Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	0	6	6
TfD	0	0	1	4	5
MfD	0	0	0	5	5
FfD	0	0	0	4	4
RfD	0	0	0	78	78
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 8 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 115 sockpuppet investigations
• 45 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 5 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 79 requests for RD1 redaction
• 50 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 31 requested closures
• 112 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 18 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (24 out of 8317 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Kurdistan Region 2024-08-30 18:45 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/KURD enforcement; topic is under an extended-confirmed restriction Firefangledfeathers Ranjith (director) 2024-08-30 13:43 2024-09-13 13:43 edit,move Persistent vandalism Jake Wartenberg Qing dynasty 2024-08-30 02:36 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: given recent edits to the talk page by an autoconfirmed sock belong to the same sock farm, ECP is still necessary here Sir Sputnik Rajbhar 2024-08-30 02:24 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Anousone Xaypanya 2024-08-30 00:19 2024-09-30 00:19 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Talk:Usuário(a):Luhend 2024-08-29 05:10 2024-09-05 05:10 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Palestinian traditional costumes 2024-08-28 23:23 2025-02-28 23:23 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Somali Civil War 2024-08-28 23:21 2024-09-04 23:21 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User:Dennis Brown/WMF 2024-08-28 23:20 indefinite edit,move Dennis Brown 2024 Israeli military operation in the northern West Bank 2024-08-28 20:31 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Kedarkheda 2024-08-28 20:23 2024-09-28 20:23 move Move warring: per RFPP Daniel Case Rescue of Qaid Farhan Al-Qadi 2024-08-28 20:17 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:R sect 2024-08-28 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:GHS exclamation mark 2024-08-28 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Netzarim Corridor 2024-08-28 15:28 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish 2008 Israel–Hezbollah prisoner exchange 2024-08-28 15:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Nori Bunasawa 2024-08-28 07:57 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Novem Linguae 1920 Nebi Musa riots 2024-08-27 20:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Ad Orientem Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy 2024-08-27 20:29 2024-09-27 20:29 edit Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Ad Orientem Arab (disambiguation) 2024-08-27 18:53 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:Infobox multi-sport competition event 2024-08-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2504 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Habr Awal 2024-08-27 15:53 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Vladimir Bukovsky 2024-08-27 12:34 2025-02-27 12:34 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; meant to be 6 months Isabelle Belato New antisemitism 2024-08-26 19:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case

Review of RfC close

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

---

I am requesting a review of my RfC closure at RfC: Circumcision viewpoints. Prcc27 asked me to consider re-opening it, and I declined. Bon courage thinks it was a bad close and after discussion on my talk page, has indicated they believe the solution appears to be to ignore the close. So I am asking for a review of my closure. This is my initial response for my rationale for closing the existing discussion at the RfC. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

My main concern is the willingness of Bon courage to ignore the process outlined in CLOSECHALLENGE. They knew the next step after the discussion on my talk page, was to bring a CLOSECHALLENGE here to AN. Instead, they had already edited the article to their preferred version, and then said "the solution appears to be to ignore the close and follow the WP:PAGs". And the question asked in the RfC is not the question as Bon courage describes it, and when the content was re-added to the article after the RfC closed, it was reliably sourced, and then two minutes later, it was immediately reverted by Bon courage. Do we allow editors to ignore CLOSECHALLENGE, ignore a RfC close, make a self-determination on how they think the RfC should have been closed and edit the article to their preferred version? If this is the community consensus, please let me know, and I won't close anymore RfCs. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Non-participants

Yes, the position of the closer appears to be that WP:PAGs should not be considered by a closer unless they have been raised in the argument. However, since WP:CON is by definition "a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" relevant WP:PAGs need to be considered in determining consensus in a close, otherwise we'd have untenable situations like where (say) a small group of editors could agree to insert libel into Wikipedia, and a closer then saying that must be done "since nobody mentioned BLP". This is really a key difference between WP:CON and WP:LOCALCON.

In this particular case the question was about some text in an article summary and whether it should/could be sourced and how it WP:SYNC'd with the detail article referenced. The issue in now moot since by doing a WP:SYNC anyway some equivalent text in included, apparently without objection.

As a general rule, I think this trend of using RfCs to mandate text (and then finding sources) is not a desirable substitute for the normal editing process. Bon courage (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Is that what happened though? While the RFC didn't directly mention sources, in discussion the RfC on the circumcision page (Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC) was mentioned as well as the Genital modification and mutilation page history [1]. Both locations seem to have several sources. Are any of the sources that supporters of the RfC wanted to use before your involvement, actually new or were they part of the circumcision RfC or already in the Genital modification and mutilation article or were used until removed? If it's the latter, then I don't see how you can claim RfC mandated text and sources were found later. Instead the RfC mandated text based on existing sources. I mean the RfC itself was structured poorly since people needed to go through either the edit history (which wasn't even directly linked) or check out the circumcision RfC etc to work out what sources were being used for the text. This might have reduced participant from uninvolved or less involved editors since those editors would see the text being proposed but need to hunt around to work out what sources allegedly support the text and so might not bother. So I'm by no means saying the RfC was perfect. But I'm unconvinced that the RfC was mandating text and then only finding sources, instead the sources were already there just not properly presented in the RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

To put it a different way, the main difference between this RfC and a good one IMO were that RfC only had the proposed text but not the sources. The sources were elsewhere but not in the RfC itself. If it had the proposed text and the sources, this would IMO be much more likely a more normal completely fine RfC. In some cases there might be two (or more) different suggestions possibly with different wordings. That is something that should have been dealt with via BEFORE which I admit I'm not sure how well was done here. OTOH, in some cases it might simply be that one "side" feels this this text belongs with these sources and the other "side" feels the article is fine without that and so it is simple a dispute between include this text and its sources or don't. It does seem to me that at least before your involvement, the most were focused on either including that text and sources or not. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The text is reasonable enough, as it turns out, but my concern about sources was that it seemed the tail was wagging the dog and they might not exist. The plan was apparently to use one particular source for this (doi:10.1353/ken.0.0279), but how one was meant to know that, beats me! You for example seem to think multiple-sources were in play. I've been operating a slimmed-down watchlist over much of summer so maybe missed some of the background to this which would help provide context? Agree a 'normal' RfC (proposing sourced text) would have raised no eyebrows. Bon courage (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right that only one source was used initially but it seem Prcc27 felt this was enough. I'm not going to comment on whether it was but my main objection to your initial comment is you made it sound like what Prcc27 was doing was saying "we should have this text, I don't know what sources support it, but I'm sure we'll find some". Instead, it seems clear that what Prcc27 was doing was saying "we should have this text" which was earlier in the article with this one source supporting it. The latter part was unfortunately only implied in follow up discussion rather than directly presented in the RfC. So yes they failed to present the one source in the RfC which isn't a good thing. But they clearly had a source in mind since the text and source was in the article not long before the RfC started. I just don't see how there can be any dispute especially given the followup discussion within the RfC, that Prcc27's main desire was to return to the earlier version with the text and source (which was only a few days or so before the RfC started). So a poor RfC yeah, sure, but not one where the editor started out with a wording they wanted and felt they'd worry about sources later. I may have misunderstood, but my impression was Prcc27 was also saying if that one source isn't enough, there are additional sources in the circumcision RfC we could consider using. Again not ideal, even if you feel that one source is enough, it's IMO better to present the other sources which might be used in the RfC itself. OTOH since Prcc27 apparently felt that one source was enough, technically they could have just presented the RfC with the wording and that one source if they were fairly confident the community would agree. If others in the RfC suggested that one source wasn't enough, then it might be necessary to hunt for more sources hence why it's better to either present these additional sources from the getgo or at least try and have more discussion before the RfC to work out if that one source is enough. But it can be hard to work out if there will be objection to your single source or the problem might be you need more or better sourcing before you start an RfC depending on the circumstance. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reading the RfC more carefully, it does seem the latter two editors were probably unaware of the existing sources which is unfortunate. However it seems unlikely the editor who started the RfC was unaware of the source they wanted to use, and I suspect the next one to comment was also aware. Ultimately all this seems to re-affirm my point. No question that the RfC was poorly structured since it didn't present the source to be used. But the point seems to have been to try restore recently removed text which did have one source which the editor felt was enough although they did link to another recent RfC on the related page where more sources were available if needed. The RfC should have been better structured so editors could easily see which source was suggest, and offer objections e.g. this one source isn't enough or is too old etc. I think more before might have helped especially in establishing whether there might be objection to that one source. OTOH, I'm also cognisant that it's hardly uncommon that editor can ask for comments and receive nothing useful until an RfC happens. But ultimately it doesn't seem to me that the RfC was trying to mandate text and then work out which source/s support it; instead it was just a poorly structured RfC where the one source to be used wasn't properly presented in the RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, now, that in effect a reversion to a prior state was being asked for. But it didn't look like that at the time, with just text and no source presented. Hence I got the wrong end of the stick. Bon courage (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

An RfC with four participants, three of whom said "yes", is being challenged, and I cannot tell on what basis. Bon courage has brought up a ton of paggies (WP:LOCALCON, WP:SYNC, WP:SS, WP:ARBGG etc)... but not given an explanation of what any of this stuff has to do with the RfC. It seems pretty simple to me. Here is a quick recap of the RfC: it's so short I can just put the entire thing here for reference.

Entire four-comment RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. There is a consensus to include the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents in the article with the proposed wording. An editor also noted that reliable sources should be used to support the wording which is consistent with our policies and guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article? Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”. Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Yes: per WP:DUE, “neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.” Whether or not to circumcise (especially a child) is a significant debate; and ethics of circumcision specifically is a significant consideration given by major medical organizations (see previous RfC on the matter). Prcc27 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Yes per prcc27 Snokalok (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Unnecessary RfC per WP:RFCBEFORE. Was there any discussion on the proposed edit, and if so could you please link to it? RFCs aren't meant for merely "anticipated" disagreements. If you think this should be in the article, put it in; if someone reverts it, start a discussion on the talk page to try to reach consensus. Only if you reach an impasse is an RfC the right way to go. Tserton (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC) This has been discussed before, so WP:RFCBEFORE has been met. [2] A user recently removed the sentence in question from the article; if I re-added it, that would be edit warring. Prcc27 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC) Yes assuming sources will be added as well. Senorangel (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's really straightforward -- the RfC asked if the thing should be included, four people responded, three said that the thing should be included, the closer said that there was consensus for the thing to be included. Now one (1) editor has decided that this is all a big misunderstanding and the consensus is actually to have the article say the opposite? It's true that a four-participant RfC is not some kind of invincible ironclad consensus, but for Pete's sake, what possible objection could there be to this closure? This just feels like an editor not liking the RfC close and deciding to throw random WP:UPPERCASE at the wall to see what sticks. jp×g🗯️ 02:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the page in question, it looks like Bon courage just keeps on editing the article to say his own version, and then going to the talk page to demand that other people provide sources proving it wrong or else he will just keep adding it -- surely we have all been around long enough to know this is not how WP:BURDEN works. This feels somewhat tendentious to me. jp×g🗯️ 02:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that that is a summary section, meant to be summarizing the thing it points to. It shouldn't say "the opposite" of what the RfC proposed, it should just mirror the thing it's summarizing (which is not "the opposite" as it happens). The "random uppercase" things are WP:PAGs, and kind of matter. You can't have an RfC decide that, no matter what article A says, its summary must be fixed without regard to that; the WP:PAGs tell us that such material should be in WP:SYNC. My final edit is not really "my own version" but just excerpts from the articles-being-summarized, which as far as I know I did not write. Bon courage (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Withdraw

• It seems evident from subsequent editing that my intervention here is hindering rather than helping evolution of this article, so with apologies to all I shall put my tail between my legs and withdraw my objection to this RfC/close assuming that sources are used in such a way that WP:V is respected, and hoping the WP:SYNCing shall be improved as the article evolves. Bon courage (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Participants

I originally supported a re-open of the RfC, because I felt BonCourage’s edits went against the RfC and their concerns were not brought up there either. And because it was still under 30 days since it started. However, I think the sync is sufficient, as long as the viewpoints of proponents and opponents are articulated in a neutral manner. Re-opening an RfC may no longer be needed. For the record, I think the closer closed the RfC correctly, based on the discussion made at the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I also am concerned with Bon Courage’s actions. The wording I proposed at the RfC was actually a longstanding paragraph in the article. It had been there for several years (albeit the wording had been tweaked a little bit over the years). And it was reliably sourced as Isaidnoway noted. Bon Courage’s behavior does seem to be an example of a user taking ownership of an article, and unilaterally overturning an RfC. While I am not necessarily against the sync, I would like for an admin to determine how the RfC should be enforced. And maybe even give Bon Courage a formal warning for their disruptive behavior. Prcc27 (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The source was not part of the RfC, and a 2009 primary source is not great. You seemed to agree with this by then using a 'more recent' 2015 source.[3]. The only trouble then is that WP:V was not respected, and in fact the source you selected said pretty much the opposite of the text cited to it. Wikipedia simply cannot allow a WP:LOCALCON RfC to wave away the need to respect core policies like WP:V. This exemplifies the problem with having a RfC designed to 'enforce' text with the hope that sourcing can be found to support it, Bon courage (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just more obfuscation. The RfC was not designed to 'enforce' text with the hope that sourcing can be found to support it. The RfC was about re-adding the sourced text which had been in the article for at least the last ten years, and had been recently removed. This reply in the RfC, makes that abundantly clear; the RfC was about re-adding the sourced text which had a long standing consensus. In fact, the sourced text was in the article, when you edited the article in December 2019. So for ten years, five years, the sourced text had been in the article and you didn't complain. It was only when the sourced text was re-added after the RfC ended, and there was consensus to re-add it, you swooped in two minutes later and unilaterally decided the consensus from the RfC didn't matter. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just wrong. As anybody can see the RfC has no "sourced text" and said nothing about "re-adding" text but was presented with no context and no source. How are editors meant to know about an old discussion on a Talk page archive? And how am I expected to recall some text in an article I edited 5 years ago? And 10 years ago a 2009 source would be a lot less dated than it is today. As to "enforcement" the OP of this section is talking about "how the RfC should be enforced" just above. PMID:25674955 does not support the RfC text and WP:V cannot just be ignored. Bon courage (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive unregistered user

