, when presented with the same issue, appears not to. Does the broader community (here) take precedence over the attendees of an RfC? Not necessarily; but who's got the appetite for another RfC?! SerialNumber54129 19:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe your third crack at this will be funny. Believe in yourself! Parabolist (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A person should not believe in an "ism". He should believe in himself. John Lennon said it on his first solo album. "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." A good point there. After all, he was the Walrus...

    User:Parabolist, are you the walrus? SerialNumber54129 18:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we not have another discussion here on the issue please? Until and unless someone closes the RfC in an unchallenged way, editor are free to believe what they want about what the RfC found be that the Telegraph is generally reliable on trans issues or not or that there was no consensus or whatever else. But from the community point of view let's stick with 'we don't know' or just don't talk about. Of course if you think you have have read the discussion well enough that you can be certain what the consensus was, are sufficiently uninvolved that no one will be able to reasonably complain about you closing the discussion, and have sufficient experience that you can close the discussion in such a way that enough of the community will accept you properly closed the discussion; well then feel free to answer Tazmin's request. Otherwise your opinion of what the discussion found doesn't seem to be something we need to hear about at this time. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I very much agree. I actually don't have an opinion on what the consensus was, having only participated long enough to make a few comments. I'm just hoping someone will close it—for, against, no consensus, narrow consensus, whatever—and hope we can use this space to find some closers, and not to re(re(re))litigate the subject. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      +1. This debate has already spiraled badly out of control between the RfC and close review, the last thing we need is yet another discussion. The Kip (contribs) 19:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should've remained closed under the original closure. It's obvious the revert of the closure was done out of process. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LilianaUwU: For the love of G-d, could you please not? I'm here asking for a few brave volunteers to step up and close this mess, and I and two others have just begged everyone to not relitigate, and you want to, what, challenge the validity of the second close of the challenge of the close, a month after the fact, for being vaguely "out of process"? For heavens' sake. Please go write an article or something. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please go write an article or something. Challenge accepted. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe this one just doesn't need a formal close. It seems obvious that based on the arguments in the RFC and subsequent discussions, the community is not able to agree on any course of action right now. The safe course would be to pretend this drama never happened, and maybe start a fresh discussion (without all the baggage) to see if things have changed in 6 months or so. This just doesn't seem like a problem that can be solved right now. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On some topics, I'd like that solution. If there's, say, a heated and convoluted RfC about how to describe some aspect of the Hamas–Israel war, there's a good chance that scrapping the thing and waiting 6-12 months will yield better results. Here, though, I'm not convinced. This was a contentious issue in the first RfC in Jan. '23, it was contentious when this RfC started in June, and it's contentious now in September. I don't see a reason to think that that trend will have broken in six months. It's possible that there could be some deus ex machina in that time, The Telegraph fucking up on a gender matter to the degree of Dominion v. Fox; but if the facts are roughly the same in March, I think the consensus (or lack thereof) will be as well.
    What I do think might work would be for someone to do a fairly broad close finding no consensus or only rough consensus (I shan't presuppose which, but I think it's clear this is not a slam-dunk in either direction), but primarily concerned with highlighting the main points that should be discussed in any subsequent RfC. That way we could have some sort of incremental progress. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I largely agree with you, I just don't think we can even agree what goal we should have incremental progress towards (at least not without a ton more drama than we've already had). I think the Wikipedia equivalent of a mistrial due to a hung jury is the only way we'll move forward. That way, next time the opposing factions will hopefully have a better grip on what they need to prove and what arguments their opponents are likely to raise, so we can get past the blocker of "did X really refute point Y or not". I don't think there's much daylight between my suggestion and a fairly broad close finding no consensus; there's no chance we won't be back here in a few months so we might as well skip the intermediate steps of the close-review-review-review and the close-review-review-review-review. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Finding that there's no consensus is trivially easy, and any of our regular closers could tell you that there's no consensus about whether the Telegraph is reliable on trans issues. That's not even controversial. What's getting people so angry is the decision about what RSN should say in the absence of a consensus.—S Marshall T/C 07:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, while I know this sounds like a bad joke, perhaps we should have a separate RFC about that general rule (ie. what RSP should say when the most recent RFC on a source's general reliability reaches no consensus, especially if there were older RFCs.) The separate RFC would not mention the Telegraph at all; while of course the shadow of it would hang over proceedings, the hope is that separating it out and making it clear that we're making a long-term decision on how to handle that general situation would encourage users to participate based on how they genuinely think we should operate in that broad situation, rather than setting policy purely based on what it means for the Telegraph specifically. At the very least I suspect that such an RFC would, itself, be able to reach a clear consensus; and it is an aspect of procedure we should nail down if it's going to result in this level of discordance. --Aquillion (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good idea. In cases like this where a large part of the community doesn't understand how or why an important piece of "inside baseball" works the way it does, it's probably worth discussing whether the status quo actually reflects current consensus on how it should work. There should probably be an WP:RFCBEFORE though, to take the community's temperature on the issue and figure out a concrete proposal or two. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a bad idea. Closers should pay attention to the thread and relevant PAGs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the Telegraph could soon be under new management[1], new owners may take it in a different direction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    involvement of admin in ARBPIA area