User:2A00:8A60:C010:1:0:0:1:1016 has variously described me as a "mathematical crank" (in Talk:Axiomatic system (logic)) and "intellectually blind" (in their own talk page) for what they vaguely describe as "adding a bunch of false and misleading claims" to an article, but which I describe rather as replacing the article's tons of unsourced, unverifiable statements with content supported by, and sourced to, WP:RS. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

/64 blocked by Isabelle Belato. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The IP seems to have reiterated the personal attack at their talk page, and I suspect that the IP 95.223.44.235, who has been talking at Talk:Hilbert_system, is a sockpuppet. (Investigation opened here.) Thiagovscoelho (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Close review: Nikola Tesla's birthplace RfC

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

---

I am requesting community review of my closure of an RFC on the specifics of the birthplace of Nikola Tesla (closing diff), which was recently challenged on my talk page by the IP address 93.141.181.3, who believes that the close did not sufficiently assess consensus (their original comments, my reply). As an IP, they cannot edit this page, so I am starting it on their behalf. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Involved

(from my talk page ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)) The closure haven't provided any explanation on how the consensus was determined. No explanation on how sources were considered when establishing the consensus. No explanation on other points from the discussion. Improper use of SYNTH and OR and unsourced claims, Gish galloping. The RfC stated 2 questions and the consensus was provided only on due weight. I would like an explanation on how a group of editors who disagree with the sources can have a valid stand against presented sources without any sources of their own. 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

From the closure explanation , I expect the following. Name all participants and name the points they made and sources they posted. Name couterpoints others have made to their points and explain how the points were evaluated in determining the consensus. 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I was the one who opened the discussion. I accept the closure. I accept that RfC was a mess. I accept that I'm solely responsible for that from start to finish. Yes my RfC wasn't neutral nor brief, often incorrect, initially proposing outright plagiarism, and following none of WP:WRFC. I admit that I have then proceeded to spend nearly 8,500 words bludgeoning the discussion. Everything was correctly closed. I would just ask for one thing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29, can you just explicitly write the consensus on the other question editors have voted upon. Something like "The consensus on the 1st question is NO. The consensus on the second question is NO". Trimpops2 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• I randomly came across the RFC and commented there, all I'll say here is that the close doesn't surprise me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. You are one of the major participants. I'm glad we agree. Only one IP has complaints, but he didn't contribute more than 0.1% so I don't see why this shouldn't be promptly closed. Trimpops2 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that if others agree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought the close was carefully considered and judged. The conclusion of "no consensus" effectively keeps the longstanding status quo, which has been stable for six years. The IP here is very likely block evasion by User:Bilseric who has been consistently disrupting the process while using IPs from Croatia. I am loathe to allow a blocked editor to demand a review, robbing the community of even more of their time. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Binksternet. But, ~~ AirshipJungleman29, can you also write in the consensus on the 1st question? Trimpops2 (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Another admin needs to seriously consider blocking this user Trimpops2, because they've first endlessly bludgeoned this discussion, despite numerous warnings, advocating for one weird POV, and are now posturing completely differently, for another weird POV, as if it was all some sort of a bizarre online game. This is as clear a case of not actually being here to build an encyclopedia as it gets. --Joy (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

because they've first endlessly bludgeoned this discussion Yes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 said that in the closure. I have already admitted my wrongdoing there. advocating for one weird POV It was inapropriate to ignore numerous users who have tried to explain to me that Tesla has no connection to Croatia. My problem is that I was under influence of Croatian propaganda and I was confused by the statement that Tesla was born in Smiljan , present-day Croatia. I though that Tesla was born in Austrian Croatia, but as Binksternet has said, sources place Tesla in Croatia only because that's what it is called today. Tesla has no relation to Austrain Croatia. I didn't know that. Now when the consensus has been determined, I have accepted it. I admit it was a weird POV and I appologize. and are now posturing completely differently I'm just agreeing with consensus and comments other editos have made in their responses to me. for another weird POV It's not POV, it's the consensus. My problem here is that I found the article text confusing, but I have already accepted that article needs no change. Binksternet has provided an explanation why Croatia is mentione, because the sources place Tesla in Croatia only because that's what it is called today. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Since you keep pinging me, can I inquire as to what inspired your sudden change of heart? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It isn't sudden. I never intended to contest your closure. We aren't enemies here. At some point I realized that I need to listen what other longstanding editors are saying. You are completely uninvolved editor and your closure is against my stand. Let's see what other longstanding editors have said to me. Joy has just now said that I was advocating for one weird POV. He is Croatian and longstanding editor and admin. I'm sorry Joy. I accept that me pushing that Tesla was born in Austrian Croatia is a weird POV. Pincrete said that Tesla wasn't born in any variant of a political Croatia. Binksternet, said that Most of the literature about Tesla and his family de-emphasizes Croatia and instead underlines his Serbian heritage. So the idea of pushing more "Croatia" has no merit. and Tesla biographies place Tesla in Croatia only because that's what it is called today. Croatian culture played very little role in Tesla's upbringing.. Sadko, said that Tesla's relation to Croatia in any way, shape or form is almost non-existing. Jalapeño is also Croatian as Joy, and he also voted against. I have to accept that both Croatian and Serbian editors are agreeing about this contested issue. This is good for Wikipedia. People have claimed for a long time that this article is a battleground between Croatian and Serbian editors. Sadko is Serbian. We have both Croatian and Serbian editors agree. I see that as positive. It's not an issue between Croats and Serbs. After your closure, and after I saw how many editors have tried to explain to me that I'm the own pushing Croatian propaganda. Chetvorno from the begginging have said that, but I didn't listen. Look how many editors tried to explain it to me. At some point I needed to accept that I'm the only one in the wrong here. I really don't contest your closure. I never planned to. There is one more thing , I did one wrongdoing today. I need to admitt that as well. I started a discussion to remove mentions of present-day Croatia from the article. I though that it might confuse readers like it confused me. I didn't think others who have disagreed with me in the RfC would complain now when I have accepted their stand. I already admitted in the discussion that I was wrong. The text can stand. It's only I that find it confusing , but as Binksternet explained, present-day Croatia is mentioned only because sources place Tesla in Croatia only because that's what it is called today.. As long as that is clear to the readers I don't have problems with mentioning present-day Croatia. As long as it's clear that Tesla has no connection to Austrian Croatia. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to relitigate this, but nb that I said wasn't born in any variant of a political Croatia. Where he was born may well have/have had claims to have been culturally/historically Croatian, I was reliant on sources presented. I would also have said that he was born in Croatian Austria, rather than the other way round as you have it, since Austria was the ruling power. But mainly my reasoning was that the simplest/clearest way was simply to say "born in the (Croatian) Military Frontier" and leave it to interested readers to 'deconstruct' that anomalous entity if they wished to do so. Pincrete (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I can now agree. Tesla wasn't borin in any variant of political Croatia. You have correctly pointed that out, I'm sorry I didn't listed to your arguments. may well have/have had claims to have been culturally/historically Croatian. This wasn't the topic that we discussed , but Binksternet and Sadko were very kind to explain that Tesla's relation to Croatia in any way, shape or form is almost non-existing. I have also accepted that. I would also have said that he was born in Croatian Austria Maybe there's some misunderstanding here. He wasn't born in Austrian Croatia (that is Kingdom of Croatia at that time). This is the consensus and, as Joy have correctly characterized it, weird POV coming only from my side, and you have in the next sentece said MF which is something completely unrelated to Austrian Croatia, as you have correctly explained in the RfC discussion. But putting aside all this, Pincrete, can you agree we can close this review? Trimpops2 (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any reason to either agree or disagree. I wasn't even aware that there was a review until 'named'. Pincrete (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Joy, if you want to block me, I really can't complain to much. Everything you said is true. I have been pushing a weird Croatian propaganda that Tesla was born in Croatia. I'm sorry I didn't listed to you and others who have tried to explain to me that Tesla has no connection to Croatia. If you start a report I will admit my wrongdoing there. At this point maybe it's time for me to bear consequences of POV pushing. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, no, you're distorting the argument into an argument ad absurdum. Please take a breather, because this is utterly pointless. --Joy (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I really don't have any objections to close this review. I have admitted I have been wrong and pushing weird POV, as you stated. I really don't know what else to do, so you would be satisfied. Can we just close this review and be done with it? I don't intend to ever argue that Tesla was born in Croatia and if someone comes to the discussion with such a claim, I will point out the consensus and explain that Most of the literature about Tesla and his family de-emphasizes Croatia and instead underlines his Serbian heritage. So the idea of pushing more "Croatia" has no merit.Trimpops2 (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologize. I was brainwashed by propaganda in my own country. I can now accept that was the case and what others have stated in the discussion, that Tesla wasn't neither born or has any relation to Croatia. I'm sorry, I wasted all your time. It was hard to accept that I could be brainwashed. Wikipedia helped. Thank you for that. I can agree with the closure and I don't think this review is necessary. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think ~~ AirshipJungleman29's close was well judged and absolutely correct. I have been an editor for about 10 years on Nikola Tesla and participated in several long RfCs on this single insignificant sentence about Tesla's nationality. I have never on WP seen the degree of POV pushing and nationalist extremism displayed by editors on this page. This mess of an RfC was typical.

I have to say I find Trimpops2's 180° change of opinion above suspicious. After initiating this whole RfC and tendentiously pushing the Croatian POV and haranguing every opposing editor with walls of text, then when he loses, instantly changing his opinion and claiming to be "brainwashed" --- it really looks like a salvage operation to mitigate sanctions against him. At the least, his actions during this RfC indicate he is not able to regard this subject with a NPOV, and I think a topic ban should be considered. --Chetvorno^TALK 08:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I see many of you think I should be banned. If you open a report, I will admit I have been POV pushing nationalistic propaganda. There's simply no avoiding that. Even the closing editor has called that out. Binksternet was very correct when he said on the talk page that my Croatian nationality has to be taken into consideration when determining consensus. I was offended, but now I see that was the right approach. We always need to take into consideration someone's nationality because they can be brainwashed as I was, and don't even realize. Even before Binksternet , you have correctly pointed out that I'm pushing nationalistic content, I should have listen to you, but now it's too late. Trimpops2 (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

But, thank you for noticing 180 degree shift from what you and others have characterized as "weird POV" and "tendentiously pushing Croatian POV". I'm sorry it's suspicious, but at least I have done the shift and admitted that me pushing Tesla being born in Croatia is nothing but Croatian propaganda. Can we at least accept that we agree on that? Trimpops2 (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Joy, Chetvorno, Binksternet you are calling for my ban. Would you like that I open a report against myself? I really am ashemed of POV pushing nationalistic propaganda and ignoring you all when you tried to explain to me. All 3 of you are editors with 10+ years on Wikipedia. I really can't ignore that 3 of such longstanding editos think that my actions are inexcusable and that I should be banned. If any of you 3 confirms I'll procede and create a report against myself. Trimpops2 (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just unfair. You are calling for my block and when I offer to create a report against myself, you ignore it. I couldn't have been more objective. I haven't challanged the consensus. I have accepted the result that Tesla wasn't born in 19th century Croatia. I have admitted my wrongdoing for pushing, as Joy called it, that weird POV. I don't think anyone ever has offered to create a report against themselves. I don't know what more I can do. At this point, if you want to create a report, please do, I won't do it myself. I will admit everything and let uninvolved editos decide whether I should be forever banned from Wikipedia. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like this addressed. Thank you. I would like to point out that this review didn't address a single point of complaint. Several were made and not a single editor has addresed. Everyone just says I agree, but this isn't a proper way to have a review. Points should be addressed. We can't just say, yes I agree and neglect all the points. I will repeat what others have said in my own words. I hope that those points will be addressed in this closure.

The closure is improper. It states some very questinable things from the standpoint of objectivity. It states some claims which are easily proven as false. Most importantly, it provides zero explanation how the consensus was determined in the regard of addressing how the sources and various points in the RfC were considered when determining the consensus. It also has some very questionable actions by the closing editor which lack objectivity. The closing editor in the first part of the closing statement lists all things wrong with the RfC intro and with actions of various editors in the discussion. I'll circle back to that,because I wan't to address the most important thing. In the second paragraph it summerizes what the RfC is asking. Here we have one minor complaint. The closing admin claims that he had to sumerize the RfC questions which isn't true. Those are clearly stated. In the last paragraph the consensus is provided as "no consensus". The problem here is , and this can't be argues whether it is here or there as some other points later on could be argued. The problem is that the closing editor just says that there is no consensus. No sources were addressed, no points from RfC were addressed. Absolutely no explanation at all. The only thing that is said is that the RfC was ill-formed, which isn't correct, as I'll argue later and that he had difficulties because of POV pushing (here it was correctly pointed out that the responsibility of the closing editor is to sort out objective points vs POV pushing). The problem here is bigger, because this was pointed to the closing editor several times, and he still hasn't addressed this nor provided any explanation on how the sources and points were considered. This is still the main problem with this closure as no one yet has provided that explanation. We can't just close RfCs with "no consensus" explanation and refuse to provide explanation on points and sources.

Let's circle back to first paragraph. Several claims there are exaggerated to the point of being false. Several points are completely false.

Regarding whether RfC was brief. Guidelines say Outside of exceptional circumstances, the RfC question should not be longer than a few sentences.. The RfC isn't out of that boundaries. In the first sentence is mentions past discussion. In the sencond it mentiones the present article text that is pusposed to be changed. It then quotes 2 sources and it asks 2 questions. That's 6 senteces in total. This isn't outside the scope to call it "not brief". Certainly nothing to complain about and call it "not brief" to the point of being disruptive to the RfC discussion. Nobody actually from all editors in the discussion has complained it isn't brief. This was done only by the closing editor. It's more subjective whether 6 or 4 senteces would be the definition of "few", but as I said , nothing to complain about.

Regarding neutrality. The closing editor didn't provide any explanation in the closure to why the RfC isn't neutral. This isn't correct as this is a strong statement to make. When asked, he provided an example of how the RfC should have been formulated, which is exactly the same as the 2nd question of this RfC. Both his example and the RfC 2nd question perfectly follow the example from guiedelines Should the sentence [quote sentence here, with citations] be included in the History section of the article?. He was asked several times to explain how his sentence is neutral, but the one from RfC isn't. He still didn't address that. I think this is completely false to claim that RfC isn't neutral with such argument.

Claiming that RfC is often incorrect is exaggregation. It failed to mention that there was another previous discussion, but that was quickly corrected in the discussion. And yes, sources were known before. This were honest mistakes and swiftly corrected by other editors in the discussion. Nothing major that could be characterized as "often" and nothing what would swey the result of the RfC.

The closing editor claimed that there isn't a single bit of WP:WRFC that was followd. Here we have a major problem. We was challanged on that and he doubled down, and repreated that there really isn't a singe bit of WP:WRFC that was followd. This just lacks objectivity. I think WP:WRFC was followed, but since the editor dug himself into the claim that a single bit wasn't followed I will mention only this. The 2nd question is exactly of the format as suggested by guidelines Should the sentence [quote sentence here, with citations] be included in the History section of the article?. And All other things being equal, choose the question with the smallest number of possible answers. this was followed. Questions are of yes/no type. This is something we can't argue about whether it is there or not. This quidelines are proveably followed. This is just tip of the iceberg. Many others if not all of them were followed, and to make such a claim and dig into it, to claim that not a singel was followed, just shows the lack of objectivity.

The closing editor claimed sources were vaguely mentioned when asked about it he again dig himself into a strange statement that no-one...actually discussed them.. This is completely false as seem from the discussion. User ActivelyDisinterested had extensively discussed sources with Trimpops2 and IP 77. Others have also discussed sources. To claim that no one discussed them shows the lack of objectivity.95.168.116.29 (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

All of these complaints were addressed on my talk page. Before whichever Croatian IPs (there sure seem to be a lot about) next pop up, perhaps they can read that? Or perhaps they can join this interesting discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

But this simply isn't true that everything was answered. For instance You didn't explain the claim that not a single wp wrfc was followed. You said to go ahead any find any. And now when I have found, you say it's answered. Here agin a single exaple for your claim that everything was answered. Other things aren't answered as well. It isn't true that everything is answered 95.168.107.28 (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Haha. The Ip just said on my talk page that this is just like Monty Python The Argument Skit [4]. That's so funny. May I suggest a formal mediation on whether he has answered the question or not? :) "You can't just say no it isn't. Yes it is." This is so funny. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

But he really didn't answer. What can I now do? How about you point where you have answered it? 95.168.107.28 (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I see he didn't. Now, I'm interested in how this will end. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You're arguing that if you conveniently forget about one of the RFC questions, you can argue that it was phrased in the simplest way possible. Fantastic argument. Yeah, I think I'm done assuming good faith here. Bye. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. That's how it works when you absolutely "dare" someone that there isn't a single one that was followed. But in fact, as I wrote , most if not everything is followed. There is absolutely no problems with wp wrfc. Your statement is false. Please address which ones weren't followed if you want to claim problems with wp wrfc. Also don't ignore other points I have made. You didn't address them all and some, like this one are completely false. You can't make such a closure and after such false explanation just withdraw yourself from the discussion. Your closure is improper and I want my points addressed.95.168.107.28 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trimpops2 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) The points which have validity have been addressed; those which have not, will not be. If you have problems with my conduct, ask an administrator to take action. I am satisfied that this review has upholded my close and will not be responding further, unless an editor pings me in good faith. Good day. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29. I need to be objective. I'm sorry, but all points need to be addressed. If some don't have validity, an explanation should be provided to explain why. Claims against your closure were made, and you can't be objective and claim that you can choose which points have validity and which do not. You may be satisfied with your closure, and you have the right not to respond. However, that actions should be evaluated by uninvoved editors. And even if you have answered some of the points, uninvolved editors should also provide an opinion. You can't be the sole arbiter. This is a community project. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Then I refer you to the community. Your comments are getting increasingly tiresome; if this continues I will do what I noted in the close and take you to WP:AE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, let's see what the community says. However, I have started to have serious doubts who's truly uninvolved and objective. I will not address why I said that in this post. I first want to see how the community will address the points. Your comments are getting increasingly tiresome Please, leave personal comments like this for yourself. At this point this is just inappropriate. I have personally found some things tiresome, but I have never complained. Deal with it. You chose to close this and if you don't want to address points of complaints to your closure, ok. I also refer this to the community. I do now know what WP:AE is. I will repeat. I'm not contesting the consensus. I didn't start the reveiw. I have accepted many things said about me. But at this points, if I'm not satisfied with the answers to the points I will respond. I have always claimed objectivity, and I'm calling your actions as not objective. Now, let's stop and see what the community says. I will poke the opinons of uninvolved editos as I have or anyone other has the full right to, without being threated of being banned. And I will seek for an appropriate board that can review all what has happened here. Wikipedia is a community project. Now let's see what the community says. I will participate, you as I understand you have chosen not to, you said that you stand by that you already say, and I will add that you also stand by what you have failed to say/address. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Enough. I've indefinitely blocked Trimipops2 for a variety of reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved

• Endorse: I saw this sitting in CR for a while but didn't close it because, as @AirshipJungleman29 aptly stated, it was a mess from start to finish. There was no other way to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I apologize. I was brainwashed by Croatian propaganda. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

voorts , I have started to change my opinion, promped by valid argument. Thus I'm asking you to address the points of complaint. Or not, this is your option, but lack of will also be evaluated. Thank you. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Trimpops2 seems to be trolling at this point, and is an SPA in the Balkans/Eastern Europe contentious topic area. A block or TBAN may be necessary.
  My first read of the discussion is that "no consensus" is a reasonable result; the complaints from the IP on AirshipJungleman's talk page are not reasonable. The alternative, once IP editors are discounted, would be a consensus against the proposed change (although not necessarily a consensus for the current text) -- which is functionally the same outcome. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It is unfounded to ask an explanation on how sources and arguments were weighted when determining consensus? 95.168.116.29 (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

IP has said to the closing editor that he provided no explanation on how sources were considered when determining consensus.. Walsh90210 said that he has reviewed that and that this is unfounded thing to ask. What's not to understand there? Trimpops2 (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I know that. I'm asking Walsh90210, why is this unfounded? I think it isn't. I think it's common practice95.168.107.28 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

More block evasion, this time on an IP that has been blocked repeatedly as a proxy. Could a passing admin deals with this? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The latest 95.168.range IP has been blocked, I won't be surprised if they come back again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Again noting Trimpops2 blocked as NOTHERE (not by me) Doug Weller talk 10:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC) And Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bilseric Doug Weller talk 16:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for your time. You'll need a lot of it for this RfC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

See this. [5]. i have no evidence but woikd not be surprised if the IP is the blocked disrupive editor there, Bilseric. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. We shouldn't waste community time. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Doug Weller. In addition to Bilseric siteblocked in May, there was also an earlier similarly tendentious editor on the page, Asdisis who was blocked for socking. All three could be the same.

Here's a list of IPs that were started during the RfC or have only a few edits, are SPAs participating on the Croatian side:

Contributions/72.139.121.219

Contributions/93.141.183.145

Contributions/31.217.16.206

Contributions/95.168.116.17

Contributions/95.168.107.4

Contributions/95.168.121.44

Contributions/77.71.168.18

Either these are socks or someone has been doing some recruiting. Trimpops2, did you suggest to any others that they get involved in the RfC? --Chetvorno^TALK 10:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't really know what's happening at User talk:Trimpops2#Tesla RfC review, but it appears to have something to do with this screed posted on my talk earlier. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

After all these years are we still arguing about Tesla? What does it matter where he was born, and in what country it was at the time or is now? He was notable for what he did in later life, not for where he was born. The only people who could be interested in that are people with such small minds as to think that claiming he was born in a particular country somehow brings glory upon themselves. It does not. Normal people laugh at you when you behave in such a way. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, this isn't about Tesla anymore. I don't suppose you have read everything carefully, but I'm affraid we have bigger problems here. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No, we have a much smaller potential problem. Whether an RFC that had no chance (because of your initial statement) of leading to a consensus should be closed as "no consensus" is a tiny issue in comparison. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Trimpops2 has been blocked as NOTHERE. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Now see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bilseric. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Is reverting alleged OR from an FA exempt from the 3RR brightline?

In this AN3 report Black Kite ruled no violation because there were less than 4 reverts in 24 hours. Fair enough. But they went on to say the reported user wouldn't be sanctioned anyway because

this is a featured article and [the user who was reverted by the reported user] is trying to add unsourced original research to the lead paragraph ... That's just disruption and even though it isn't technically included in WP:3RRNO

and

3RR is a technical bright line, and that metric has to exist, but equally I don't think you'll find any admin that will block any user (regardless of whether they're an admin or not) for removing disruptive material from an article (especially a fairly high traffic featured article) unless there is some other problematic issue.

Is that right? On their talk page Black Kite said that was common sense. I've always assumed WP:EW's Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense was taken literally but are there exceptions not stated in 3RRNO? Equally, I don't think the user adding the material was being disruptive merely by adding it. They might be wrong but not disruptive although they were edit warring as was the reported user. I'll notify Black Kite, the reported user (DrKay) and the reporter (John) of this thread - but I'm not looking to have anyone sanctioned or to change the outcome of the 3RR report - just clarification of admin practice in this area. Btw, just to be clear, I think Black Kite is a good admin and don't have any issues with them in that regard. I'm sure they acted in good faith. DeCausa (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Exempt? No. But 3RR isn't a rule that someone must be blocked for violating, just a point at which they can be blocked. It's still up to admin discretion whether blocking would be beneficial. There are quite a few times I've let technical 3RR violations slide with no action or a warning because the edits were obviously improving the article, or because blocking would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. (I have not looked through the edits from the report in question, so this is a general response to scenarios like this; I have no opinion on whether Black Kite's decision was correct.) —Ingenuity (t • c) 18:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Assuming your statements here are 100% factually correct:

1. The user in question did violate 3RR; removing OR from a featured article is no exception.
2. An admin who decides that a specific instance of a rule violation should be ignored is not out of line. Indeed, the admin may legitimately choose to ignore it if enforcing it would be bad for Wikipedia.

Animal lover |666| 18:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The editor DrKay reverted was not following WP:BRD, which complicates this particular example. I think DrKay has the moral high ground here and it is hard to take the other editor's side. However it would be nice to see more respect for 3RR from DrKay; a third editor could have made the final revert and avoided some drama. Personally I am pretty self-aware of my revert count in situations like these and I like to see this self-awareness in others as well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. The reverts are more than 24 hours apart. 3RR was not violated. It seems like there is no violation. Is this ANI just about Black Kite's statement? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not looking to have anyone sanctioned or to change the outcome of the 3RR report - just clarification of admin practice in this area. Levivich (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not ANI and right at the beginning I highlighted it wasn't a breach of the bright line. It's what Black Kite said in relation to what should happen even if it was a breach of the bright line. DeCausa (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• There's a decent chance I would warn or sanction users that violate 3RR, even if they're making a good-faith effort to keep original research out of a featured article. I took Black Kite's comments as his being transparent about how he exercises admin discretion. Please don't take it as a broader statement about policy enforcement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Four reverts in just over 24 hours. Warning the other editor in the edit war with a templated message mentioning blocks (DrKay is an admin). No BLP, copyvio or WMF considerations. No participation in article talk on the matter. The edits were clearly not vandalism. If this translates to "no violation", and if this is due to the article's FA status, I feel guidance should be added to the relevant policy page to allow a community discussion. There is already a mention there about TFA. I made the AN3 report because I thought DrKay acted poorly, very poorly for an admin. I would not have wanted them to be blocked but I believe a warning would have been appropriate under my understanding of current policy. I am absolutely certain that all three (the two edit warriors and the admin who closed the AN3 report) acted in good faith and believed they were improving Wikipedia, but this is almost always the case in edit wars. Finally, using "common sense" as a rationale sounds tempting, but one editor's common sense may be another's utter nonsense. This is why we have policies, guidelines, and discussion pages. If editors are allowed to get away with blatantly edit-warring, what could be seen as using (implied) threat of admin tools in a content dispute, and failing to discuss in talk, on the basis that it's an FA, I think that's a shame. Edit warring is bad; it creates unneeded tension, reduces the chance of collaboration occurring, and deters editors from improving articles that may need it, in spite of once having been peer-reviewed. I am agnostic on the material they were edit-warring to include or remove, but discussion is the way to go, not this, I think. Thanks DeCausa for bringing this here. John (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  IMO the existing mention you raised "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the Main Page." is already sufficient to make clear that while there isn't a formal exemption, editors are less likely to be blocked if they are "maintain(ing) the quality" of the FA while on the main page and we should not push this any further.