    User:Valereee has recently informed me of a formal warning to me on my talk page. She may have some good points, which I would be happy to consider as the friendly warning of a collegial editor, but she says it is a formal warning. Said admin has created and written the vast majority of the article Politics of food in the Arab-Israeli conflict which goes into detail about exactly that topic: Israeli and Palestinian nationalism and so on, and not in a minor or trivial way. In light of the recent discussion above (higher up on the page), which found that WP:INVOLVED does include even fairly small edits, and this is no small edit, I would like to find out if WP:INVOLVED applies to ARBPIA here. The article in question is not simply about food but includes such topics as Israeli history, cultural appropriation, and national identity, which is a similar topic of dispute at Talk:Zionism. Is this admin INVOLVED? Andre🚐 21:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's remiss not to mention this part: If the community believes I'm involved, it's a friendly collegial editor warning about behavioral concerns, which really you should take just as seriously. -- asilvering (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't quote any part of the talk discussion but linked to the whole thing. And yes, as I just said and said in that conversation as well, a friendly collegial warning would be heeded, but she insists she is not involved and that this is a formal warning, which seems off to me. Andre🚐 21:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I do think @Valereee is involved, but the result of this objection is WP:POINTY. I'd recommend trouting yourself (from an uninvolved region perhaps in the Atlantic) and call it day. You could have thanked Valereee for the advice (as you did) and left it at that. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    POINT requires disruption, I am simply seeking clarification. As I said to her, she is INVOLVED, but she disputes this, and insists it is a formal warning, I did offer not to have to do this, but essentially my hand was forced by her insistence that she is not INVOLVED. Andre🚐 22:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, if she would just agree to abide by the plain meaning of INVOLVED (read, that she is), I will close and withdraw the thread, as I'm not seeking any action other than such a finding. She also, I didn't mention, created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli pita. Andre🚐 22:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is why we need to be careful about how we define involved. Nominating an article about a dish for deletion isn't a political act. The dish is apparently not independently notable. Valereee (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not disagreeing with the nomination. But compare this with the discussion of RTH above. RTH also made a bunch of RMs that he thought were relatively minor and didn't express a POV, but the community found that was involvement, because admins and editors should wear different hats in the area. I don't think this is so controversial that it needs to be litigated. Andre🚐 22:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea whether the current WP definition of INVOLVED applies here or not. And I have no intention of reading the linked section higher up on this page about RTH to look for similarities and differences in the two cases. But just as a reality check, I don't really see how writing that article on an example of food nationalism makes her involved in the entire ARBPIA area in general, or in the Zionism article. And the AFD is even weaker sauce. I don't think this is a POINT violation, but I also don't really think this clarification is productive. That said, I also don't see how your comment about preferring incremental editing warranted a formal warning about disruption (maybe the other stuff she referenced later, I don't know, but not the initial comment). Maybe this isn't helpful, but can I just gently ask both of you to do better, without pissing either one of you off? Floquenbeam (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine by me, you know I love ya and your ways, Floq. I'm tryin' here. Andre🚐 22:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's more. Valereee (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I'm at AN, I tried to extend an olive branch, but we're stuck here. How is it fair, then, therefore, that this thread is out of order? I offered a de-escalation path, and it isn't being taken. Andre🚐 23:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I know, that's what I said. But you brought that up 4 1/2 hours later... your intial warning was only about the incremental changes comment. You mentioned the other stuff only when A pushed back. You probably know I don't touch ARBPIA stuff for this very reason, but it just seems like you're both being a little bit suboptimal here. I guess maybe the topic forces people to be suboptimal? Floquenbeam (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Floq, my initial warning was on the article talk page, about all the accusations of cherrypicking, before I came to their talk with the second warning. It's a really long talk page. 75K words. Valereee (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. I do not have a positive or negative thing to say about that warning on the article talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no additional activity by me between those two messages, was there? Andre🚐 23:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll accept it if the community thinks I'm involved, but I edit around food. I seldom get into anything political except for the intersection of food and nationalism. I created Politics of food in the Arab-Israeli conflict because Falafel was turning into Politics of falafel, and I was arguing that falafel is a food, and even if it's being used politically it should still be treated as a food, and it was clear an article was needed so that all these politics didn't need to be dealt with primarily at the food articles. I created Gastronationalism for the same reason. As far as I can remember I've demonstrated no interest in working in PIA separate from food.
    If we are going to consider admins involved for a single foray into a CT that happens to intersect with their primary editing focus, we are going to have no admins who can work at CT. Valereee (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good article, but it's also extensively about politics and issues of potential dispute. Andre🚐 22:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, lest anyone invoke POINT again, I made a few edits to said article, and I left a note on the talk there. I think this move thread clearly shows there are many fraught political issues of identity and cultural appropriation which are hardly clear-cut. Andre🚐 23:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly the slippery slope that myself and others tried to warn about in the recent discussion. Ultimately, Valereee has edited much more significantly on the topic area - creating a whole article - while the only evidence presented against RTH above consisted of a few wording changes that ultimately were not that significant of contributions to the topic area. Yet, the community apparently clearly showed that they believe an administrator making minor wording changes or participating in a discussion about specific sections of a page makes them involved. As such, there is no choice here but to consider Valereee involved because of the parallel.
    The question then becomes with respect to what is Valereee involved. My opinion would be that Valereee is not involved - unless the actual on-wiki dispute they are commenting in or taking administrator action on is related to that article or to a virtually identical topic/information on another page. However, Valereee's contributions to that article include (correctly so) many crossovers to the actual social conflict itself. Unlike RTH's situation above where they made relatively minor edits that basically only dealt with things that have happened over about the last year, Valereee has created a quite decent article that covers the topic (politics of food/identity) over the entire history of the conflict. It covers from After the creation of Israel, Jews migrated from many parts of the world to modern day developments (ex: the section Israeli couscous).
    I can't in good faith argue that Valereee should only be involved with respect to food/society based on the RTH discussion above where it was found that, regardless of the exact content/topic of the edits, RTH was involved with respect to the entire 2023-present war. That would be unfair to RTH and others. I would be okay with Valereee considering themselves involved with the topic of society/culture (but not with respect to military action, for example), but the problem is that over the history of Israel the military actions were all taken because of or had significant crossover with the societal conflict. As such I think Valereee would do best to consider themselves involved with respect to the societal conflict similar to how RTH was advised to do above. And ideally, to prevent people from having to have more discussions on this, they may do good to just choose to not act as an administrator in the entire Arab/Israeli topic area.
    To make it abundantly clear, I don't like where this is right now as a whole. I firmly believe that the discussion above dramatically changed the "norm" as to involvement - expanding it to entire topics rather than specifically the edits/content dispute/editors in question. However, as WP:PAG says, Technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors. So while WP:INVOLVED should be updated to discuss involvement in a topic area (rather than in specific disputes), the current norm as defined by the RTH discussion above should be equally applied here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the only evidence presented against RTH above consisted of a few wording changes that ultimately were not that significant of contributions to the topic area is a very false statement. Levivich (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I argued that it was one primary dispute including 1917 Balfour declaration, Zionism up to present, but the community did not find consensus for that. From the community consensus, RTH would be free to admin about the nature of Zionism, despite their extensive editing history, since it is not the same topic as the Israel–Hamas war. RTH argued his creation of Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (27 Oct 2023) had nothing to do with the Israel-Hamas war (7 Oct–Present) which the community disagreed with. If there was a Nationalistic humus food-fight I would agree we are in comparable territory then with current question here. This whole conversation is making me hungry now. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just made hummus last night. There are nationalistic (and subnationalistic) food fights everywhere there are people in conflict with someone who eats some of the same things they do. Which is pretty much anyone who is in conflict with a neighboring nation. Shopska salad is claimed by Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, North Macedonia, and Serbia. There's conflict at Hainanese chicken rice over whether it was invented in Malaysia or Singapore. There's conflict at Borscht over whether it's Russian or Ukrainian. Both India and Pakistan claim Basmati rice. Every west African nation thinks their Jollof rice is the authentic version. Taiwan thinks its cuisine is the only true remaining traditional Chinese cuisine. Armenia and Azerbaijan both claim Dolma. South Korea and North Korea both claim Kimchi. The list goes on and on, and I've at least touched most of these dishes, often writing about the conflicts over them. If I'm involved not only at the dishes themselves but also at the area of conflict, I'm pretty much involved anywhere people eat food. Which seems a bit silly, as I have zero interest in editing about (and often embarrassingly little understanding of) the conflicts themselves, but if I'm involved anywhere people eat, I might as well take AE off my watch. Threaten me with a good time. :D Valereee (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not just places! Gender & sexuality, GMOs, Pseudoscience, Climate change, Complementary & alternative medicine, and COVID are all food related. We'll ping you back to AE for any gun control stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, people hunt venison and such with guns. Valereee (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn! Abortion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There, I actually am involved. :D Valereee (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Double damn! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shushugah: I read your claim that RTH argued his creation of Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (27 Oct 2023) had nothing to do with the Israel-Hamas war (7 Oct–Present). I would appreciate that you link to the diff where I did so, because I don't think that I have. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have provided a diff proactively before publishing. I would have phrased it differently as a result. In the linked diff, you argued that you are involved in certain aspects of the war, but not others. Whereas community consensus found that you are involved in Israel–Hamas war broadly construed. My earlier comment regretfully implies something you didn't say. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 re this point This is exactly the slippery slope that myself and others tried to warn about in the recent discussion. But, I disagree that the RTH discussion should be viewed as some sort of precedent. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a word we're overlooking here in WP:INVOLVED, which is "disputes". In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. ... Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include ... disputes on topics (emphasis added; parts not relevant to complaint elided). Has there been a dispute regarding Valereee's Israel/Palestine-and-food editing that resulted in her taking a side in a dispute that can be generalized to the topic area more broadly? If so, then she's probably involved. If not, then no, merely editing in a topic area does not automatically constitute involvement, with ARBPIA or with anything else. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. While the outcomes of the article move discussion appear to be settled, there was clearly a move discussion that attracted support and oppose on that article talk, generalizable to a view on whether Israeli food is appropriating Arab food. Pretty contentious topic in this area, with duelling narratives. Andre🚐 01:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Valereee is involved with respect to the question of whether Israelis have appropriated Arab food. Is that what she warned you about? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The current discussion is about sources for the lead of Zionism and whether it fairly describes it as colonization. You can see that the article she wrote includes this text, trategy has prompted accusations of colonization of Arab and Middle Eastern culture and cultural appropriation by Israel. Not food related but it does touch on the larger topic. Andre🚐 01:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, no, she is not acting as an administrator regarding something she has been in a dispute over, even broadly construed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Broadly construed, she was involved in a dispute about an article about Israeli national identity construction (ie, Zionism). Andre🚐 01:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, she's involved with a given topic if she was in a dispute over it. You can slice it or dice it however you want, but you're not going to convince me, or I think most people, that a veteran culinary editor having an opinion about whether "politicization of food" or "Israeli appropriation of Arab food" is a better summary of sources is the same dispute as whether Zionism is colonialist. Loosely related, sure. But "broadly construed" is not infinite. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the evidence provided so far, I don't think RTH Valereee has edited extensively enough in the topic area to be considered involved in everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I do think there's evidence that he she is involved with Israel–Hamas war disputes over Arab/Israeli food and closely related articles. In general, I think that contentious topic areas were identified and delimited by either ArbCom or the community to encompass broad areas in which disruptive editors were editing disruptively. The extant contentious topic areas have lasted because there are still disruptive actors. It is valuable to the community to be able to topic ban disruptive users from these broad areas. I don't think it is sensible to use these categories—ones built specifically to counter disruption—to limit the participation of non-disruptive admins. I'd feel different about the very narrow topic areas (I'm remembering the Shakespeare authorship question topic area). If this keeps happening, I'll make this a template, I swear. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're quoting our comments from the last thread, mine now feels a bit too on the nose: There's very few things in PIA that don't tie in to the current war. It's not true in the opposite direction: I don't think a lot of edits to conflict-related parts of hummus, Bar Refaeli, and You Don't Mess with the Zohan would necessarily disqualify someone from adminning ARBPIA. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've reminded me again that I'm hungry and impressed with Turturro's career turnaround. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had topic banned me from the ARBPIA, and then I added some stuff to hummus about cultural appropriation, that'd be a violation, correct? Andre🚐 01:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. However, if I (or rather some current admin) topic-banned you from hummus, it would not be a violation to edit about Zionism. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These two situations are not comparable. Let's review:
    • RTH
      • Talk:Israel–Hamas war is their all-time #3 most-edited article talk page
      • Voted in 4 RMs on that page and an RM moratorium
      • Created Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, an article about a major event in the war
      • #1 author of Kfar Aza massacre, an article about a major event in the war
      • #6 by edits at Re'im music festival massacre, an article about a major event in the war
      • The four articles listed above are all among RTH's top 30 most-edited articles all time
      • RESULT: involved in "the topic of the 2023- Israeli-Palestinian conflict ... no consensus that this involvement spreads to all of the WP:ARBPIA topic area"
    • Valereee
    Obviously not. Not even close. Levivich (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why was the Andrevan account indefinitely blocked by Arbcom, and why was the account unblocked?Dan Murphy (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not only is that not relevant, but it can't be discussed. But I can say it was unrelated to this topic above, ie not for an ARBPIA topic ban or involvement. Andre🚐 04:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dan Murphy: Entirely irrelevant and I encourage you to focus on the discussion at hand. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that feels relevant to at least ask. I was curious about it as well given the whole backstory. So no problem in checking. PackMecEng (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I see a few people misinterpreting my close of the RTH thread and how that precedent (if it even is one) would be applied here. If the arguments made here were identical, the rough equivalent would be WP:INVOLVED in the topic of food as it relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, no consensus that it spreads to all of WP:ARBPIA. Note that I haven't evaluated the actual edits made by Valeree so I'm not saying this is or isn't what the result should be here. I also think WP:INVOLVED is in need of a refresh to determine what the rule should be, since a lot of the language and culture has shifted since it was written. Topics with Discretionary Sanctions were often tightly defined, such as Liancourt rocks or Cold fusion. If the edits are confined to one narrow piece of an incredibly broad topic area, then involvement should also be narrow where that's reasonably possible. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Valereee is clearly not involved in ARBPIA. I hope this doesn't become a trend where people start coming here to get admins declared involved when they have a dispute with them. Pinguinn 🐧 05:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The RTH matter transpired while I was on wiki-break. If I had seen it I'd have opined against RTH being viewed as involved because of precisely this kind of situation taking place. Andrevan was right to raise the issue. He can't be blamed for that, whatever the outcome here. So now, yes people are going to claim that admins are involved and it is going to be litigated, and they are acting in good faith because of the RTH decision. We can hair-split as to why X is involved and Y is not, but a perception lingers that we're in a mess of our own creation. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If I'm wrong I'm wrong and I apologize. But it would seem that the article is not about food, it's about politics. If Valereee were just editing about hummus' reception and its recipes, I wouldn't say a word. But I myself have edited about the topic of the politics of falafel [3] prior to Valeree's edits [4] and subsequent creation of the politics article, which again is about Israeli cultural identity formation, and not especially about culinary matters. So it would seem the two of us edited the same article about the same topics which are subtopics of ARBPIA. At the least, while she may not be involved in everything about the conflict, the two of us have become involved due to similar edits. Andre🚐 20:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're arguing an admin should be considered involved with an editor at an entire CTOP if the two ever edited the same article barely within that topic, even if they didn't have any interaction, much less dispute, at that article? Valereee (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm arguing that your edits imply a perspective on the topics and therefore neutrality and impartiality, or the appearance thereof, are lacking. Again, if I'm wrong, I apologize, but that was what I determined from the RTH thing, which perhaps I misinterpreted. Andre🚐 21:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The RTH discussion involved an admin viewed as being involved with the topic area. As I understand it neither this discussion nor the RTH discussion deals with involvement with any particular editor. We have RTH considered involved due to his edits in the topic area. I don't agree with the arguments made here that you haven't been editing in the topic area. So my position is that either you both are involved or neither is involved. I'd have preferred for both you and RTH to not be considered involved, but the RTH matter has already been determined. And btw I don't believe it's a question of partiality or impartiality. One can be impartial and involved. One can be biased and uninvolved. That's not the issue. Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe this doesn't change anything but there's a thread now about changing policy that came out of the discussion at Talk:Zionism, Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Clarification_of_BESTSOURCES. Valereee made some changes to the policy which I reverted.[5] Not sure if this now substantiates that we are in a dispute. See also discussion there [6] [7] and other commentary, which to me, suggests that Valereee is a participant and not an impartial arbiter. Andre🚐 01:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You seem to be arguing an editor can make an admin involved with themself w:re content in article space by reverting an edit that admin made anywhere on the project? To take that to its logical extreme, that would mean any editor, with a couple hundred reverts, can make every active admin on this project involved with them.
      My warning to you about making accusations of cherrypicking is a typical warning about behavior. If I'm not involved, it's a warning from an uninvolved admin. A warning about behavior doesn't make an admin involved. If I'm involved, it's a warning from another editor about behavior. Which really, you should take just as seriously as you would the same warning from an admin. Valereee (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You think it's typical for an admin to get involved on the editorial process of source selection, the meaning of cherrypicking and whether it is reasonable, and try to change the policy to reflect your opinion on what is a reasonable editorial process? That is more than most admins. Andre🚐 19:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's typical for an admin to discuss and deal with behavior issues. All of my work at Talk:Zionism has been about behavior.
      An edit to NPOV is a completely new question, and I don't see how it's even relevant to the question of whether I'm involved at Talk:Zionism. Valereee (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If there are legitimate behavioral issues with diffs, they may be presented. As this thread shows, you "warned" me once in the talk page discussion (not a warning, but participation), then you warned me, without any diffs, for arguing for incremental editing, as discussed by Floquenbeam above. Then when I objected to that you accused me of BLUDGEONING and SEALIONING, incivil, unless substantiated. Diffs still haven't been furnished for this. I admit that I may be participating too vigorously and thanked you for your advice. You insist that cherrypicking can only be an accusation, despite the fact that I have made clear that cherrypicking is not only an accusation but can be an unconscious bias or an unintentional blind spot. THEN you went on to try to change the WP:NPOV policy, one of the key content policies, to basically sanction the preferred editorial process which may be conducive to accidental cherrypicking if misused; I reverted it, and now some of the same editors participating in the process and taking your side of the dispute from Talk:Zionism have joined the discussion at WT:NPOV to advocate that the policy should be changed in such a way. This all seems like a run-of-the-mill behavioral issue? Because usually when I deal with admins, and I was one for a number of years but not terribly active in this area, they warn you once succinctly without a lot of to-do. Then if you put a toe out of line you are sanctioned or blocked. Also, there need to be diffs. Andre🚐 20:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm willing to keep responding to you here, but I'm not sure it's helpful to anyone at this point. Unless someone else thinks this back-and-forth is shedding light here, maybe we should discuss at your talk or mine? Valereee (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If the goal here was to come to a consensus about whether or not Valereee could be considered involved in this contentious area of editing, I think that moment has passed. Participation in this discussion has fallen off and this has become a two person discussion. I don't see a strong consensus in either the "Yes" or "No" direction which just goes to show how murky this area has become. You can continue to post if you want but I don't see anything definitive coming out of this discussion at the state of where it is right now so there might be other activities that are more worthy of your time and attention. That's just how I assess this discussion. My only comment is to all admins is to tread carefully when acting in contentious topic areas. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not going to insist on a formal closure, but (for the sake of my own understanding of where I stand) I do see what looks like consensus and I feel like I can act in good faith on what I'm seeing. Valereee (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, there is no consensus whether you are involved or not. Andre🚐 20:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, perhaps we do need a formal close, then, as what I'm seeing is one editor saying involved, 7 saying not involved, and others discussing whether the RTH close did/did not set a precedent that should/should not be applied for various reasons including whether it is/is not fair to RTH. Obviously that's not how you're reading the discussion. Valereee (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Involved" or not, perhaps you can explain this remark? I found it to be gratuitous. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, Coretheapplie, I shouldn't be trying to insert levity into this type of discussion. I should have just left it at "Please try to assume good faith." Valereee (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I appreciate that. And please take seriously the serious concerns I raised about your administrative actions on your talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I recognize your concerns as valid, and will take them seriously. Valereee (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Much appreciated, again, and I just wanted to raise another point that bothers me about this discussion and the RTH discussion. We're talking about "involved" as if it is the only thing that matters. What matters also is the perception of fairness and unfairness when it comes to administrative actions in contentious topic areas. Perhaps there should be guidelines for best practices for admins in this and other contentious topic areas. If admins and non-admins know the ground rules, perhaps there will be more admin oversight of the topic area. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute between User:Symphony Regalia and User:Xslyq