  While I agree with you that having gone through peer-review is no guarantee the older version is better, I think it's fair to say that combined with the fact there tends to be scrutiny on a TFA before it goes on the main page means that it's significantly more likely that the status quo ante is indeed better. And at the very least, it's better to keep it while discussion ensures while there is dispute.

  Note I'm not saying this excuses edit warring but Wikipedia always has a weird mix of competing forces. On the one hand, we can all agree that edit warring is disruptive and bad. On the other hand, I think many would agree that editors shouldn't be able to have their preferred version as the main one just because they were more aggressive as edit warring yet it's likely to be the natural result.

  And then, we can say that even if it doesn't seem right, most of the time it doesn't matter much if for a few hours, days or maybe weeks while the issue is resolved it doesn't matter much if the WP:WRONGVERSION gets to stay just because one side was more aggressive in their edit warring with the obvious exception of when there are clear policy backed reasons e.g. WP:BLP.

  But if those don't apply, then with TFAs we get the more complicated case where there is actually a reason why it seems to matter a lot which wrongversion gets to stay in even the short space of hours namely the large number of visitors (I think in some cases even multiple years worth of average visitors in one day). And so if we circle back to my earlier point, since we have to chose a WRONGVERSION, while we don't want to encourage edit warring we should also consider that in absence of anything else, the status quo ante would seem to be greatly preferred as the WRONGVERSION.

  Yet because we don't want to encourage edit warring, I don't think we should make this a formal exemption. Instead it's better to keep the current situation where admins might consider it, but it's not a guaranteed exemption.

  WP:NOTBURO etc, our "rules" are normally flexible. 3RR is one of the closest to being a hard rule, but as others have said, even when there is a technical violation, there's still no "must block". And already we have the situation where outside of technical violations, there is no clear "rule" and what admins do varies depending on a lot of things. And likewise while it might be a bad thing, very many good editors occasionally get involved in what can be consider an edit war with editors using their judgment on whether they should revert even if there have already been multiple reverts by others and there's no clear exemption of policy reason why it must be their wrongversion.

  Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  BTW I said all the above without having looked at the content. Now that I have, I will say IMO this is not the sort of thing I feel was a good idea to violate 3RR over even considering this was TFA. However if anything that IMO adds to our current guidance being sufficient. I'd much rather we leave it fuzzy so editors think careful and decide yeah not worth it in a case like this. Also while we don't generally want admins caring about content, I think this is one such case where it's fine if admins do consider it and so again if our current fuzzy guidelines mean look at what's happening and decide, well there is no formal exemption here IMO but the attempted change was clearly very bad so I think I'll just leave it; or in this case they look and go um yeah okay it's TFA and that change is unsourced however it's not the most terrible thing that I'll let the 3RR violation slide. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  It wasn't TFA. John (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Apologies, I made incorrect assumptions because of the apparent urgency of those involved. In that case, I agree with you the edit warring was a particularly poor showing especially coming from an admin and even more when we consider DrKay didn't open a thread. I've long criticised the childish "they started it" mentality where editors expect the other side to start a discussion. I'd note that IMO even if you feel your version is so obviously correct that that any editor will agree, and because of that or whatever you intend to edit war, I think many of us find it more compelling if you can show you at least tried to discuss and the other editor ignored it as I expect might have happened here. (Of course if both editors take part on the discussion but edit war, you're no better off. And no, comments in edit summaries and talk page warnings don't count as discussion.) And while technically it's still true that even a brightline violation wouldn't require a block, I'm not convinced it's right for an admin to not at least warn. That said, without a brightline violation, I'm not convinced many admins would block, more likely to just warn. So I guess I'd like DrKay and Black Kite to change their minds on how to handle these things in the future. But I'm not sure the efforts required is worth it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• I was thinking of

  Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

  That language has been policy for a long time, and I think it's one of our core principles. If a policy no longer reflects how the community behaves, the policy ought to be changed, after a suitable consensus is achieved to do so. (descriptivist view) Or, admins ought to enforce the policies we have agreed to the best of their ability, without fear or favour. (prescriptivist view). This episode just doesn't seem right to me. John (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Another example of Wikipedia verb conjugation.

  First person singular, present tense: I am "defending an FA against disruptive editing".

  Second person singular, present tense: You are "edit warring".

It is always particularly annoying to me when an editor is actively edit warring, but feels it appropriate to leave their opponent an edit warring templated warning. DrKay's previous 4 blocks for edit warring were all more than 10 years ago, albeit all while an admin, so hopefully this is an aberration. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Lol, I thought the name seemed familiar. DrKay blocked me for edit warring many years ago! So if anyone wants to assume I hold a grudge and this is an "involved" comment of some kind, feel free, but the fact is I'm just forgetful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• To add to my opening post: I think that Black Kite jumped to some inappropriate assumptions that what DrKay was reverting was disruptive and OR. In summary, the content dispute was that the lead referred to the decolonisation of Africa during Elizabeth II's reign and what was being disputed was the addition of a reference to the decolonisation of Asia. As can be seen in the subsequent talk page discussion here, it's clearly an editorial judgment call as to whether it should be added - there are arguments for and against but it certainly wasn't disruptive or OR (or at least no more OR than the existing reference to African decolonisation.) I think this all goes to show the dangers of admin discretion/leeway to allow breaching 3RR when it supposedly "benefits" the article. Ther's a reason why 3RRNO is limited to obvious vandalism, copyvio and the other very specific siatuations. DeCausa (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• This isn't a 3RR violation, so the bright line rule doesn't apply. If it WAS a 3RR violation, a block might be in order, but we should take into account if falls under the listed WP:EW exceptions:
  1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
  2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, as long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
  3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users.
  4. }Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
  5. Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead of relying on this exemption.
  6. Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
  7. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
  8. Reverting unambiguous spam, where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion G11 if it were a standalone page.

Admins should also take into account if a person is protecting the Featured Article of the day. I was once briefly blocked due to a malicious report which failed to mention my "exact same 4 edits" were all to revert vandalism on a WP:TFA...in fact, that's why the policy exception is there. Buffs (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I've seen administrators ignore the 3Rs in a case like a featured article, especially if it's a recent featured article and not one from 10 years ago. But you talk of a 3R bright line... if you cross it the OR had also better be as bright as the sun with no wiggle room. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Which, as DeCausa argues above, was not the case here. John (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No line can be so bright as to compel any individual admin to act. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Block/ban appeal - Cyber.Eyes.2005

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

---

As Cyber.Eyes.2005 (talk · contribs)'s appeal has been sitting for several weeks without a response, and given that they are considered a banned editor per WP:3X, I'm bringing the appeal here for community review. I have no opinion as to whether the appeal should be accepted but will note that I don't see any obvious evidence of recent block evasion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Begin appeal:

Requesting an unblock/unban request through WP:SO. I sincerely apologize for the mistakes I made in the past and fully understand that my previous actions, which led me to be blocked, were against the community guidelines of Wikipedia. I have since taken the time to thoroughly review and understand Wikipedias policies and guidelines, and I assure that I have learned from my mistakes and will not repeat them. The reason I got blocked as my first account User:Cyber.Eyes.2005, was due to getting involved in edit warring on a few articles, especially Brokpa. This eventually led to me being indefinitely blocked as I got involved in sockpuppetry. I didn't know much about Wikipedias policies at that time, and this became the reason I repeatedly made mistakes. During the past months, I have been working on other Wikimedia projects and have been a constructive editor on Simple English Wikipedia and Wikidata and I've become well aware of how Wikipedia works, policies like not abusing multiple accounts and edit warring, and how to contribute positively here. Moving forward, I am committed to making constructive and valuable contributions to Wikipedia only. I sincerely apologize for my past behavior and looking back, I understand that I lacked the maturity to edit constructively. I assure you that those mistakes will not be repeated and that my contributions will only be constructive. I am sincere about contributing on this wikipedia as well and I hope the admins would give me a chance. – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 19:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

They also included the following follow-up:

I am reaching out to appeal an unblock/unban request through the standard offer. I sincerely apologize for the mistakes I made in the past and fully understand that my previous actions, which led me to be blocked, were against the community guidelines of Wikipedia. I didn't know much about Wikipedias policies at that time, and this became the reason I repeatedly made mistakes. I have since taken the time to thoroughly review and understand Wikipedias policies and guidelines, and I assure that I have learned from my mistakes and will not repeat them.
Original block
My first account on Wikipedia, User:Cyber.Eyes.2005. Since I wasn't an experienced editor and didn't know much about Wikipedia policies, I became involved in edit warring on a few articles, especially this one, Brokpa with User:Aman.kumar.goel and got blocked. This eventually led to an indefinite block as I got involved in Sock puppetry, both of which were in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I fully understand that.
Constructive editor
During the past months, I have been working on other Wikimedia projects and have been a constructive editor on Simple English Wikipedia, Wikidata and Urdu Wikipedia and I've become well aware of how Wikipedia works, policies like not abusing multiple accounts and edit warring, and how to contribute positively here. Moving forward, I am committed to making constructive and valuable contributions to Wikipedia only. I sincerely apologize for my past behaviour and looking back, I understand that I lacked the maturity to edit constructively. I assure you that those mistakes will not be repeated and that my contributions will only be constructive. I am sincere about contributing on this wikipedia as well and I hope the admins would give me a chance. If granted a second chance, I am committed to contributing responsibly and constructively to Wikipedia. I hope to be given the chance to demonstrate my dedication to being a positive contributor to this community. – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 09:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Support unblock. Extremely new editor at the time they were blocked. The blocks were two years ago. They appear to have made constructive contributions to other wikis in the interim. The unblock request shows some introspection and I think it's reasonable to give them another chance, with a one-account restriction and an updated CTOP IPA notice. Struck support. The diff provided by Lorstaking below concerns me. Cyber.Eyes.2005 could have responded to the specific issues that had been raised here without personal aggressiveness toward the other editor, but chose not to, and characterized statements about specific edits as personal attacks. That level of combativeness is not conducive to collaborative editing, especially in the IPA topic area. Schazjmd (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, unblock. Ponyo says there's no reason to think they've still been socking, and the edits at Simple and at Wikidata seem like they're in good faith. Schazjmd's caveats seem wise, as well as letting CE know that they're going to probably be watched more closely for a while, so they should tread very carefully. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  I can see how this is trending, but for posterity, I guess I'll comment again: I could still support an unblock, but I think now I'd need to insist on some kind of IPA topic ban. I don't know if CE just wrote what they think we wanted to hear in their unblock request and their response to Ratnahastin is their "real" self, or if the unblock request was genuine but the response to Ratnahastin was made due to stress. But either way, that aggressive response, made by someone while they're appealing a community ban, was pretty self destructive. I still suspect most of the problem is in the IPA topic area, so I think there's still a decent chance they could productively edit other topic areas. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support unblock exactly per Schazjmd. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  The simplewiki diffs presented by Ratnahastin are slightly concerning, but not nearly concerning enough for me to stop supporting the unblock. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  The diff from Lorstalking is very concerning; I think some topic-ban will be necessary with an unblock. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support unblock - this is what we want to see in people who ask about the Standard Offer. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - One needs to have a look at the edits he has made on Simple Wiki and they are disruptive. For example, he claims here that only Eastern Pakistan falls under the Indian subcontinent when whole Pakistan falls under the regional term. Here, he is edit warring to remove the Indian origins of Mughal empire. He created "Ancient Pakistan" there, even after knowing that such a POV article does not exist on English Wiki either.[6] He created "Middle kingdoms of Pakistan" on Simple wiki when no such article exists on Wikipedia because the country Pakistan was itself created only in 1947. He created "Indian naming dispute" there and used a large number of Godi media sources (see NDTV, Firstpost, India Today, etc.) which are notorious for falsifying history to fit the narrative of the current ruling Modi's BJP government. These are just some examples. He would be topic banned or blocked if he made these edits on English Wikipedia. I cannot think of supporting unblock with a topic ban from South Asian topics because there are no other topics which he has edited so far. I would rather urge Cyber.eyes.2005 to fix the damage he has done to Simple Wiki. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Reply below carried over from User talk:Cyber.Eyes.2005 per request-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's clear who is engaging in POV pushing here. None of the edits you linked to are disruptive; they are well-cited, sourced, and I have provided reasons for each in their respective edit summaries. Your interpretation of them seems to be biased here. If you believe any of these edits or pages are disruptive, please discuss this on my talk page on Simple English Wikipedia. The guidelines there are similar to those on English Wikipedia: a page exists there if it is notable and well-sourced. If an article doesn't exist on English Wikipedia, it doesn't automatically mean it is POVish or shouldn't exist at all as you claimed (He created "Ancient Pakistan" there, even after knowing that such a POV article does not exist on English Wiki either.[11] He created "Middle kingdoms of Pakistan" on Simple wiki when no such article exists on Wikipedia because the country Pakistan was itself created only in 1947.).
  Your actions here appear to be WP:ATTACK, as seen in your comments on my talk page (Special:Diff/1241672518). Your statements about using "Godi media" sources and "edit warring to remove the Indian origins of the Mughal Empire" are infact WP:POV. The edit in question was even agreed upon by a Simple Wikipedia admin.
  Additionally, you claim that I haven't edited other topics is incorrect. Out of the 113 articles I've created on Simple English Wikipedia, only about 21 are related to Pakistan. This yet seems to be another personal attack.
  Note: I am genuinely committed to contributing constructively on this Wikipedia, just as I have done on other Wikimedia sites. My constructive contributions on Simple Wikipedia can be verified by the admins there, as it is the platform where I have been most active for the last year. I hope I can be given a second chance to contribute positively to this Wikipedia as well.

  – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 09:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per above. His disruption on Simple Wikipedia is simply too big to ignore. It refutes his claims of being "a constructive editor". Dympies (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support - Activity shows slow but growing signs of being productive. I urge Cyber to continue contributing elsewhere, even after the unblock. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Not for now. Retracting. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ratnahastin. There appears to be a huge number of unwarranted and unjustifiable edits from this editor, aimed at proving that Pakistan did not came into existence in 1947 but has existed as a separate entity for thousands of years. Creation of Hellenic Pakistan by mispresenting Indo-Greek Kingdom is another evidence of that. It is also the first time I am hearing about a "Indo-Pak subcontinent".[7] Nxcrypto Message 03:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ratnahastin; as someone who has contributed extensively in the area of the so-called "Hellenic Pakistan", a formulation which I don't believe has ever been used in scholarship, I oppose this unblock as a preventative measure. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - The battleground mentality as evident from their latest response is appalling. Lorstaking (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The appeal seems to say all the right things but in a non-specific, formulaic, unemotional and even impersonal way, much like an LLM's output. jpgordon's response to an April 2024 appeal included I suggest you write your own request rather than relying on chatbots for any part of it to which Cyber.Eyes.2005 replied, in part, The above request had some grammatical problems which I fixed through AI. This appeal still does not seem to be in their own words. Also, they socked several times a months for months, repeatedly being blocked; I got involved in sockpuppetry. I didn't know much about Wikipedias policies at that time, far from being a credible excuse, is an abnegation of personal responsibility. NebY (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Block appeal - Solaire the knight

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

---

As the block appeal for Solaire the knight (talk · contribs) has been open for several weeks without closure, I've volunteered to bring it here for community review.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Begin appeal:

After additional consultations and conversations with administrators, I decided to submit an additional request, answering the necessary questions asked of me by the administrator Z1720.

An edit warring is when users revert other people's edits, especially repeatedly, rather than trying to reach consensus within the project's rules (this is objectively bad and prohibited because edit warrning destroys constructive work on the article and turns it into battlefield between users). My actions were rightly defined as a edit warring, because instead of opening a topic in the discussion of the page and showing reasonedly, with authoritative sources, why I think my edits are correct and reaching consensus through mutual discussion, I simply canceled the edits of my opponents and appealed to them " morality and justice." In the future, If my edit is reverted, then I will refrain from such actions as destructive and create a thematic thread on the talk page to discuss the conflict that has arisen and how it can be resolved within the framework of the project rules. Once the discussion is over, I will need to ask a neutral administrator to summarize it in order to approve consensus and avoid new conflict due to different views on the outcome of the discussion.

A reliable source is an authoritative source who and meets Wikipedia's requirements for authoritative resources and can confirm the information I add. For example, if I want to add a claim that a scene from a show has become a meme, I need a source that directly describes this meme and meets Wikipedia's requirements for authoritative sources on a given topic. If other users express doubts about this, then I should also initially create a topic on the discussion page, where convincingly demonstrate authority of the source or provide new authoritative sources, instead of using any emotional reverts. This can be done by showing that the source is considered authoritative in its field (for example, it is widely quoted and recognized as authoritative by other objectively authoritative sources), is not in the database of prohibited sources on Wikipedia itself, and is not engaged in the dissemination of unauthoritative or biased information such as conspiracy theories, etc.

I accept your reproach. Instead of drawing conclusions from the warnings of administrators and other users, and correcting any identified problems in my actions, I simply began to argue and complain about other users, although the topic of discussion should have been my behavior, and not transferring blame to other users or or another links to “justice and morality.” Now I understand that in such situations I should have at least adjusted my behavior and discussed in a polite and reasonable tone how I could correct this in the future. As a last resort, consult with familiar users. But definitely don’t taking this as an attack or a challenge against me.

To sum up the above, I ask you to unblock me by demonstrating that I recognize and understand the problems voiced and leading to my blocking. In the future, I promise to resolve any conflicts through constructive dialogue with authoritative sources within the rules on the talk page, avoid any edit wars, and take warnings as an opportunity to stop and correct problems in my actions instead of reacting hostilely to them. I hope that I have adequately answered the questions asked of me and can expect the block to be lifted. But of course, if any additional questions arise for me, I can always answer them.Solaire the knight (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• It seems like a reasonably self-aware unblock request, so I'd be ok with an unblock. If unblocked, STK needs to remember that their edits are going to be watched more carefully for a while, so they should tread very carefully. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock, hesitantly. I'd have liked to have seen some edits on other projects while they were blocked to show they can collaborate (August 2023 to June 2024, no edits anywhere). Looking at their interactions here and on their talk page at ru.wp, Solaire the knight seems to have been easily provoked. But they seem to recognize that in their unblock request and indicate they plan to react differently going forward, "definitely don’t taking this as an attack or a challenge against me". I hope they can adjust their approach to collaborative editing; their contribution history shows the potential for being a useful and productive editor. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• I reviewed the first unblock request last year, and left a very detailed response on what Solaire needed to address in a future unblock request. I have no opinion on this, and instead endorse the community's consensus. I invite editors who are commenting on this to read my comments in the first unblock request and determine if this addresses those concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock - STK seems to have good signs of activity. I hope STK will provide reliable sources when he returns. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I think this editor has adequately addressed Z1720's concerns. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Netherzone

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

I object to actions of administrator Netherzone. I received on August 10, 2024 notification about deletion discussion of Trotter Museum-Gallery article which I wrote. We were discussing merit of this article with Netherzone. On August 16 he/she posted a "Managing a conflict of interest" on my talk page to the effect that "the nature of some of my edits suggests that you may have a Conflict of Interest with some of the subjects you edit or articles you have created" regarding articles that I wrote on Esther Bruton, Margaret Bruton, and Helen Bell Bruton. I explained that I wrote these articles because her biographer, who wrote a book about them, complained that they are excluded from the art history because they were women artists, and that Wikpedia doesn't have articles about them. She (Wendy van Wyck) even thanked me for this as documented on this page https://brutonsisters.blogspot.com/2023/11/new-discoveries-wikipedia-and-happy.html She wrote: "On another note, many times I have bemoaned the fact that the Bruton sisters don't have Wikipedia pages. It has always been my intention to remedy this situation, but I just learned that I've been beaten to it! Another individual -- who prefers to remain anonymous -- has written beautiful Wikipedia entries for Margaret, Esther, and Helen, as well as a page for The Peacemakers mural. As you know, Wikipedia pages are always a work in progress, and I will continue to monitor and update the Bruton pages as appropriate. It's wonderful that the Brutons -- who are so deserving of this level of attention -- are finally on Wikipedia!" Netherzone accepted this explanation (he wrote: Thank you for clarifying this.) but did not remove "Managing a conflict of interest" note from my page. Instead he/she escalated his objections to the effect that "Several of your articles including the ones on the three Bruton sisters contain unsourced claims (which may be original research), a promotional tone or euphemisms, and some of the photos do not seem to have appropriate licensing and are copyrighted to the original artists yet claimed as "own work". These statements are most probably not correct and even if they are, they are not "conflict of interest" related. Subsequently, when I asked for specifics, I received general instructions from Netherzone about copyright on Commons. I am, of course, familiar with them and tried to explain to him/her that some of Bruton's works were supported by the US Government and therefore are on public domain. There are other cases when art is on public domain - their mosaics on public building are most probably covered by freedom of panorama, but I could not get specifics from Netherzone of which images are my perceived "conflict of interest" so it is difficult for me to address his/hers concern; but for sure I do not have any conflict of interest here. Also, I feel uneasy about his/her action around this case. For example, soon after deletion discussion about "Trotter Museum" other discussions ensued (Bruton sisters, Ellen Hadden, Steve Hauk) as if through some concentrated effort. Also, I was asked by Netherzone me to review all my images on Commons and he/she started to enquire about my personal information on EN:WP. I would like that "Managing a conflict of interest" is removed from my page. Puncinus (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Netherzone has been nothing but polite and patient with you. There's no conspiracy because your article was deleted after a discussion that you bludgeoned. Additionally, it appears that Netherzone is not the only editor who has raised concerns with potential OR and sourcing issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Netherzone is not an administrator. There is nothing actionable about being advised of the conflict of interest policy (which is all the "Managing a conflict of interest" message is), being advised of copyright policy and similarly being asked to review your submissions to ensure they are compliant, or being asked if you operate more than 1 account (which is what I presume you mean by started to enquire about my personal information). You are not required to answer Netherzone regarding another account; if they (or any other editor) believe you may be using multiple accounts abusively they can submit an WP:SPI and that'll be handled appropriately. You do not need to ask others to remove the conflict of interest message from your talk page; you may remove it yourself. —Sirdog (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing the user's talk page, Netherzone has been incredibly patient with this editor, who posted some of the more frustratingly obstructionist replies I've seen in a while, especially regarding copyright and needing things explained to the nth degree. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Daniel (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• This should probably be closed as unactionable. Netherzone was incredibly patient. Other editors have also tried to help them understand. The OP is not listening, not comprehending and being unnecessarily obstructionist. --ARoseWolf 08:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Any of us may, at any time, be asked about WP:COI and/or WP:PAID. It is our common practice to accept a simple, clear and unequivocal answer, to AGF. The question is a polite question and is inoffensive. I concur with ARoseWolf that there is no action that needs to be taken. Decorum and politeness have reigned throughout, and I think that bringing this here was a simple good faith error by the OP, who was seeking more explanation than necessary. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Involved as AfD !voter, although one who was hoping to find a reason to retain it. NZ's behavior is not remotely of concern here. Puncinus, if you want it removed, you're welcome to do so as it's considered acknowledging. The only thing a user may not remove is a declined unblock notice. Please take the feedback on board as you continue editing as it's helpful when looking at the amount of coverage organizations require and how to best present that. Star Mississippi 19:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Dear enwiki community

I am saddened to inform you that BlackShadowG (talk · contribs) has passed away. In light of this, I kindly request the removal of their IPBE (IP Block Exemption) permissions.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely, ASId.

ASid (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Sad news, but done. Nthep (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Condolences, comrade. Ahri Boy (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@ASid a question though: do you have the news of her death personally, or it is something taken from her userpage in zhwiki as she had directed anyone on her userpage to mark her as dead if she had not edited for more then days there? – robertsky (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Robertsky:Sorry, I did mark it based on his request on the zhwiki's user page. However, the reason why I chose to mark it is because there are already Wikipedians in the zhwiki community who have tried various methods to contact him, but have not received any reply, including VRT info-zh (I am also a VRT member with info-zh access) and have not received any news about him. If my markup behavior violates enwiki's policies, I'm very sorry for this and please remove the template I placed, thank you. ASid (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@ASid, I don't think the placement of the banner violates anything given that she left explicit instructions to do so in case of inactivity and why she would be inactive. I was just curious if you had further information other than what is available. I do hope that it is a false alarm though; that she was rescued or intervened in time and is recovering offline until when she is ready herself to return back to Wikipedia editing. – robertsky (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Robertsky:A Wikipedian on zhwiki wrote to [email protected] to notify WMF, but only received a canned message reply. I have no further news at this time. If I receive any information about BlackShadowG, I will notify you and thank you for your concern. Best regards. ASid (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

POVPUSH removal of "Black"

Moved from Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § POVPUSH removal of "Black"

• Task: Test for a no-insertion one-line removal of / ?[Bb]lack ?/. Tag or only log articlespace edits by non-autoconfirmed editors.
• Reason: Some instances of this subtle POVPUSH may remain undetected for a long time. An EF can produce a list to review.
• Diffs: [17] [18]

142.113.140.146 (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Deferred to WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, and similar. The diffs provided are a singular IP, but that can be dealt with via blocks and protection. Generally the disruption should be somewhat widespread for a filter to have much effect here. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Here are more UCR diffs, all by different IPs: [19] [20] [21] [22].