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

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

    This is a frivolous posting that is retaliation over me reporting the user's edit warring[8] on AN3 (note: user was warned by multiple people). User registered in 2017, and then made their first edit a week ago to strong-arm poorly sourced nationalist POVs/WP:FRINGE in the Assassin's Creed Shadows article, using a website that denies the Nanking Massacre.
    Pretty clear WP:NOTHERE IMO, so proposing a WP:BOOMERANG. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not denied any of the accusations.Xslyq (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute that should be, and is being, resolved on the article talk page. Why has it been brought here? The article content will be decided by the RFC, so it doesn't matter what version we display currently. User talk pages are an exception to the general rule and are (for most purposes including this one) owned by the user concerned, so point two is a nothingburger. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough, an IP user (62.34.248.94) who has never edited anything seems to have referenced the noticeboard discussion in Reverting.This is coupled with the coincidence of geographical location and Familiarity with French sources,.Especially considering that Symphony Regalia has been Blocked indefinitely on the Japanese Wikipedia for Sockpuppet behavior.Xslyq (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already been rebuked over this false implication and your contentious behavior by another editor[9].

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

    Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no doubt that you did engage in Sockpuppet behavior before. I hope any decision will take this discussion and the Japanese Wikipedia's RfC into consideration.Xslyq (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone who made their first edit a week ago[10], you are oddly familiar with the intracities of Japanese wikipedia, SpecialAuth, and so on. If there is a sock here it is likely you.
    I did not. A CheckUser was performed and the sock puppet allegations were not substantiated because they aren't true. I was blocked based on a comment request[11] where only 3 people gave input, but I believe that to be for reasons of offending Japanese sensibilities. On Japanese Wikipedia I have had a target on my back for a while for attempting to bring the Nanking Massacre article in line with the English counterpart
    None of this is relevant as I haven't edited on Japanese Wikipedia in a while. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are permanently banned so of course you cannot edit Japanese Wikipedia with this account.This is the page that records your Sockpuppet behavior, which is the reason for your ban.
    Xslyq (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your account was added to the Sockpuppeter on August 31, 2024, so what does it mean that I haven't edited on Japanese Wikipedia in a while?Xslyq (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is false. It was not the reason for my block, which is why the CheckUser did not block. As mentioned above, I was blocked based on very vague RfC where only 3 editors gave input[12], with clear political considerations at play (Nanking Massacre article involvement).
    You are demonstrating unusual behavior even beyond being a clear WP:SPA.
    • Your first edit was a week ago, and yet you are also demonstrating knowledge of things like SpecialAuth, RfCs, archived discussions on separate wikis, and so on. Why?
    • Why are you intimately familiar with how Japanese Wikipedia works?
    Symphony Regalia (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your account was added to the Sockpuppeter on August 31, 2024 and I have no intention of tangling with your misconduct on the Japanese Wikipedia, as I have been informed that the actions of the Japanese Wikipedia have no effect on the English Wikipedia.
    1.This is not true, my first edit was at 19:47, 1 December 2021.
    2.Because there is a magic page where you can see the global account, and I know some Japanese.Xslyq (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, WP:SPA is an essay.It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. WP:SPA is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.I don't think WP:SPA alone is grounds for any sanctions on the account.Xslyq (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    but I believe that to be for reasons of offending Japanese sensibilities.
    Do not make negative comments based on ethnicity. Northern Moonlight 04:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that Xslyqs edits show clear SPA behaviour I'd say a page block from Assassin's Creed Shadows could become necessary. As for Symphony Regalia: Since basically all of their edits, since the TBAN from WP:GENSEX at AE (which they called harassment), have been about the topic of Assassin's Creed Shadows and Yasuke (which currently has an open arbitration case request). It's likely that another TBAN could be coming their direction, as their behaviour is sometimes disruptive (See WP:ARC). Nobody (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The panel has my full support. Frankly the ArbCom case couldn't have come soon enough. Yasuke and Assassin's Creed Shadows have undergone an abusrd amount of vandalism and blatant WP:SPA-type behavior (Xslyps is a good example) from the Gamergate crowd since the release of the trailer for said video game[13].
    They certainly both need CT designation and perhaps EC protection. My recommendation to the panel is in the case request, but I do think a CT desgination for culture war targets based on perceived DEI is appropriate. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that Symphony Regalia's behavior is inappropriate for a controversial topic. Not only the recent editorial behavior, but also mentioned repeatedly in the RfC consensus in Japanese Wikipedia. Symphony Regalia should also at least follow 0RR too.Xslyq (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xslyq while this is not the first time that the Japanese discussion is brought up here, what happened on jawiki stays on jawiki, especially if there is no conclusive device information to tie the accounts together. You are welcome to bring up new sock puppet allegations that happened on enwiki at WP:SPI if any. Otherwise, don't bring this up again or repeatedly. It does not look good on you. – robertsky (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. As a way of cooling off, I won't be editing Assassin's Creed Shadows main page indefinitely. If that's okay, I'm now looking to continue the discussion on the talk page.Still think 0RR should be applied to Symphony Regalia as well.Xslyq (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Closure