Those IPs did not edit more than 2 articles so WP:AIV would say "insufficiently warned". In the [23] that I caught, the page was over a year old so would not normally qualify for WP:RFPP, and it was undetected for half a month. Those edits were reverted by multiple editors with long edit histories. This hit-and-run disruption is attempting to hide the alteration of POV. A tagging EF will have the effect of revealing the full extent of the damage. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Moved here to WP:AN. No specific user so not WP:AIV. No specific page so not WP:RFPP. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

There is evidence of a systematic trend here; what about / ?[Ww]hite] ?/? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

According to MOS:RACECAPS :Ethno-racial “color labels” may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white). The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort (Asian–Pacific, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Indigenous, and White demographic categories). So a change from upper to lower case, or vice versa, is not a POV push, but a difference of opinion on a matter of style. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's poorly explained above unless you know regex, but if you click on the diffs you'll see this isn't about capitalization changes, but rather removing the word outright. As a log-only filter this would probably be fine, but would get a lot of false positives. (Removing "Black" from a biography's lede, for instance, is usually correct per MOS:ETHNICITY, although occasionally the word is appropriate as in the examples given of Massey and Scott.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Sorry for the distraction. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

And possibly also black and white as color adjectives. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Flurry of move activity from my account

In the event anyone happened to notice a flurry of activity concerning moves and deletions from my account in the 60-90 minutes, I wanted to post to let the community know that I went to archive my talk page and accidentally moved all affiliated subpage talk pages to an incorrect title, then to an archive 24 title when I only meant to move my current talk page. Its the second time I've done this, but I do believe after a good hour of checking, deleting, and moving that I got everything back where its supposed to be. Sorry for any confusion or concern that may have caused. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Possibility of cross wiki vandalism related to anime, manga and seiyu from ja:LTA:203, ja:LTA:TAROSU in near future

When I checked the protected log in Japanese Wikipedia, there’s a lots anime, manga and seiyu stuff gets indefinitely or long term protected (you can see it’s [log in Japanese Wikipedia]) due to excessive vandalism by long term abusers especially from ja:LTA:203, ja:LTA:TAROSU, ja:LTA:ISECHIKA and ja:LTA:Iccic.

I have concern about those LTA from Japanese Wikipedia might bring its vandalism into English Wikipedia as soon more and more articles gets indefinitely protected, however, they have policy related to these types of LTA, should we also adopt this policy if they bring its vandalism into English Wikipedia?

By the way, here is my translation of these policies in Japanese Wikipedia:

These criteria have been agreed upon in related incidents for protection.

• Article should placed on 3 years semi-protection if vandalism occurs after 1 year semi-protection is lifted
  • Article should placed on indefinite semi protection if vandalism occurs after 3 year protection lifted
• From 2019 onwards, frequent semi-protection breakthroughs made by sock accounts, in which case extended semi-protection (Japanese version of ECP), officially operational from 2020, is required.
• If semi-protection for more than three years and vandalism still occurs after it is lifted, or if they break through the semi-protection by using sock accounts, they should be moved to ECP and the deadline re-set, or indefinite semi-protection is required.

AussieSurplus1510 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

If articles become targeted, we can protect them. We also already have a policy on article protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Broad vs. narrow TBAN closure at ANI

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

---

At WP:ANI#Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX (Behaviour of JacktheBrown) (permalink), TarnishedPath proposed to topic ban JacktheBrown "from the GENSEX area, broadly construed". For background info, see the preceding section (§Behaviour of JacktheBrown, permalink) and the linked discussions and diffs.

After about five days of discussion amongst about 20 participants, Valereee closed the discussion with "Clear consensus for a topic ban from WP:GENSEX. No consensus for further restrictions." Valereee made it clear—in her ban message at JTB's user talk page (see here and here), at the restrictions log, and in a follow-up discussion at her own user talk page (whole discussion link, permalink)—that the TBAN she implemented is not broadly construed.

My questions for the community are:

1. Was there consensus for a broadly construed TBAN?
2. If so, do admins have discretion to implement a ban that is narrower than the one that has consensus?

Many thanks for your consideration. It would help, I think, to format bolded !votes in Yes/No on 1, Yes/No on 2 format wherever possible. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I have my own take on this, but I'm hoping to hear outsider views first. On a procedural note, I've pinged the bare minimum of users here. I would appreciate a second opinion on whether we should ping the participants of the discussions at ANI, JTB's user talk, and V's user talk. For a related policy discussion, see WT:BAN#Can a topic ban from a ct area specifically exclude “broadly construed”?. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding question 2 in the general case: administrators can enact an editing restriction only when authorized by policy, the community, or the arbitration committee (to whom the community has delegated authority). So if the scenario doesn't fall under these cases, administrators do not have discretion to create their own editing restriction; the community has to decide upon it (or the arbitration committee on its behalf).

In this specific case, the behaviour in question is related to a designated contentious topic area, gender and sexuality. Thus administrators do have the authority to enact editing restrictions on their own initiative. But when using the authority granted to them via the contentious topic/discretionary sanctions system, they are acting independently of any ongoing community discussion, and so leave them open. (The community can choose to end the discussion if they consider the remedy to be adequate.) Since Valereee closed the discussion, and did not assert that that they were acting under the authority of the contentious topic designation, they did not have discretion to create their own version of the editing restriction to enact. isaacl (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with isaccl's answer to question 2. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• 1 - Yes - There is no ambiguity in the community's response among those who supported, and those who supported did not question the language in the proposal, or comment that it shouldn't be broadly construed.

2 - No - WP:CBAN says When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments made. Valereee correctly notes that there is a "Clear consensus for a topic ban from WP:GENSEX". And since the proposal specifically says "broadly construed", they don't have discretion to override the community, and implement a ban that is narrower than the one that has consensus. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• 1 - Yes, 2 - No (involved). There is no ambiguity that I proposed a broadly construed WP:TBAN and no editors !voting to support suggested anything less than that. In fact some suggested expanding the TBAN to all CTOPs. As per whether it's within an admin's discretion to vary from the community consensus, Isaidnoway and Isaacl make strong arguments that admins do not have that discretion. TarnishedPath^talk 06:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• 1 - Yes, and 2 - Yes-ish. Yes, sysops do have discretion to interpret community consensus, and no, the consensus isn't constrained by how the original proposer framed the question. An outcome like this is sometimes within sysop discretion, depending on what's happened and the community's strength of feeling. In this case I do feel that it would be better if Valereee is willing to re-evaluate the discussion and put in a less narrow sanction.—S Marshall T/C 15:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• 1. Yes; 2: No. The proposal was quite clear to be "broadly" construed, and no supporter went against this, making it clear consensus that the topic ban is broadly construed. And admins may not violate explicit consensus in this context (although when consensus is for no/less action, they can respond unilaterally to new behavior). Animal lover |666| 16:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• I appreciate the discussion, FFF. I'm not going to weigh in here on the question. I closed the discussion as a clear consensus for a tban, and I certainly don't disagree that I may have used too much discretion. For what it's worth, as an admin I'd very much like to have this kind of discretion. But if I don't, I'll of course comply with what the community wants. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• 1: Yes; 2: No. The proposal was perfectly clear and not malformed; there was no room for misconstruing (!) what was under discussion. If an admin—as any editor—comes to a discussion and thinks the proposal is wrong, they should take their admin hat on and make an alternative proposal as an editor. Re-interpreting a consensus is a classic supervote; while admins may have—to a degree that should not be exaggerated—discretion to interpret community consensus, that does not mean changing it. Or, as happened here, picking and choosing the parts one wishes to implement. It may only have been two words out of 16, but they fundamentally change the community's decision and the nature of the discussion that led to the community reaching that conclusion. And that's not counting the danger of whether it sets any kind of precedent. SerialNumber54129 17:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• I know Wikipedia loves the phrase "broadly construed", but what does it actually mean in this context? What edits would be allowed if this was narrowly construed but not if it was broadly construed? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Generally it seems helpful to stop tban'd editors from testing the edges of their topic ban, as any edge case can be considered to be covered by 'broadly construed'. Without it you end up with timesinks discussions about exactly what is or isn't covered.

  If the ban is narrowly construed then what is or isn't covered, is it only articles specifically about the topic or are sections covered, what about edits that only copyedit a sentence? This is all a waste of time, tbans are supposed to give editors a chance to edit outside the area of disagreement. 'Broadly construed' is just a term used to try and pre-empt such discussions -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Based on that interpretation it seems that every topic ban should be "broadly construed". I think I agree. At least, if I was topic-banned, I would take it as being so. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes/No-ish (involved). While I think there is a level of admin discretion allowed, this wasn't one where it was needed as consensus among established editors was clear. There was no reason for the proposal not to be enacted as proposed & supported. That said, I don't find fault in this review nor of Valeree's close and the discussions leading us here. She has been trying to guide Jack to be a productive editor and closed it in a way that she thought reflected consensus as well as helped guide Jack's edits. I see no evidence she was deliberately closing it against consensus and this may be a gray area. I second Phil that I'm not sure broad/narrow is a thing in gen/sex. Star Mississippi 19:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• N/A (tho you can consider this as No/No Yes/No if you want): My reading of the cases that established discretionary sanctions/contentious topics in general is that it's not just the specific topic ban that is broadly construed, but rather the entire topic area. So for instance, if you look at abortion, American politics or alternative medicine, they all say that their topic areas are "broadly construed". To me that implies that any topic ban in those topic areas is always broadly construed and cannot be narrower.
  However, in the particular case of GENSEX it's lacking the "broadly construed" language that's present in other cases. So in this case I'd argue that the topic area itself is not broadly construed, because ArbCom could've and didn't include that language. (My suspicion for why is that since everyone has a gender and a sexuality, a broadly construed GENSEX topic ban could be argued to be basically equivalent to a site ban.) And since the topic area itself isn't broadly construed, support for a GENSEX topic ban is not broadly construed unless specifically called out as broadly construed, which nobody did. Loki (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's because the language is now part of WP:Contentious topics itself, Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic. GENSEX doesn't contain language specifying that it opts out of being broadly construed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, you're right. In that case you can consider this as ```Yes/No``` and I'll strike the parts of this that aren't relevant. Loki (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  As I discussed at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Can a topic ban from a ct area specifically exclude “broadly construed”?, the standard set of restrictions described at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Standard set includes page bans (from the entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic). Thus admins are authorized to impose an editing restriction for a tailored subset of the designated contentious topic area. isaacl (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment Not involved in any way, I'm genuinely surprised at the WP:HOUNDING to drive away a user. There are already several overlapping thread on ANI, and now also this. If it would be a particularly problematic user, it might make sense. Looking at their edit history, I do see problems but nothing that would warrant this many threads. The user has already been tbanned. How about everyone leave them alone for a while and go on editing? Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is not about a specific user. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes/neutral with a however (involved) I did vote on the proposal so I guess I am involved, but I did not participate much in the thread. I have in the past answered questions from Jack, also. ActivelyDisinterested, and Barkeep49 had convinced me that Firefangledfeathers' reading of the wording is correct, which I consider unfortunate in this instance, since it will put a sword of Damocles above the head of a good-faith editor whose language skills are in question. I have seen very divergent applications of "broadly construed" and I do not think the editor can navigate this, particularly since they are now editing Russia/Ukraine topics, which is the topic area where I noted the differences of interpretation. But Isaaccl seems to think that a sanction can be tailored, which I think was a good idea in this case. So I am neutral on the interpretation of the rules. My vote in the thread was a ban from all contentious topics, and did not address "broadly construed", btw, although I did support the proposal as written. My concern at the time was Russia/Ukraine however. This editor in that topic area is just not going to end well, and since he has edited the article about the arrest of the Telegram CEO, he has not taken that concern on board. Bottom line, does he deserve a rope? If not, just indef him already. Going with "broadly construed" is going to give the same result, only with much more drama and wasted editor time. Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Elinruby: "...they are now editing Russia/Ukraine topics...", I actually no longer collaborate on topics regarding the Russia/Ukraine war (Pavel Durov isn't part of this topic). Excuse me for intruding into this discussion. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  er, yes it would definitely be part of it under "broadly construed" in my opinion given Telegram's very extensive use for official statements in that war. Mind you, interpretations of "broadly construed" in Russia/Ukraine vary widely, as previously noted. I strongly suggest that someone give you very detailed instructions if this provision is added to your topic ban from GENSEX. And if you have any questions at all about whether something does or does not fall under "broadly construed" you should absolutely ask them, and ask them of whoever the enforcing admin is for the topic ban. I believe it is Valereee, but you need to ask her about this, as I do not want to steer you wrong. But let me emphasize this: although you have wound up at ANI before for asking questions, you need to ask any questions you have about this, because you definitely do not want to be at ANI for being mistaken about your slippery slope topic ban. Elinruby (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  since it will put a sword of Damocles above the head of a good-faith editor whose language skills are in question and therein lies the problem. Despite opening at least one thread, I don't think Jack actually means to be disruptive, he just is because there's too much nuance needed and he doesn't have the language skills. I think a topic ban from CTs was going to be more kind than where we ultimately end up. Star Mississippi 00:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. But also, there are problems with the "broadly construed" language and in my opinion this is a particularly bad use case for it. But I leave the question of whether omitting it is allowed to actual admins. I personally think that if it is not, then it should be, but this is not a policy-based argument and I do not claim that it is. Also, I did not look into what he was doing at the article I mentioned above exactly, but it looked like wikignoming with little potential for harm. And of course this is an academic discussion, since he currently has no restrictions in that topic area. But just saying.Elinruby (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  The question here is not if narrowly construed TBANs are appropriate ever; nor is it if you, personally, would support it in this case. The only question is if the closing admin's actions are reasonable given the course the original discussion took. Animal lover |666| 09:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  My answer to that question is yes. Elinruby (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  My comments on the standard set of sanctions available for areas designated as contentious topics were specific to a scenario where an adminstrator is imposing a restriction on their own initiative. This does not mean that an evaluator of consensus for a community discussion is authorized to enact a remedy that was not discussed. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Aha, so you were not disagreeing with the others. I think I will continue to stay neutral on the parameters of proper administrative action. I do think that people may well be right about the current language. Which I consider unfortunate in this particular instance. That is a "should" question and I am neutral on "should". I do however think Valereee's actions where reasonable, if that is the question. I actually think they were quite thoughtful. Elinruby (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes/no, note I was involved. I also think it creates problems for the editor and Admins if there are no clear boundaries as to what can be edits. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• 1 Yes, 2 N/A, involved in RfC. And I'm going to reiterate my opinion that this editor does not belong in any CT area. I think that no matter how much you value your own style changes, when you are a proven time sink and start violating core policies like WP:DUE in CT areas enough should be enough. Might seem harsh, but I've seen this editor struggle for about a year and a half now and while I was hoping they would find their place as a genuine net positive editor, their recent contentious topics adventures have convinced me that's not going to happen anytime soon. TylerBurden (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The part of your sentence "...you are a proven time sink...", in addition to being false (do you really think I'm a useless user?), is very offensive to me. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

    Jack, I think you know I am somewhat sympathetic to your misunderstandings and I think part of the problem here is that you have been discouraged from asking questions, but as someone who played help desk for you as recently as yesterday, I wnt to make sure you understand that there is indeed a problem with you not asking questions when you should ask questions. And part of that problem also seems to be that sometimes you do not know how little you know, or what nuance you did not understand.