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

    Pardon me for asking, but if this case were taken to ArbCom, would my involvement in such be required due to me being a part of the original discussion/argument on Assassin's Creed Shadows where this all started? If so, to what capacity would I be involved? I just finished reading up on how ArbCom works and what it's meant for, and if I'm being completely honest, I'm pretty scared of being a "main character" in such. I have no real idea what to expect. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not a party right now, so your involvement isn't required. However, if someone does submit evidence about you there's always a chance you could be added. Participation mostly consists of submitting evidence on the evidence page, whether it's about yourself or other editors. Pinguinn 🐧 09:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent vandalism of UK constituency pages by user LawNerd123

    User LawNerd123 is persistently removing notional results from UK constituency pages, contrary to usual practice on both Wikipedia and all major news sources. From previous discussion on the talk page this appears to be an issue they have with notional put together by ‘academics’, expressed somewhat conspiratorially, and they are now refusing to engage in discussion. Icc27 (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs showing (1) vandalis; (2) refusal to engage in discussion; and (3) "conspiratorial[]" ideas. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are also required to notify this editor of the discussion here on their talk page per the instructions at the top of this page. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect this is what the filing editor was trying to achieve here, but that's obviously the wrong place to be writing to messages to people. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical_elections_closed. Daniel (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's clearly discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Notional election results so it seems there isn't really refusal to discuss from either side. However both sides calling the other vandals ("vandalism") [14] [15] over what's clearly a content dispute is troubling. Editors should continue the discussion and stop making mass changes to articles. Since it's been going on for a while with no clear result, perhaps some form of WP:dispute resolution could be attempted. LawNerd123 did write an RfC but it doesn't seem to have been done properly but in any case I'd suggest discussion before starting an RfC. Since this is now a CTOP issue, there's likely to be sanctions on both sides if editors continue down the current path. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What errors were made, so that they can be remedied. I followed all of the instructions and it was listed in the RfC page but no one commented. LawNerd123 (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, it appears I didn't look properly and the RfC might have been largely properly listed (perhaps after someone else added some initial text instead of just bullet points) but was just ignored. I suspect this partly demonstrates a lot of the community don't really care much about the issue so getting more feedback to help resolve this might be difficult. However I would suggest that if seeking outside help these should be some further explanation for what it's about, an explanation all sides agree on, linked somewhere. Although I've lived in two parliamentary democracies which took significant inspiration from the British system, I really had no idea WTF a notional was and while I think I vaguely know now from seeing the various discussions, I suspect plenty of people, probably even plenty of people from the UK would have the same problem. Ultimately if people visit a discussion and have no idea what is being asked, they're probably just going to leave without comment, especially if it seems like something that doesn't matter much. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you and you prove my point about what on earth a notional result is and just how confusing it is. LawNerd123 (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be a lot of poor use of discussion all over, including poor notifications. I have posted on @LawNerd123: 's talkpage to inform them of this discussion. As an interim step I recommend all users on this subject be restricted to 3 reverts on the subject as a whole in 24 hours and a bar on reverts that either give no explanation or label the previous change "vandalism". Timrollpickering (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It is clear Icc27 is not adhering to the rules as laid out here. They are engaging in blanket reverting without explanation in violation of the rules laid down above. Please can action be taken regarding this.
    1. [16]
    2. [17]
    3. [18]
    Additionally, they are engaged in personal attacks such as calling me "anti-academic" which has no bearing on a collaborative discussion.
    1. [19] - claims of "I don’t trust these academics and the rest of the world be damned".
    --LawNerd123 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Timrollpickering: This is a note for you as you made the decision regarding the behaviour of editors. LawNerd123 (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been away for a few days so just repeated some posts with the above restrictions on user behaviour. Please can another administrator take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Notional election results and work out either the consensus or whether a properly structured RfC is needed to resolve the content dispute. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous accounts

    I edited Wikipedia previously under the username User:Otolemur crassicaudatus and User:NGC 2736. I don't use those accounts now. Can I get rollback rights? Under my current account, I have made only 200+ edits. CometVolcano (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose in theory we'd want some kind of evidence that those were your accounts. But in practice, it's just rollback, so sure, I'll do it. Hang on a sec. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence do you want? You can check my editing pattern. And I edited National Masturbation Day under both User:NGC 2736 and current username. BTW, if you check my edit history under new account, it is obvious it is an experienced editor, not novice. --CometVolcano (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    I have forgot the passwords of those accounts. Is there any way by which I can recover them? --CometVolcano (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have email attached to each, you may reset your password. Otherwise, it takes contacting the WMF Trust and Safety team, which is not a guarantee. IznoPublic (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have email attached to them. --CometVolcano (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How can I contact the WMF Trust and Safety team? --CometVolcano (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Trust and Safety. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ca(_AT_)wikimedia.org is that an email ID? Should I send an email to them? --CometVolcano (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Email sent. Is it possible to merge the contributions of the previous accounts to my current account? CometVolcano (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CometVolcano, it's not technically possible to merge accounts. At best, you can post a Redirect on your old account(s) to point to your current one. Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dicklyon JWB ban appeal

    There is consensus against lifting the ban on Dicklyon's use of JWB or other semi-automated tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A year ago, in September 2023, I was indefinitely banned from using AWB/JWB or other semi-automated editing tools, due to my not-careful-enough fast edits that resulted in some errors; see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#Dicklyon and semi-automated edits.  I think it's time to appeal that for reconsideration, in the spirit of the WP:Standard offer, and I'm told that this is the place to ask, even though it's a community issue, not an admin issue.  I have also waited for more than 6 months after the kerfuffle with User:GoodDay that resulted in a string of four short blocks on me, including two for personal attacks on him (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Dicklyon temporarily blocked for incivility).  I've kept my nose clean since then (as far as I can find, nobody has brought me up at AN or ANI in the last year, as they had done a few times the year before).

    I will also notify WP:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser of this discussion.

    From the experience a year ago, I learned to appreciate much more deeply that an error rate of 1 in 100 is not nearly good enough when thousands of edits are involved, and I regret that I slipped into that region in some of my too-fast batches of JWB edits.  I will strive for zero errors in the future, by inspecting the context of everything in the diff more carefully, to ensure that my replace patterns are not unintentionally changing things in ref titles, filenames, category names, commons categories, template names, and other such places where "fixes" often do more harm than good.

    In the last 6 months, I've done a ton of good work, about 13,000 edits (all manually), including moving about 500 articles (usually to fix over-capitalization), plus much of the corresponding post-move cleanup.  This work has been done without raising much controversy, with civil discussions in RMs when there's any pushback (with the exception of some personal attacks against me from two editors who didn't like my changes and proposed changes on some military gear articles).

    I've also added nearly 100 new photos via Commons this year; see User:Dicklyon#2024. And stubbed in a few handfuls of new articles, such as Tassajara Creek, Oleshnya (river), Squalicum Creek, Johnstons Bay, Tioga Crest, Elizabeth Macarthur Bay, Robert L. White (engineer), Carl Kassner, Earl Schubert, Mynavi Corporation, and Tripper navigation system. So it's not like I'm doing gnoming exclusively.

    In addition to what I counted in my move log, and in addition to lots of single-article "Requested Move" discussions that I started that succeeded, I also caused hundreds of other pages to be moved through gaining consensus at multi-RM discussions in the last 6 months or so.  Here are the ones I find, with how many moves resulted (total looks like about 380, not counting the 400 or so NFL Draft pages that were moved from an RFC that closed in Feb.); working backwards in time:

    I've gotten over 100 thanks over that time period, too (nearly 200 over the last year), which makes me think I'm doing something right.  I've also been able to reduce over-capitalization on many thousands of articles via a couple of template edit requests, e.g. at Template talk:Infobox Canadian Football League biography and Template talk:Infobox NFL biography.

    The trouble with all these style-fixing moves is that it's very hard to keep up with the post-move cleanup, e.g. of links to the redirects at the old over-capitalized titles.  In the case of the NFL Draft, I was able to get a bot operator to program a bot that's now completed, having edited 1000 files per day for over a month, to fix those, (see User:BsoykaBot's contribs).  That's a good solution at that scale, but for probably all of the others there's not enough to justify the work to make a bot and get approval for it, and there's too much work to do manually (by me or any other editors), and only AWB/JWB provides a way to make effective progress on the cleanup.  It cuts the time per edit by about an order of magnitude (when being careful), I estimate.

    What I intend to start on with JWB is fixing links to miscapitalized redirects that have dozens to hundreds of incoming links.  I've compiled partial lists of things to work on at User:Dicklyon/Under-capitalized and User:Dicklyon/Over-capitalized.  Each link on those pages goes to the "what links here" list of links (from article space only, as I've already dealt with links from templates for most of them).  Some of these (like New York city) will be mostly quick and easy to fix with JWB. Some others will require a lot of individual attention (e.g. Constitutional Law or Data Science, which might be linked as part of the proper name of a title or organization, for example), but still JWB will be a big help.

    I've had some trouble recently in the military history space, most notably at Talk:M40 Gun Motor Carriage, where my proposal, based on several of my moves that had been reverted, failed to find a consensus.  And I've had some strong pushback on some other moves, which made getting to consensus slow and rancorous, with long RM discussions (running to over 6 weeks in the case of Talk:All-purpose lightweight individual carrying equipment). So I'm going to avoid the military stuff entirely for a while.  There's plenty to be done elsewhere.  More generally, I'll be doing fewer moves and more just chipping away at cleanup edits, when I have JWB access again.