    For example, right now you should be listening, and definitely should not be arguing. I also think that you should be restricted from contentious topics in general. It would actually benefit you by keeping you away from pitfalls. My only concern is the very arbitrary nature at times of what is covered under "broadly construed". I did vote for a topic ban, broadly construed or not, because we can't keep having these discussions about you at ANI. But "broadly construed" is dangerous and especially dangerous for you in particular even though you are not the editor they had in mind when they drafted that language. Elinruby (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

    I'm quite certain that TylerBurden doesn't mean you're a "useless user." Time sink means that you take the time of editors away from other activities. Whether it's making two dozen edits to get a sentence right, or you arbitrarily change British English to American English, or you enforce your personal style guide, or you display a bit of national chauvinism to other editors, every time you end up in ANI or in an edit war with another editor, it takes time away from them and time away from you.

    I said this two or three of your ANI appearances ago, but I will repeat it: you'd do a lot better if you'd just S-L-O-W things down and focus on quality rather than quantity. You edit things that require a lot of nuance and English fluency, and you frequently edit them rapidly and as a result, sloppily. That gets you into trouble and it's a shame because at your best, you're a terrific editor. When you translate obscure Italian culinary texts and build articles we wouldn't have otherwise, that's extremely valuable. If you focused on these things that you do have sufficient English fluency to work on, and ideally got your language in order before editing articles and strove to never edit the style/grammar of other editors or wade into sensitive topics, you might find you're never at ANI again. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

    • @CoffeeCrumbs: regarding the type of English, since I was notified I have never again done what you wrote (on the contrary, I used American English when the article is/was clearly written in American English; for consistency). JacktheBrown (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

      @CoffeeCrumbs: however, I have created a new article if you're interested: bacaro. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

      I gather you couldn't find any reliable sources. Those tourist guides are not reliably published sources. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• It looks like Valereee has adjusted the sanction to remove the narrower construction, so the prompting incident is resolved. For future reference, I'm a No on 2. I think it's important that the community have a voice in determining the most appropriate sanction. Where implementation requires an admin action, every individual admin is free to exercise their discretion and not be the enforcer of the consensus. I don't think that discretion extends to modifying the sanction chosen by the community. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the community was pretty clear, so I adjusted. I think we should maybe consider the problems with broadly construed for an editor who appears to be well-intentioned. I kind of feel like it can really be an invitation for editors who've had a disagreement with that editor to watch their every move looking for a chance to say "gotcha". And I really don't think "broadly construed" is any more nebulous than not. To me "broadly construed" often seems to attract complaints based on "if there's any chance I can possibly connect this in any tangential way to the tban, gotcha". JMO, of course, and sorry for the extra work. Valereee (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes / No When an administrator is taking an action on their own wherewithal, they ought to have -- and do -- wide discretion to pass judgment on the most beneficial outcome to Wikipedia. When an administrator is taking an interpretive role, then the consensus should be evaluated strictly in this context. Please note that no aspersions at all are intended toward Valereee; she made a good-faith judgment as to the best course, and showed empathy toward Jack, and my objection is merely technical. Every Lucius Junius Brutus ought to have a touch of Cincinnatus. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Little Esther Jones with dog-1930.jpg

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

---

File:Little Esther Jones with dog-1930.jpg is {{PD-US-not-renewed}}, according to c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Little Esther Jones with dog. Please undelete the original version, so that I can copy it to that project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I've undeleted the original version. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: Thank you. Now on commons, and can be deleted from here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

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

IBAN being over

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

---

is my iban over? It was enacted for one year at User_talk:Therapyisgood/Archive_2#Interaction_ban as a result of this closure, but I'm not sure if there's a continuous editing requirement (I took July 2024 basically off). I won't mention who it's with in case it's not over yet. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Noting for community's sake that it is with @BeanieFan11 who I will notify. I understand why you did not. Star Mississippi 19:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Since I was pinged: No objection to the sanction being lifted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

As closing admin, I was assuming calendar year. I don't think anyone in the discussion raised the possibility of counting "editing year" differently. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Leo Frank, User:Schlafly, and WP:IDHT

Hi, everyone. First, some background: Leo Frank was a Jewish factory superintendent in Georgia in the 1910s; he was convicted of the muder of Mary Phagan, a 13-year-old factory worker, pardoned by the Georgia governor, and then abducted from prison and lynched. Now, the modern historical consensus, as our article states, is that Frank's trial was a miscarriage of justice, and that he was in all likelihood innocent of the crime. These statements are well-sourced in the article. Nevertheless, the case has become a cause célèbre amongst Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the like in modern times, and so the talk page gets the predictable and pretty regular attention from SPAs/sockpuppets pushing this agenda, almost always with little-to-nothing in the way of sourcing, reliable or otherwise, to back their claims.

Then there is Schlafly. He doesn't actually start any discussions himself, but any time one of these new threads appears, Schlafly will generally be there to take up the call. This has been going on for over a year now. We started with Schlafly citing leofrank.org to support this viewpoint, a website run by "avowed white supremacists", among other delightful things (src). When confronted with reliable sources, he seemed to realize this, only to change his mind by way of impugning the motives of the reliable sources, pettifogging over the exact phraseing of the sources, and just general stonewalling. And also some just bizarre untruths in service of said pettifogging. Recently, he's started just saying "google it" in lieu of any reasonable defense. Most recently, he's moved on to casting doubts on the other editors' motives, rather than just the motives of the so-called "pro-Jewish" sources. When called on this, he merely deflects, rather than actually acknowledging anything. You'll notice that, throughout all of this, there is a 100% absence of any kind of reliable sourcing that supports his claims. I feel like we've reached the point where it's been firmly established as a conduct issue, and enough is enough.

So, in my mind, a partial block for User:Schlafly from the Leo Frank article and its talk page, where he has contributed a bunch of heat and exactly 0 light, would help reduce the problem down to dealing with the SPAs/socks themselves. On that note, some kind of general sanction setup and/or page restriction might be helpful, or even just an affirmation that editors and admins should be more proactive in shutting these threads down quickly before they get out of hand and spawn things like completely pointless RfCs that just wastes everyone's time and energy (along with the good old-fashioned blood libel, of course). But if there's no will for something like that, just removing the most consistent actor here will help. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support pblock from article/talk page for Schlafly. I've been involved on that talk page for a few years and agree with Writ Keeper's summary. There's been a repetitive pattern of an IP or new SPA opening a thread setting out arguments copied form the neo-Nazi websites referred to by Writ Keeper with Schlafly then chiming in WP:CPUSH-style with vague allegations questioning the consesnsus that Frank was wrongfully convicted. DeCausa (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from articles/talk related to Judaism, broadly construed. Editors (particularly Jewish editors) should not have to deal with this kind of historical revisionism. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support a broad topic ban per voorts and the excellent evidence of a pattern of behaviour presented. FortunateSons (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• User:Schlafly has acknowledged a number of times (example), that he is the far-right commentator Roger Schlafly, a scion of the late Phyllis Schlafly. Roger Schlafly's publicly stated opinions include that rising non-white birth rates in the U.S. are "not a good thing" and part of an attempt to "repopulate the country with non-whites" (cf. Great Replacement). He is also known for his promotion of the bizarre conspiracy theory that Albert Einstein stole many of his theories from gentiles. You can read enthusiastic praise from the neo-Nazi Occidental Observer here.
  I wrote an essay a while ago that was partly about how we don't block people just for thinking the wrong thing, and partly how linking oneself to an off-wiki hate figure is per se disruptive editing. In theory that might lead to hard calls if someone only edits about apolitical things, but in practice one finds that people who will out themselves as advocates of hatred will also let that ideology infuse their editing. That's obviously the case here. This is someone who has devoted his public life to fomenting hatred against Jews and other ethnic minorities, and does the same on-wiki. As I wrote in that essay,

  In most cases of hate speech, [limited sanctions] will not be enough. A temporary block is unlikely to dissuade someone of deeply-held views. And a topic ban may help with content disruption, but will not make editors from the affected group comfortable around the editor in question. (After all, the average person from some targeted group does not only edit articles about that group.) So if someone is engaged in concerted hate speech, the proper remedy will usually be an indefinite block or siteban.

  So, support indefinite block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Instead of responding here, Schlafly has decided to post this absolute banger to the article's talk page, with its attendant insinuation that any source who engages with the fact that this was a hate crime is themselves biased and unreliable. Anyway, just for the record, I finally put two and two together about this user's RL identity a few weeks ago, but haven't looked into it beyond their obvious connection to Phyllis Schlafly, and deliberately kept it out of my opening statement to try to stick to onwiki diffs and events as much as possible. I certainly wouldn't be opposed if a harsher sanction than a pblock gains consensus. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef per WP:NONAZIS, thanks to the evidence provided by Tamzin above. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  And the further info below. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Go straight to ban. The editor may well not be who they claim to be, but there is no place for them here. While the concept of antisemitism has been debased to mean anything someone dislikes, this is the real thing and there is absolutely no place for it here. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't be too worried about impersonation. At [24], Roger Schlafly writes that "There is only one" Roger Schlafly. The blogs he links there shed some further light on his views, by the way:

  • "[Leo] Frank was a Jew fairly found guilty of raping and murdering a White girl, based largely on the testimony of Black witnesses. I think the point of the story is that Jews should not be held accountable by goys for crimes against goys." [25]
  • "the notorious Jewish pervert and murderer Leo Frank" [26]
  • "Let us review who runs the USA:
    President Joe Biden, kids married Jews, VP Kamala Harris, Jamaican-Hindoo, married to Jew, Sec. of State Anthony Blinken, Jew, Sec. of Treasury Janet Yellen, Jew, Sec. of Defense Lloyd Austin, Black, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Jew, Sec. of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Jew, Dir. of National Intelligence Avril Haines, Jew, Chainman of Council of Economic Advisors Jared Bernstein, Jew, Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, Jew, Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer, Jew.
    All of the important departments are controlled by Jews." [27]

  I could go on, but I think the website's search function works plenty well on its own. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 06:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper Off-topic, but you made me curious to look at this subject elsewhere:[28][29] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There are times when administrators must act decisively and so I have indefinitely blocked Schlafly as not here to build this particular encyclopedia with its particular policies and guidelines that have resulted in Wikipedia being the #7 website worldwide in terms of pageviews. Other websites have far less stringent and far more biased standards and any editor blocked on Wikipedia is perfectly free to contribute to a website run by a family member, for example, including one that several years back was ranked #18,066 on the internet. Not sure what the 2024 ranking is but highly confident that it is nowhere near #8. Anyway, the blocked editor is free to post there or blog elsewhere, but not here. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Good block, thank you. And thanks @Tamzin for the thorough work. FortunateSons (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, well within admin discretion, good block and another thanks to Tamzin. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Endorse would have done the same had you not gotten there first. The doubling down linked by Writ Keeper is the only clarity needed. Star Mississippi 11:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Good block; Schlafly (whoever they might be) has been aiding and abetting the venting of antisemitic deceit at Talk:Leo Frank with persistent WP:IDHT, trolling ("just google it"[30]) and inventions which might generously be described as prompted and eagerly embraced LLM hallucinations, wasting editors' time and effort, and deliberately harmful to the project of building the encyclopedia. Thanks to @Writ Keeper for putting in the work to bring this here. NebY (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Just a minor note - the block log references ANI, while this is AN. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The Kip, I have corrected the block log. Cullen328 (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Echoing the thanks all around for this. --JBL (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

General sanctions

Returning to part of Writ Keeper's discussion, the recurring issue with Leo Frank and the talkpage is the parade of POV-pushers, socks, and outright bigots. I blocked one of the most egregious last week, the one that WK mentioned as promoting a blood libel theory concerning Passover [31]. That was an easy one, but we have a lot of civil, and marginally-civil POV-pushing and sealioning happening there on a regular basis. The article doesn't fall under the current range of contentious topics. It would help to devise a more expeditious way to address trolling on this subject, that has community backing. Acroterion (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it technically possible for the community to deem an article (and authorise admins to treat it as though it were) a WP:CTOP without an arbcom decision? If so, maybe that could be tried. DeCausa (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, community sanctions exist on a number of topics, like Michael Jackson and wrestling. See Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community_sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Then it seems to me the simplest/most straightforward route is proposing a community sanction regime per CTOPS for the article and its talk page...or am I missing something. DeCausa (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

My impression of cases like this, from the time I spent as one of the more active hate-speech-oriented admins, is that most are legacy cases from an era when we as a community were much more permissive of hate speech. If a new user pops up spouting Jews this, Blacks that, they'll get blocked as NOTHERE or for DE pretty quickly. If they've got a decade-plus tenure and a four-figure edit count, that gives admins pause to block so quickly. So one way of looking at this is that the population of editors like User:Schlafly is ever-dwindling, even if antisemitism and racism remain alive and well in the general population.