    Your consideration is appreciated. Dicklyon (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Conditional support - I've no problems with these tools being restored to Dicklyon, as long as they promise to not bypass the RM route (example RFCs) for page moves. PS - My name in the appeal, isn't "Good Day" & so would appreciate the correction. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed your name. Thanks for your understanding. Dicklyon (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As to "not bypass the RM route for page moves", that's not related to JWB. And as I pointed out above, I've caused about 780 titles to be moved this year via discussions (RM & RFC), and about 500 without. In the few cases where some of those were reverted, I followed up with RMs, per WP:BRD; for example, Talk:Aerial rocket artillery#Requested move 21 September 2024 most recently. In general, when a move is unlikely to be controversial, moving without an RM is preferred. There's typically a huge backlog of RM discussions, some going back more than a month, and they take a lot of editor time, so shouldn't be done when fixes are simple and uncontroversial; that's what I'll commit to stick to. But that's not what this is about. Dicklyon (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't use the RFC route anymore, please. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Dick Lyon is a net negative. SerialNumber54129 17:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, if you're counting style errors. Dicklyon (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Dicklyon is massively understating the disruption he's caused in the military history space. He has a demonstrated pattern of trying to push through poorly researched decapitalization moves without any attempts at prior discussion despite being well aware that they are controversial moves that would be contested. When pressed on the issue and asked to seek consensus *first* for page moves he can reasonably expect to be contested, he has repeatedly and consistently refused to do so. Instead, he simply performs the moves hoping for a fait accompli that nobody else will have the time or energy to contest them and clean up his messes. This exchange is telling regarding his inability to comply with WP:PCM -- he admits that he has trouble understanding WP:PCM's requirement that you must use the discussion process first if "someone could reasonably disagree with the move". His decapitalization attempt of RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 was simply wrong -- in an attempt to push it through without discussion, because he wasn't sure between two ambiguous capitalizations he chose a third, objectively wrong option instead. When the error was pointed out, he still insisted that at some point in the future, he'd open up an RM to further push the discussion. Yet despite having admitted that he has difficulty predicting when a move will be controversial, he's insistent in this very discussion that he will continue to make undiscussed moves when fixes are simple and uncontroversial; that's what I'll commit to stick to. That should be a glaring red warning siren when someone is self-admittedly unable to determine when something is controversial, but insisting that they'll only take uncontroversial actions. I've tried raising these concerns with Dick before, repeatedly, to no avail. Talking with Dick on anything relating to a move discussion is like talking to a brick wall. Nothing gets through, everything just bounces back. It's brought multiple admins to the point of frustration and walking away from participating in this area. Frankly, I think he should be permanently TBANed from any kind of page move or decapitalization discussion or action, but I'll be satisfied to start with not allowing him to have greater tools with which to disrupt the project. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And FWIW, the RM he mentions at Talk:All-purpose lightweight individual carrying equipment was a bad close and should be reverted. There is clearly no consensus in that discussion - I understand these discussions are not a vote count, but that discussion is practically 50-50 between opposes and supports. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the kind of personal attack and strong pushback I was referring to when I said I was going to avoid the Military History space. Obviously Swatjester's opinion is not aligned with mine, and not aligned with what was judged to be the consensus there. On the missile, I think he was referring to my suggestion that maybe RIM-161 Standard missile 3 would be better; that was the name of the article many years ago, and agrees with other editors who pointed out that the name is "Standard", not "Standard Missile". And it's based on sources, which are mixed, and also sometimes don't cap "standard". Anyway, my move was reverted and and I left him a note about it, and that was that. Not a huge disruption. Concurrently, with the gun motor carriages, I learned that in general a couple of MILHIST guys strongly reject the advice at WP:MILCAPS: When using a numerical model designation, the words following the designation should be left uncapitalized (for example, "M16 rifle" or "M6 bomb service truck") unless it is a proper noun (for example, M1 Abrams). So, those are all going to be controversial, which is why I'm going to stay away from them. Dicklyon (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support Give this editor another chance; his request sounds reasonable. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the responses here and discussions linked therein seem to indicate the same problems I had concerns about in the block review. I'm not sure whether more time will fix the issues and get Dicklyon to realize that because he wants these changes, that doesn't necessarily mean they're needed and especially not at scale. Star Mississippi 00:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Dick Lyon's comment below that he deserves consideration just makes me edge closer to a strong oppose.
      As far as I recall, I have no substantive interaction with Lyon prior to assessing the block I referenced above. Similarly, no ties with Swatjester that would make me align with their annoyance, as Lyon describes it. @Dicklyon WP:NOTTHEM is helpful. Star Mississippi 01:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The encyclopedia would be far better off if Dicklyon never made another edit pertaining to page moves or capitalization, and instead worked on entirely different things. Cullen328 (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. DL's RM track record speaks for itself. That he has a camp of "un-friends" who dislike him for properly applying our title policy and style guidelines is not a reason to partially suppress his work in this area. As for alleged "disruption" in military topics, I've been following this, and what's really happening is a handful of military-focused editors are repetitively fighting tooth and nail against every lower-casing move despite the clear instructions in their own WP:MILCAPS guideline, and site-wide ones like WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Again, just because DL and our guidelines have a few people who resist them does not make the resisters in the right. To the extent there is disruption regarding capitalization and other style matters, it always comes from those who defy their application to a particular "pet" topic (even against the intent of guidelines particular to that topic and the views of other editors involved in it). To get back to the principal point here, DL clear understands the procedural expectations of him at this point and has been following them, so there is no reason to deny him use of a tool within those expectations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Dicklyon's approach, as he acknowledges above, has sometimes been suboptimal but his actions usually have much more support in the P&G than his opponents. (t · c) buidhe 03:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I uninvolved in pretty much everything discussed in this thread and AFAIK, I have no personal history with Dicklyon. However the standards have always been that moves that may be controversial should be discussed first. Moves is one aware where WP:BEBOLD is definitely not encouraged. So it doesn't matter how much editors think they are right on the issue as per our policies and guidelines; what matters if there may be good-faith pushback. While it can be hard to predict, and RMs can be costly, ultimately they're still a lot less costly than the problems that result from BOLDMOVES, so if there's any reasonable possibility you might be wrong, RM is the way. Even if most or all of the resultant RMs result in a move, and yet editors are still opposing their moves, we can discuss how to handle it, but it's definitely not just force it through in the hope they'll eventually stop complaining. It's apparent from the above, as well as the links, that Dickylon really doesn't understand this so it just seems a terrible idea to give them tools which will make it easier for them to make such mistakes. Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just wanted to add, the cost to the community of RMs should be the only reason to avoid them. No editor should ever be avoiding an RM because they fear if they start one there will be objections from editors in good standing and achieving consensus might take more effort; but they're hoping if they don't and just go ahead, no one will make the effort to object. Call it WP:Fait accompli or whatever you want, it's just not something editors should be doing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd add that if Dicklyon would commit to only ever using JWB/AWB for moves after an RM closed by someone else established a clear consensus for their move, then I'd support them regaining JWB. However given strong concerns about their judgment, this has to be an explicit consensus for what they're doing e.g. ABC to Abc or all cases of ABC to Abc. I don't think we can trust their judgment for even something like ABc to Abc after getting consensus to move ABC to Abc or even if they go consensus for one case of ABC to Abc, they can move other cases of ABC to Abc. This is likely to be very limiting, so I can understand why they could not want such a limit. And in addition I'm not saying this justifies starting pointless RMs, if that happens the community may take action and they cannot blame the requirements imposed on them for JWB use. So it's not something I raised before now. However if others think that the problems they might cause via misuse of JWB for page moves aren't sufficient to justify denying it, then I'm fine with allowing it with these conditions. Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—Someone above says: "poorly researched decapitalization moves". Really? I find his research thorough and balanced, and his knowledge of MOSCAPS good as well. A net significant benefit to en.WP. Tony (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I won't support or oppose, but I think Dicklyon's colleagues do him a disservice when they say, more or less, "he's right on the merits, so restore his access." I can't think of a better way for Dicklyon to wind up right back in hot water than this sort of uncritical support. The community has said in the past that Dicklyon's evaluation of what is and is not a controversial move is heterodox. Whether he's "right" or not doesn't come into it. Mackensen (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I'm uninvolved with anything specific mentioned here, but have been involved with multiple other style-related (especially capitalisation-related) move discussions involving Dick in other topic areas and the links presented here show that despite the passage of time he has not learned how to predict what is and isn't going to be controversial or how to listen to and constructively communicate with other editors when they disagree with them. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This application has nothing to do with page moves and comments to oppose this application on perceived conduct in respect to page moves are off topic. A number of editors are commenting on their expectations in respect to page moves particularly in respect to capitalisation and individual views that DL is not conducting himself reasonably. The test of reasonableness (ie good-faith or bad-faith) applies equally to all involved parties. If there is a broad community consensus that capitalisation moves are a special case with particular expectations, then the broad community consensus should be established and documented. But this is neither the time nor the place. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It was Dicklyon himself who brought up page moves in his opening statement. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't give an F about the capitalisation issues (frankly I barely even know what it's about and barely know what our MOS says about such things) so as I said, I'm uninvolved regarding that. If there are other editors behaving poorly regarding capitalisation, we can discuss how to handle that somewhere appropriate. Clearly though, the way to handle it is not for an editor to try and force moves without discussion when they expect these editors will oppose. Likewise, if other editors are using JWB or AWB inappropriately then it should be removed from them, and I'd encourage you User:Cinderella157 or anyone else aware of such misuse to bring it to our attention. We're not going to give an extremely powerful tool which can cause significant problems when misused back to some editor so they can misuse it just because some other editors are misusing it. If that's what you're suggesting than sorry but that's one of the dumbest suggestions on AN in a while. Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nil Einne, I think that you may have the stick by the wrong end here. JWB/AWB are editing tools. In effect, they are like the search and replace function one can us in MS Word. They do not move pages. Hence, my comment. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cinderella157: I don't misunderstand. JWB can be used to help process page moves making a lot of changes as part of a move which will need to then be reverted. This is incredibly disruptive, even more so than an inappropriate move which is disruptive enough as it is. It's clear from what Dickylon said in the opening statement, that this is one of the purposes Dicklyon intends to use JWB for. If they don't intend to do so, they should't have told us that this is what they intend to do. (Although realistically given the history I think editors would expect this is one of the things they intend to do and so they would likely have needed to explicitly commit not to do it rather than just not mentioning it. Them being honest was by that token, at least a small positive.) In fact they made a big deal over how they need JWB so they can process all these allegedly much needed moves which, so I don't understand why this is in doubt. One point I sort of touched on above but which hasn't been really dealt with much in this thread. If you move Burma to Myanmar, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily appropriate to change every single wikilink of Burma to Myanmar, care needs to be taken as in some cases it's appropriate to keep Burma. Definitely unless there was consensus in the RM that every single usage of Burma should change to Myanmar, you cannot claim that it's okay because there was consensus. This isn't a made up example, I distinctly recall this being an issue in the past where one or more editors (I don't think any of them were Dicklyon) made this mistaken assumption causing disruption. There is a chance I'm remembering wrong and it was Myanmar to Burma. Either way although I supported the move from Burma to Myanmar long before it happened, I can see this as disruptive. The same would apply to whatever moves Dicklyon is trying to make, even if perhaps less so due to capitalisation having less reason to vary, hence why in my comment above, I said I'd support it if Dicklyon only used JWB in relation to moves under very strict circumstances. You can come up with other circumstances if you want, e.g. they'd only use it after waiting 90 days from a move that didn't go through the RM process and find consensus as adjudged by someone else to make the change Dickylon wants to make, and with the recognition that since it didn't go through the RM process opposition once Dicklyon starts to use JWB needs to result in an immediate halt and reversal rather than a claim it's been 90 days and there was no opposition so it's now the status quo ante; I'd consider those conditions as well. But from the evidence I've seen including their latest comment below, definitely not without such very strict conditions since I simply don't trust Dickylon to have the judgment on when what they're doing is okay and when it's disruptive. Nil Einne (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Cullen. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Above comments have left me unconvinced that Dicklyon's behavior has changed in any substantive way since prior blocks/sanctions. The Kip (contribs) 03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I’m hard-pressed to give a user with a dozen-plus blocks access to such tools. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Attention should probably be given to his usual coterie of enablers as well. 2601:600:C87F:D360:D462:909E:F4D:D1E9 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2601:600:C87F:D360:D462:909E:F4D:D1E9, if you are going to cast aspersions at some unidentified people, you should log into your regular account. Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Got any specifics?

    A number of opposers above seem to be reacting to long-ago problems, or to Swatjester's annoyance at me. I had admitted from the outset my problems in the military history space (which accounted for relatively few of the many moves and edits I've done this year), and offered to stay away from that, since some of the fixes that appeared to me to be uncontroversial turned out not to be. If I've done anything else that people found to be bad in some way, I'd appreciate hearing it directly, with specifics, and links, not just echoing Swatjester or vaguely alluding to past problems. I've claimed that I've "kept my nose clean" since problems more than six months ago, and therefore deserve to be considered for a "standard offer". If you think I'm wrong, don't I deserve to hear why? Dicklyon (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dicklyon, the Standard offer is an essay. It is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is sometimes a useful tool, but it should be noted that it says This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and administrators are not forced to unblock you. You need to persuade other editors commenting here that there will be no further disruption from Dicklyon. But you have been repeatedly disruptive and have been blocked for it over and over and over for 17 years. You have not persuaded me and it is clear that you have not persuaded many other editors who have memories and have either never been blocked, or have been blocked far less often than you have been. Those who oppose this are under no obligation to furnish diffs. It is your long term pattern of misbehavior that is etched in many memories. Cullen328 (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand all that. So I'm trying to show "no further disruption", especially with respect to JWB usage, by showing good behavior for the last 6 months, and year mostly, with a few exceptions that were not nearly as bad as Swatjester paints them in poisoning the water for this discussion. On the Feb. kerfuffel with GoodDay, I made a nasty comment for which I got blocked, and apologized and he accepted. And I got blocked for "move warring" for one move that seemed right at the time and was shown right later. And I got blocked for edit warring for listing an RFC at central too many times. It was stupid, but none of that was particularly disruptive, and 3 of the 4 Feb blocks got lifted early after a little discussion; sure, they added to my total from years ago, and that's now on my permanent record, which is a drag. In the military history area, it's more complicated, but I've tried to be up front about what I did wrong and how I will avoid it in the future, and it's unrelated to the permission that I'm asking for. Reaching back years behind those events seems like an altogether unreasonable approach here. So I'm asking for the courtesy of having my transgressions pointed out, and asking for an evaluation of my last 6 months, not trying to impose an obligation or erase anyone's memory. And I'm pointing out that I've done a massive amount of good work in the last year, gnoming and otherwise, of which only a tiny fraction has bothered anyone. So if I've done something wrong that I've not already admitted to, I'd like to know what. Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "one move that seemed right at the time and was shown right later" - you've demonstrated the problem here. For moves, it's not "is the move right" but 'is the move likely receive good faith opposition'? If it's the latter, then you need to use the RM process and not proceed just because you think the RM will eventually find a consensus on your side. Since you still don't seem to understand this even after multiple people have raised it above, how can there be any hope that you will understand it well enough now not to misuse JWB by making moves you think are right but which there is likely to be such opposition? Nil Einne (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my idealistic view of things, seventeen years of repeatedly disruptive behavior should be followed by seventeen years of exemplary, utterly non-controversial conduct before editing restrictions are lifted. The community will probably conclude that my assessment is too harsh. But six months is way too soon. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dicklyon, regardless of whether you and I agree on my interpretation of the examples I've provided, I think it's pretty hard to make the argument I've "poisoned the water" here when nobody in opposition has cited my opposition as their reasoning (e.g. no "per Swatjester") and at least a couple of people in support clearly disagree with me specifically. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You were first to oppose after the null comment of SerialNumber54129, and next Star Mississippi said "the responses here and discussions linked therein seem to indicate ..." (and that was mainly you in the linked discussion, too, where I couldn't get you to point out an example other than the missile). Dicklyon (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then Cullen jumped in with nothing, then Nil Eienne with "It's apparent from the above, as well as the links ...". Then Thryduulf with his long memory and well-known antagonism to MOS fixes. And six more with nothing to say piled on at the end. Dicklyon (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dicklyon, are you actually trying to claim that your well-documented 17 years history of disruptive editing and your associated block log is "nothing"? Really? That is an astonishing assertion utterly devoid of evidence. Do you even care about your credibility? I have been editing for 15 years and have zero blocks on my record. Why is it that you cannot say the same thing? Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dicklyon, you could have approached this discussion by saying, "I now realize that I have been editing disruptively for 16-1/2 years and I have now experienced an epiphany and I pledge to never edit disruptively again, As a token of my sincerity, I pledge to never edit again regarding page moves and capitalization, because I realize that the community has come to the conclusion that my editing in that area has been disruptive." But no. You want tools to be restored to enable you to continue your disruption more efficiently. Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's absurd. The community has not come to any such decision, and it pisses me off to hear you put out such misinformation. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dicklyon, uninvolved editors who take the time to examine your documented very long history of disruptive editing can look at your block log and at my my empty block log. They can then draw their own conclusions. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I'm not denying my block log. And if any editors would take the time to examine my record, they'd see that along with my mistakes I've made huge positive contributions to WP. And if any would look at my behavior over the last year, I'd like to hear what they find. A few people were annoyed at losing their capital letters, but it was mostly just uncontroversial hard work. I admitted where my mistakes were, and people are acting like there's a lot more, but won't show me. I doubt any of them looked. If you did, what did you find? Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dicklyon, of course I have looked at your edit history repeatedly over many years, and almost all I see is you obsessing (common term instead of psychiatric diagnosis) about trivial matters of zero interest to our readers, like changing something like "XYZ" to "Xyz", and when encountering resistance to your trivial edits, you dig in and engage in battleground behaviour. Cullen328 (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, tell us, Dicklyon, when will that misconduct stop? Cullen328 (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion

    Not a recommendation, but perhaps if you were to stay away from page moving where lower-casing is involved, for a whole year. Maybe some of the editors who are opposing your request, might change their minds. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I will pledge to not do any page moves to lowercase alternatives, for a whole year, if I get JWB access back, if that's what it takes. And of course I will use JWB responsibly and carefully, knowing that if I don't I'll lose it forever. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Closure Review: Benevolent Dictator

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

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

    Background

    There was a previous RFC started in October 2022 and closed in January 2023: [20]. The closure was against including examples. In July 2024, a request was made at DRN for dispute resolution. I observed that part of the problem was that some editors had disagreed with the RFC, and had ignored the RFC rather than either complying with it or requesting a review of its closure. Since moderated discussion was unlikely to result in a compromise, I said that I would prepare a new RFC. I said that it should probably be reviewed at WP:AN so that no editor could claim that there was anything wrong with the RFC. That may be one of the reasons for this challenge. I said that any editor who then ignored the second RFC would be editing disruptively and could be sanctioned. After some work on the RFC, Loki submitted the RFC on 17 July, and voorts closed it on 13 September. My involvement is that I drafted the RFC. I was neutral, and was acting as a mediator, but consider myself an involved editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Previously Involved Editors

    Previously Uninvolved Editors

    • Endorse: There was clearly no consensus here, even if all arguments were weighted equally. 6–4 is not consensus for anything. And per WP:ONUS, consensus for inclusion needs to be achieved. There is pratically no difference between "no consensus for inclusion" and a general "no consensus" because both result in no inclusion. I'm not sure what the point of this review is. C F A 💬 22:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uninvolved endorse of close. There is no consensus in that discussion and this isn't a situation where a firm consensus is likely since the matter itself is subjective. Star Mississippi 22:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uninvolved endorse. 6-4 is not a consensus. It's a nocon. Assuming there weren't irregularities or obvious policy wins here, which is a discretionary matter. Or, basically, per Star Mississippi and CFA Andre🚐 22:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion about responding to threats of harm

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

    User:BoyTheKingCanDance NPP Reviews

    On 27 September 2024, I asked BoyTheKingCanDance about his NPP review of the Gujarati film Bham (film). I inquired how it meets the notability criteria and why he marked it as reviewed. The film article only cites Times of India (TOI), which is considered unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES and the consensus at RSN. He then acknowledged his error and marked the article as unreviewed.

    Today, I found that @TheSlumPanda nominated the article for deletion. It is a BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) article about an Indian politician, but it does not cite any significant coverage sources, nor has the subject been elected to any notable offices—just nominated for election. After checking its curation log, I discovered it had also been marked as reviewed by BoyTheKingCanDance, which is why it had not been nominated for deletion since its creation on August 13.