It's worth keeping in mind that the rough consensus around hate speech blocks has only formed in the past few years (which I'd very humbly trace back to when I wrote WP:HATEDISRUPT, smoothing over some of the sticking points in WP:NONAZIS that had made it more controversial than it needed to be). Consider that when Amalekite was blocked in 2005 for being a known neo-Nazi off-wiki, he was unblocked because he'd done nothing wrong on-wiki, even though his userpage was a quote from The Fable of the Ducks and the Hens; he was only reblocked when he started targeting perceived Jewish editors on Stormfront, and even that led to a wheel war. We've come a long way since then.

If sanctions were to be imposed here, I don't think the full array of CTOP would be necessary; CTOPs add a lot of overhead. Keeping in mind that the last resort of editors like this has been "just asking questions" on talk pages, perhaps a bespoke sanction regime like "In response to one or more editors' repeated use of unreliable sources or of source misinterpretation to promote ahistorical or pseudoscientific statements about race, ethnicity, and related controversies, including through talk page comments, an uninvolved administrator may impose page protections, partial or sitewide blocks, or topic bans. This regime may not be used for talk page protections of longer than a year or at a level higher than semi-protections."

I've just written all that out, but to be clear I'm not proposing it per se, just saying that if we were to do something, I think that'd be the way to go. I'm kind of torn between doing that and just all agreeing that when admins make blocks like this, the community tends to approve, and that admins should keep that in mind when encountering similar situations in the future. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop uninvolved admins from imposing page protections and partial or sitewide blocks on problematic talkpages right now, is there? At least, I recently semi'd Talk:Leo Frank for six months, and haven't seen any protests. The only difference between the current situation and your bespoke regime, Tamzin, would be the imposition of topic bans. Bishonen | tålk 12:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC).

Sure, but that's true of most of CTOP, and we have some GS regimes, like beauty pageants, that entirely overlap with standard admin powers. The point there is to clarify the community's endorsement of an administrative approach that is more aggressive than usual. But you may be right that that clarification isn't necessary here. Like I said, maybe all admins need is a reminder that the community is pretty consistently in favor of blocks in cases like these these days. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 15:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Like I said in the original post, I don't know that a formal sanction regime is 100% necessary. The issue I personally have is when people pop up, either in a new section they create or tacking on to a months-old section, with a superficially civil initial post, which makes me want to stretch AGF and engage with their question. But once I've done so, I'm now involved, so I feel I can't shut down the conversation when it inevitably becomes--at best--unproductive. So I guess what I'm really looking for is community guidance--whether that's in the form of a formal sanction protocol or just informal advice--on what the best way to prevent disruption like this when taking action is in tension with important policies like AGF and INVOLVED. When's the best point to take my editor hat off and put my admin hat on? Even just something along the lines of "give it a reply or two, and if it's obviously not going to go anywhere, stop being a wuss and hat the conversation with a directive to look at the archives" or something like that; that's my instinct, but the urge to avoid even the appearance of INVOLVED is strong, even when technically admin powers aren't being used. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If it's a recurring problem, and it seems to be, why not put a FAQ on the talk page where you can point these new users to about these issues they are constantly raising, which always appears to be about "wrongly convicted". And then they can see it has already been discussed and the consensus is to state in the article that Modern researchers generally agree that Frank was wrongly convicted. That way you are not obligated to engage with their question(s), as it has already been asked and answered. Other articles have dealt with similar issues on their talk pages: see Talk:Murder of George Floyd, Talk:September 11 attacks, Talk:Chelsea Manning, Talk:Murder of David Amess, a couple of them are GAs. Just a thought. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, pointing to an existing consensus can be a good way for an admin to simultaneously reply, follow AGF, and not make themself involved, which is otherwise a hard needle to thread. "Please see the FAQ regarding why the article is written the way it is. If you have new evidence or analysis from reliable sources, please start a new thread about that." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I've experienced the same issues that Writ Keeper mentions. The blood libel troll was not a problem, but many times we get a superficially AGF question that goes south, and then it's hard to control short of gross bigotry on the part of the OP. This is a problem unique to admins trying to avoid arguments about involvement. As for the talkpage, an FAQ would be helpful, but my experience with similarly troll-plagued talkpages is that they're just ignored. "Please read the FAQ"deals with drive-bys pretty well, but the Leo Frank talkpage tends to attract more tenacious SPAs. Acroterion (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Once you have pointed them to the FAQ, there is no obligation to continue to engage with them, especially if they have been identified as a tenacious SPA. See also: question 7 at Talk:Murder of George Floyd - Q7: Why was my request or comment removed? A7: Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's more a matter of dealing with such an editor administratively once it's clear they're an SPA. It's something any admin who keeps an eye on controversial topics has to deal with.I haven't ever contributed to the article, but for the reasons noted in this thread I keep an eye on the talkpage, and engagement is sometimes treated as involvement. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Ettangi

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

---

The article Battle of Ettangi should be linked to its Italian wiki it:Battaglia di Ettangi and French wiki fr:Bataille d'Ettangi counterparts, but I can't do it as it seems there is some bug there. Please someone look into this and if possible fix it. Thank you, noclador (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 10:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Raegan Revord

I want to use the name Raegan Revord for my page with different information Ctorres1995 (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking to create a userpage called User:Ctorres1995/Reagan Revord, go ahead (don't use for personal info). If you're looking to create a mainspace, you've already been warned against doing that [32]. Conyo14 (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If we are talking about the actress from Young Sheldon, there is a well discussed draft at Draft:Raegan Revord. I think you know that. Trying to start new versions is not helpful. The last decline from March was "No significant improvement since previous submit in October. " Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't have multiple articles giving different views of the same subject (known in the jargon as content forks). If, as I suspect you do, you want to write about the actress from Young Sheldon, then just edit the draft, or, if protection gets in your way, put a clear edit request, showing exactly what you want to replace with what, what you want to delete and what you want to add on its talk page. If you want to write about someone else called Raegan Revord then create a new draft with a descriptive term in parentheses, e.g. Draft:Raegan Revord (pilot) if she is a pilot. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I need to email an admin

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

---

Hello, I live in this city: Charam, Iran, years ago i edited fa.wikipedia, now i checked the english one, it seems that the name is incorrect, the correct name for this city is cheram. i have 3 proofs, first one is encyclopedia iranica article about its name here. the second one and third one are my official documentations, first one is my Iranian identity booklet, known as Shenasnameh and the second one is my passport, but i don't want to upload them on internet. please an admin give me his/her email adderesse so i can send photographs of my official documents with correct name of the city to that admin. thanks. Bovttoras (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not how things work here. You should not give your personal identity documents(or copies) to anyone for your protection.

This is the English Wikipedia, not the Farsi Wikipedia, we can't help you with issues there. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but how can i prove it to you? i think government official passport with city correct name is strongest proof. Bovttoras (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think if i remove critical information (like my name, government id, ...) from photograph by editing it, i can fix the issue. Bovttoras (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing your claim is that a passport stamp or information in your personal passport can be used as a reliable source- no, it's a primary source that is not publicly accessible(and no, you shouldn't upload even a redacted copy). Again though, this is an issue to handle on the Farsi Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

oh, thank. whats about my first link (the encyclopedia iranicia article)? Bovttoras (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We would need to know the source of its information. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, here is a strong source. my city has a college of industriy and mining. here is the link of an article about university and the city correct name. i hope it will be helpfull. i searched for a reliable source (an ac.ir website that are official domain name of iranian universitiens) with this link. Bovttoras (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

if the source is enough. please rename the Charam County too. 2.184.190.61 (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

here is another academic paper that publishen on researchgate with correct name. Bovttoras (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a case where there are multiple correct ways to convert the Persian alphabet into the Roman alphabet. It is not that one is right and one is wrong, both are right, and you will find both in reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I totally undrestand what are you saying, but what's about Diacritic. in persian we write چرام but there are one correct way to pronounce it. چِرام is not the same as چَرام. in arabic alphabet (that persian language use it) we have two distinc things (ــَـ) fatḥa (a)

and (ــِـ) kasra (i). fatha sounds like a and kasra sounds like e. Bovttoras (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

open the discussion in the city page itself; in the city page click on talk then open the discussion, anyways dont share any personal information, do the request to change the article by providing links to outsider neutral articles ect. NICTON t (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, i'm sorry for my discussion in wrong place. i apologies admins and request to close my talk here and move discussion to article talk page. 2.184.177.106 (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

however i will not continue this discussion on talk page, i just provided all my sources and reasons, if they are enough you can rename article, if not, i have nothing more. thanks. 2.184.177.106 (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Try to use reliable sources carefully. It would be best discussed in your home wiki. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Karel Komárek

Suspicious anonymous editors trying to remove Karel Komárek's ties with Russia well covered by the reliable sources by The Guardian [33], Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, Radio Liberty, etc. 80.98.145.168 (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) It seems the IPs that have been undoing the edits are either one-and-dones or rarely active. Page protection could be given if it persists, but you'd also be forbidden from editing it as well. Conyo14 (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Authority control, Adrar stadium

Hi, I tried to access the {{Authority control} } linking the Adrar stadium to the stadiumdb.com Adrar stadium link, however the article name did not correspond with the website authority control naming of Grand Stade d’Agadir, the French naming of the stadium. Therefore, I tried to create a '#REDIRECT Name of article', but the issue is that the new title from authority control includes a: right single quotation mark (’), as per MOS:STRAIGHT. Therefore, I believe I have a good reason to create a redirect with a right single quotation mark. Could this be done with an administrators permission ? Please and thanks. Cltjames (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear which redirect you want to create, but in any case the issue needs to be solved at Wikidata, not here, as they link to the wrong page and should link to "mar/grand_stade_agadir" instead of "mar/adrar_stadium". Fram (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, thank you, the Wikidata has been updated, besides, the redirect works better for a lot of people searching for the stadium. Cltjames (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to disscusson for future record [34] LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 09:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm concerned that some of my colleagues are construing a topic area too broadly, and others, "dispute" too narrowly. Some of our CTOPs are enormous: involvement in one part of a CTOP cannot reasonably be construed to mean involvement in all of it. I said as much at my RFA eight years ago [35], and I stand by that. At the same time, substantially editing an article unquestionably makes you INVOLVED with it. You don't need to be party to an editing dispute. Most of my content work isn't contentious; nonetheless, I am INVOLVED with respect to pages I've made major edits on, and where they fall within a coherent topic, in the topic as well. The question here is simply whether RTH's edits can be construed as minor (fixing grammar or formatting, for instance) or maintenance-related (reverting vandalism or unsourced content). I don't believe it can. And given a half-dozen examples related to the Israel–Hamas war, I don't believe anyone can reasonably argue those are isolated examples any more. The apparent POV of the edits does not matter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Apologies if I've mischaracterized or miscategorized anybody, but it seems like pretty clear consensus to me that yes, RTH is wp:involved, with only 3 editors saying no vs. 11-16 saying yes. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

RM comments

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

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

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

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

New sneaky reference vandalism - needs a filter? RC patrollers, please take note

Reference code damage: [36]. Was unnoticed for over a week, probably due to the error looking semi-innocent in code, and given jargon-gibberish edit summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're referring to an edit filter, you may want to copy paste your message to WP:EFR. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The main thread is now at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Can this be filtered for somehow? –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Page move mess probably needs an admin

For some reason, some pages from the ARS have been repeatedly moved, first to Wikipedia:Wikipedia... and now even to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia..., leaving the old redirects with history pointing nowhere, while new redirects without history have been created at the old titles.

Basically, Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list (redirect with history from 2012) needs to be moved back to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (created just now, can be deleted by an admin but not by anyone else as it was created as a double redirect and has been corrected :-( ), and the same with all the subpages of that first one. Fram (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and there is obviously no need to keep the Wikipedia-cubed titles when moving them back to the correct ones... Fram (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

And the pages also need to be reverted to the last good version, e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive8 points now to a redlink, this is the right page wrt contents, everything afterwards is forgettable. Fram (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done as a non-admin page mover, although some of the archive redirects are still a bit messed up, I'll fix them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see discussion at RM/TR that caused this mess and Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Warning,_it_looks_like_the_page_moving_of_Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list_broke_subscription_may_have_broken_subscription_to_the_page for context on why the actual page had to be moved back to where it was, which is Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list.

There is a bug ⚓ T373543 Page subscriptions don't follow page move for pages in project space (wikimedia.org) in wikipedia around project space page subscription, so the move to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list had to be reverted. Raladic (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: thank you! Fram (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)