    After checking BoyTheKingCanDance's curation log, one can immediately find multiple incorrect reviews, such as:

    • Khomlang Laman: Which he recently marked as reviewed, has no WP:SIGCOV sources, no critical reviews, and includes citations from YouTube and BookMyShow, which are user-generated sources.
    • Sayidkhan Kiatpathan (now draftified): A BLP, marked as reviewed by him, uses Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram as sources, along with a single profile link.
    • Diane Hamilton (behavioral specialist): A BLP article, which he marked as reviewed without nominating it for AfD, was later nominated by Amigao, who described it as entirely promotional, and it will be deleted based on the votes. I respect his NPP work and acknowledge that his efforts greatly help reduce the backlog, but consistently marking these types of articles is not a good practice.

    Request: I would like the community to review his NPP curation logs to check for additional errors and take necessary actions. GrabUp - Talk 09:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for alerting me to claimed imperfections in my patrolling. I will take extra care now that I have been alerted to my need to be more certain about the quality of certain sources (for example, Times of India). You will see from my edit summaries that I routinely highlight and remove weak sources including Facebook, Instagram, etc. I routinely point out that YouTube is not a RS. Thank you. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify one point Times of India is not considered unreliable, there is a consensus that additional considerations apply when using the source, see WP:TOI and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It's should be used with caution but isn't outright unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you are right, but the Times of India alone can’t make any subject notable due to the questionable reliability. Also, the TOI sources cited in the Bham (film) article do not provide significant coverage (SIGCOV), so even if I consider TOI reliable, it still wouldn’t work. GrabUp - Talk 13:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, just wanted to clarify the situations in regard to TOI as it's a bit murky. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Sayidkhan Kiatpathan and Than Singh Doli definitely should not have been marked as reviewed. Two very poor articles, sourced to Facebook is laughable. AusLondonder (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this editor could improve his new page patrolling, as could nearly everyone who does it, but I think that this report is a little premature. I don't see any need for administrative action here. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an administrator, so everybody is well within their rights to ignore my comment. But @GrabUp, here's a spotcheck for you.
    This isn't the first times concerns about BTKCD's reviews have been voiced by established editors; @SandyGeorgia raised concerns about they way they were letting copyvios through in June 2023 , and when BTKCD BTKCD blanked the notification, @Barkeep49 had to ask them to elaborate. BTKCD promised to "look out for [copyright violations] even more (much more)", and then blanked the discussion. So when, last month, @Compassionate727 lets them know that they missed a pretty obvious, copy-patrol flagged vio? Special:Diff/1240808766. Well, mistakes get made. The fact that they only took 22 seconds to review the page, judging from the timestamp of their previous review of Jeph Acheampong? That's a bit more concerning. But maybe they were in a rush. Let's look at some recent pages they've reviewed more closely. And, since notability can be very subjective, I'm going to look for articles the community has already flagged for deletion, or articles with the sort of severe content issues NPP is meant to review for. Again, this is only a spotcheck; I don't have the time or inclination to go over every single review, one by one.
    • Khomlang Laman was marked as reviewed 16 seconds after their previous review.
    • Sayidkhan Kiatpathan took 24 seconds
    • Diane Hamilton (behavioral specialist) (606 words) took 19 seconds.
      • They also marked the original page Dr. diane hamilton twenty seconds after the previous review. As far as I can see, they did not fix the page name?
      • Page is currently at AFD. (Nominated by a different user)
    • Battle of Goźlice 17 seconds after editing a different page.
      • The editor who created the Battle of Gozlice page later went to BTKCD's talkpage to ask why they'd reviewed the article without actual reading it/assessing it, to which BTKCD responded "I reviewed it and yes your comment is random. Thanks anyway." They then removed their comment from their talkpage without answering the other user's follow-up question, concerning the lack of assessment, with the edit summary "Thank you very much for your advice. I appreciate it."
      • The original pl-language page contains Earwig-readable copyright violations, and the en-language page contains human-findable violations. Might be a partial backwards copy that somebody retroactively cited to a Wikipedia mirror.
    • Hair texture powder (300+ words) within only sixteen seconds.
      • Page contained earwig readable copyvio.
    • Air Littoral Flight 1919 was reviewed in 45 seconds, and contained an unattributed translation of a frWiki article.
    • Aeroflot Flight F-637 was reviewed in 93 seconds
      • Page was an unattributed translation
      • Page currently at AfD. (Nominated by a different user)
    • Yvy marã e'ỹ (450+ words) was reviewed in 53 seconds
      • Page was a insufficiently attributed translation, as indicated in the edit summaries.
    • New Zealand Wars Memorial, New Plymouth (477 words) was reviewed in 23 seconds.
      • Page contains a significant amount of WP:CLOP, heavily distorted in a style which suggests the original writer was trying to get around automated plagiarism checkers. To be fair, I had to spotcheck to find these violations.
    • Bham (film) a little over two minutes after the page was created
      • Page contained earwig readable copyvio/a blatant advertisement
      • Page is currently at AfD. (Nominated by a different user)
    • VASP Flight 780 (115 words) was reviewed in 10 seconds.
    • Samayal Express twenty seconds after their last edit
      • Contained earwig-readable copyvio/a blatant advertisement
    I've highlighted the seconds it took to do reviews for a reason, but you'll notice I've also highlighted the word count on some articles. Now, assuming that they're reading the articles they're reviewing (One of the basic steps lists at WP:NPP), this suggests they can read upwards of a thousand words per minute. A reading speed which our own article describes as "not feasible given the limits set by the anatomy of the eye". Now, maybe they're jumping back and forth between articles. Maybe they have super-human reading abilities. But, if they were on trial, this kind of stuff would get their rights pulled. And, again, they've already told the community that they would be on the lookout for copyright violations. So I don't know what to do. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the detailed analysis, it really helped. It is concerning that they are not giving enough time to read the full article and are just marking articles as reviewed while removing other messages from talk pages without providing replies. This is not a good approach, even though they had to respond after Barkeep49 raised the issue. When I checked his curations, I was not aware of these copyright issues. Obviously, if they were on trial, they would not have the NPP rights continued. Let’s see what the admins think. GrabUp - Talk 03:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GrabUp, could you strike that last comment? We don't have "trials" on Wikipedia, not for anyone, and I don't think anyone can predict the outcome of an investigation into advanced permissions. Liz Read! Talk! 08:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: Hey, you may have misunderstood. GreenLipstickLesbian and I were talking about the trial of NPP, which is given to new NPP users before Indef them the flag. We weren’t talking about a criminal trial type thing. GrabUp - Talk 08:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GrabUp, you are absolutely right, I did misunderstand. I don't know as much as I should about how NPP privileges are awarded or removed. Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry about it, Liz. Many people (including me) would have misunderstood, but few would have come clean about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also misunderstood on the first read, and I do know about NPP privileges, so. -- asilvering (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised I didn't follow up last year but I'm concerned with what happened on the user talk and have concerns with some (though not all) of the reviews listed here. I hope we hear a substantive response. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to pile on here, but I just removed blatant copying from Brinkworth railway station, South Australia, another BTKCD review. The copying would have immediately shown up with an Earwig search only using links in the page. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found the replies here insufficient and so I have removed Boy's NPR permission. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draftification Issues

    I recently noticed this issue when I saw they draftified a film article that was created within an hour. When I checked their Draftification log, I found multiple draftifications that violate the one-hour rule per WP:DRAFTNO.

    I can add more, as their draftification list is full of premature draftifications, and they don't seem to have knowledge of WP:DRAFTNO, based on their comment here. GrabUp - Talk 15:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit request that's been open for a while

    Hello, can someone implement the request at Template talk:Collapse top? It's been open for a while, and I think Izno's on a wikibreak/is busy rn to implement it. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 10:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Izno has been active over the last few days, and was so this morning. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I worked through a whole bunch of edit requests yesterday, let a man sleep and/or ignore one that someone else can definitely do since it's a TE protected template. heh Izno (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't sleeping valid grounds for a desysop? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sweet release. Izno (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Review of rangeblock

    A year and a half, the range special:contribs/2600:387::/40 was blocked until next year, but it is causing much collateral damage. Please reconsider the block, assuming that the vandal is gone. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have alerted Ivanvector as he placed the rangeblock. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What vandal? And how are you determining the collateral damage? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion without reason

    Hello  This user @MrOllie is deleting the source based content added to the accounting article.  In the accounting article, I added a text about the analytical part of accounting, which relied on the most documented sources.  The mentioned user deleted it on the pretext of repetition and similarity of the word.  This is despite the fact that .here is no other qord similar to the word of analytics in the article  I invited the user to talk and debate on his page, but he did not cooperate. Wikinegarr (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    no other word similar -- you mean, besides the 8 uses of the word "analysis" elsewhere in the article? And if you want to discuss a page, you should probably be using the talk page to build consenus, not other users' pages to harangue them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The word analysis does not exist in the main definition of accounting at the beginning of the article, and according to some common misconceptions that accounting does not focus on analysis and its exclusive focus on recording information and not analyzing them, the presence of the word analysis at the beginning of the article is not sabotage or disruptive action.  Not that this user insists on dealing with it.  I tried to invite the user to reach a consensus through various methods, but he did not respond to me and did not cooperate.  Adding the word analysis to the main definition of accounting at the beginning of the article is not a problem.  Please register this issue as a consensus and add the word analysis to the article.  thanks Wikinegarr (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you ignore the discussion that they started on the talk page?
    I also suggest you leave a notice about this on their talk page (see top of this page). M.Bitton (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry i didn't saw it Wikinegarr (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please register this issue as a consensus That is not how it works. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and proceed accordingly. I also suggest that when discussing this (or any) topic on an article Talk page that you follow the guideline on talk page discussions, the nutshell description of which is "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor" (emphasis mine). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am starting to think there is some kind of language barrier or WP:CIR issue going on here. Comments like Prioritizing the correct meaning. This meaning is not correct. If we don't add analytics, we've lost the meaning of bookkeeping to the audience. The most important difference between bookkeeping and sensitivity is this. [22] don't make any sense, and edits such as [23],[24], [25] or [26] show clear problems with language proficiency. MrOllie (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And more samples can be found in the contributions of Wikijournalistt (talk · contribs), Wikinegarr's second account. MrOllie (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I told you what i mean. I mean we need to make clear th difference between bookkeeping and accounting in the lead. The difference between them is that accounting involves analysis but bookkeeping just involves recording and processing. Bookkeeping is a part of accounting but not all of it. It's not a big problem. Is it really hard for us to make their difference clear by adding just one word of analysis? I am sure what i wrote now is completely understandable. Wikinegarr (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just a matter of writing correctly, if you make an edit that is challenged, you must have a talk page discussion and get consensus. That isn't always easy as some article talk pages aren't very active but what you don't want is to get into an edit war with another editor. Edit warring typically leads to an editor being blocked which I'm sure is not the outcome you are seeking. Wikipedia is a platform where insisting you are right and persistently undoing other editor's work will spectacularly backfire on you. Liz Read! Talk! 08:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had a nickel for every time MrOllie got sent to AN or ANI for frivolous reasons, I'd be a millionaire. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    LilianaUwU, I think MrOllie would be brought here less often if he gave more descriptive reasons for reverting another editor. He reverts A LOT of editors, mostly new ones. It's usually for valid reasons but there is often not very helpful edit summaries. Liz Read! Talk! 08:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, edit summaries like this could be made more descriptive. [27] Ca talk to me! 04:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Exchangegaloshes

    Can an administrator please block the username Exchangegaloshes? They are vandalizing different users talk pages, and adding an inappropriate file. HotDogsforDays (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Latest sock blocked, article and your talkpage protected. Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Request

    Hi.I have not enough time time to currently contribute on Wikipedia due to high level of painful stress, I was priviously more active on english Wikipedia, but I like to take a long wikibreak for 2 weeks , so, If admins are remove my privileges except extended confirmed user and also please extended confirmed protection add at on my usertalkpage for 2 week is my humble request to Wikipedia Volunteers.Happy editing --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 05:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed your privileges as you requested, but I don't see the need to protect your Talk page. Just put a {{wikibreak}} notice on your Talk page so editors posting will know you're not around.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Final Request for Revision – Resolving the Contradiction in the Accounting Article

    Content-related discussion about this issue is ongoing at Talk:Accounting#Lead sentence; conduct-related discussion is ongoing at WP:AN#Deletion without reason. Opening another discussion on AN is unhelpful at best. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    hello.

    I hope you're doing well. I am reaching out to you once again, with a final request regarding the initial sentence in the "Accounting" article on Wikipedia. After reflecting on our previous conversations and reexamining the article, I believe there is a significant contradiction in how the definition of accounting is currently presented, which I’d like to discuss in more detail.

    The article, as it stands, introduces "accounting" in its most general sense without any mention of "analysis" in the opening definition. This omission is particularly concerning because later in the same article, when discussing management accounting, it explicitly mentions that management accounting involves analysis. This creates an inherent contradiction: how can one specialized branch of accounting (i.e., management accounting) include analysis while the broader field of accounting, which encompasses all subfields, does not?

    This suggests that accounting as a whole is merely about recording transactions, which is a gross oversimplification of the profession. The field of accounting, in reality, is much broader. Accounting not only involves recording financial information but also interpreting, analyzing, and presenting it in ways that assist decision-making for businesses, individuals, and governments alike. To exclude any mention of analysis in the opening definition of the entire field is misleading and diminishes the full scope of what accounting truly entails.

    What is even more contradictory is that analysis plays a critical role in all aspects of accounting, not just in management accounting. Financial accounting, for example, requires rigorous analysis to prepare accurate financial statements, interpret company performance, and ensure compliance with standards. Similarly, audit and tax accounting are also grounded in analytical processes that go far beyond simple bookkeeping. In fact, without analysis, accounting information would be of little use to stakeholders, as raw data alone does not inform strategic decisions.

    Given that the article later discusses analysis in the context of management accounting, I believe it is essential to reflect this in the broader definition of accounting as well. Not only would this resolve the contradiction, but it would also provide readers with a more accurate and complete understanding of the field from the outset.

    I propose a slight but meaningful revision to the opening sentence, which could say something like: "Accounting is the process of recording, analyzing, and reporting financial information." This small addition acknowledges that accounting is not limited to recording transactions but also involves the critical step of analyzing financial data to provide meaningful insights.

    I genuinely believe this revision will enhance the accuracy and clarity of the article, and I kindly ask you to reconsider my suggestion. Thank you for your dedication to ensuring that Wikipedia provides high-quality and informative content, and I hope we can collaborate to resolve this issue for the benefit of all readers. Wikinegarr (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

    Administrator changes

    added
    removed

    CheckUser changes

    readded
    removed

    Guideline and policy news

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Call for applications: clerks, COI queue, checkuser, and oversight

    As a reminder, the committee welcomes applications for these positions at any time but is keen to hold an appointments round in the next few weeks. Editors interested in becoming arbitration clerks, or administrators interested in the conflict of interest VRT queue, checkuser, or oversight are encouraged to email arbcom-en-c@wikimedia.org before the end of Sunday 13 October. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Call for applications: clerks, COI queue, checkuser, and oversight

    Can my account be locked please?

    I can't "disappear", so I'll instead request to be locked. Sekundenlang (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:SELFBLOCK. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Partial block appeal request

    Unblocked + a voluntary restriction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I'd like to appeal the partial block given by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) on the page Soka Gakkai based on an edit warring report I originally filed about another user. Bbb23 gave both I and the other user indefinite partial blocks on account of editwarring. I was planning on just eating the pblock since I was mainly concerned with POV-pushing on the page and that was one way (if a bit overkill, in my opinion) to keep the page stable. However I realized today that I no longer have access to the Wikipedia Library, which is a problem for me as I use it often to find citations. So I'm appealing the pblock.

    In short, the editwarring report was made while I had another open report on WP:ANI about the user's apparent WP:COI issue. Strangely that report was ignored and was quietly archived after a couple days -- no input from an admin at all, not even to a "decline to act." I don't believe the WP:COI issue was taken into account when the ban was handed out. I don't deny that I violated the WP:3RR -- I thought that reverting clear POV edits or generally obvious contentious rollbacks were exempt from the rule but looking over the page again it's clear that it is not exempt. That being said, I do think an indefinite block on the page is overkill. Apologies if this is scattered, I'm very tired as I've been up all night. wound theology◈ 16:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm generally very willing to consider unblocks where the appellant acknowledges what they did wrong and states that their reason for wanting an unblock is to gain access to TWL. Can I suggest a voluntary restriction, in which you'd abstain from editing Soka Gakkai, with the earliest appeal being in 6 months? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, I have little interest in getting back into that mess right now anyway. wound theology◈ 23:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, you are supposed to notify me when you complain about my actions; pinging is insufficient. Second, I don't understand what the Wikipedia Libary has to do with the pblock. Finally, if you have "little interest" in editing the article, why are you appealing now?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Bbb23! Any block against a user's account also blocks them from using the Wikipedia Library, which is generally where editors should be getting their sources in many topic areas. This editor is asking to be unblocked so they can still be productive on other articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notification is required when making a report against another user, and I'm not making a report against you. In fact I agree that blocking was appropriate. Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) has explained why I'm appealing the block. wound theology◈ 01:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WT, we tend to interpret the notification rule pretty broadly, for future reference. Bbb23, would you oppose an unblock with a voluntary restriction? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers: I will not oppose an unblock with two additional conditions: (1) that the voluntary restriction be logged at WP:Editing restrictions and (2) that a violation of the restriction will trigger a sitewide block, not just a reinstatement of the pblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had definitely intended the logging, but that's a good clarification. The violation condition seems too extreme to me, but WT might be amenable, since they really seem committed to not editing that article. Thoughts, Wound theology? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I don't mean an indefinite sitewide block for a first violation; that would indeed be too harsh.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, sure. wound theology◈ 15:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I plan to grant this in a little under 24 hours if we don't get opposing input. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to this, you may still be granted access to The Wikipedia Library. You will need to contact the Wikipedia Library team, who will review your blocks. Have your contacted the library team? Isaidnoway (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly I've seen partial blocks repealed for much weaker reasoning (see Special:Diff/1245505916 and Special:Diff/1245514833). If the editor has agreed to a voluntary restriction I say we grant the request. TarnishedPathtalk 14:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BLP image

    Would an admin take a look at File:Ben Shapiro I Don't Need A 7-Year Degree In Sociology To Know BS When I Hear It.png? Not only is it lacking verifiable copyright information, but the way it was being used at the top of Interruption (speech) was (in my opinion) a violation of WP:BLPIMAGE, WP:BLPREMOVE (for the caption) and WP:UNDUE. There seems to be no reason to wait seven days for this to be deleted per WP:F4 and it probably meets the criteria for WP:F9. Even if WP:CONSENT could be obtained, it seems too UNDUE for the article it was being used in. Anyway, I'll leave it up to an admin to decide whether there's any need to "warn" the uploader about this kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted as F9 copyvio. – robertsky (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    NPR

    Please grant NPR rights to the approved bot, DreamRimmer bot. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done —Ingenuity (t • c) 17:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will the bot also run retroactively on the redirects that were created over the last week that were not reviewed by the other bot @DreamRimmer to help burn down the backlog again, or did the new replacement bot already do so? Raladic (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog at CFD

    Hi all! CFD currently has a backlog stretching back to August; there are 26 outstanding discussions. I am a participant in all 26, so I would appreciate it if some people could take a look. There are a bunch of easy, near-unanimous discussions (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 22 has a bunch of those) all the way up to more complex ones.

    WP:CFDAI#Semi-automated implementation of the closure using XFDcloser has the instructions (non-admins can follow the non-admin procedure), and I am of course happy to answer people's questions :)

    Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    never closed a CfD before. Mind checking my work @HouseBlaster. Went with the unan ones so I don't feel any conflict in asking this. Worried about the tech steps on the log page. Star Mississippi 23:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You did it perfectly, Star Mississippi, including the tech stuff. Thank you for your help! :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone else also unfamiliar with CfD, [[28]] seems clearest path to the backlog. Star Mississippi 01:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1249532900"