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	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	30	0	30
TfD	0	0	10	0	10
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	0	35	0	35
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 28 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 15 sockpuppet investigations
• 39 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 17 Fully protected edit requests
• 4 Candidates for history merging
• 31 requests for RD1 redaction
• 25 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 10 requested closures
• 99 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 27 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 8785 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin General Union of Palestinian Students 2024-11-02 23:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Ikwerre people 2024-11-02 23:24 2024-11-09 23:24 edit edit warring Izno November 2024 Batroun raid 2024-11-02 23:01 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter David Ivry 2024-11-02 03:17 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Ajlun offensive 2024-11-02 03:11 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Black September 2024-11-02 03:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:First Intifada 2024-11-02 03:01 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Thom Yorke 2024-11-01 23:49 2025-02-01 23:49 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Rajput clans 2024-11-01 21:23 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: upgrade to WP:ECP; WP:CASTE El C Gwalior 2024-11-01 20:44 2025-05-01 20:44 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Sarah Jama 2024-11-01 20:02 2026-11-01 20:02 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR (related content) El C Fathi Razem 2024-11-01 19:57 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade October 2024 Beqaa Valley airstrikes 2024-11-01 19:52 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C December 2008 air strikes in the Gaza Strip 2024-11-01 19:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Iranian reactions to the Gaza War (2008–2009) 2024-11-01 19:44 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Ehsan Daxa 2024-11-01 19:29 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Draft:Carnival Internet 2024-11-01 18:58 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Vietnam War 2024-11-01 15:57 2024-12-01 15:57 edit Persistent sockpuppetry Sir Sputnik 2024 Tyre airstrikes 2024-11-01 02:48 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Mahmoud Bakr Hijazi 2024-11-01 01:52 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade 0404 News 2024-11-01 01:50 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Assassination of Imad Mughniyeh 2024-11-01 01:47 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Rashad Abu Sakhila 2024-11-01 00:09 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Israeli airstrikes on Al Qard Al Hasan 2024-10-31 23:51 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade List of best-selling boy bands 2024-10-31 22:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Sporting CP 2024-10-31 20:23 2025-05-01 12:37 edit,move Well, that didn't take long. Black Kite October surprise 2024-10-31 18:52 2025-10-31 18:52 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement of WP:CT/AP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Sadh 2024-10-31 18:22 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Kamala 2024-10-31 17:02 2024-11-14 17:02 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba Hebraization of Palestinian place names 2024-10-31 09:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Beit Hanoun wedge 2024-10-31 09:39 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Baalbek 2024-10-30 22:09 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Ada and Abere 2024-10-30 21:55 2024-11-03 21:55 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Susanna Gibson 2024-10-30 19:58 indefinite edit,move WP:BLP issues. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Gibson (2nd nomination). Asilvering 29 October 2024 Beit Lahia airstrike 2024-10-30 19:00 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Ganesha811 Hwang Hyun-jin 2024-10-30 13:09 2024-11-06 13:09 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Goodnightmush

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.

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 [1], 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." [2]
  • "the notorious Jewish pervert and murderer Leo Frank" [3]
  • "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." [4]

  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)

  No argument here. My comment was to pre-empt anyone pointing out that this may be a "Joe job". It doesn't matter whether or not this editor is who they claim to be - there is no place for that behaviour here. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper Off-topic, but you made me curious to look at this subject elsewhere:[5][6] 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"[7]) 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 [8]. 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.

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 [9], 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)

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 [10] LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 09:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm concerned that some of my colleagues are construing a topic area too broadly, and others, "dispute" too narrowly. Some of our CTOPs are enormous: involvement in one part of a CTOP cannot reasonably be construed to mean involvement in all of it. I said as much at my RFA eight years ago [11], and I stand by that. At the same time, substantially editing an article unquestionably makes you INVOLVED with it. You don't need to be party to an editing dispute. Most of my content work isn't contentious; nonetheless, I am INVOLVED with respect to pages I've made major edits on, and where they fall within a coherent topic, in the topic as well. The question here is simply whether RTH's edits can be construed as minor (fixing grammar or formatting, for instance) or maintenance-related (reverting vandalism or unsourced content). I don't believe it can. And given a half-dozen examples related to the Israel–Hamas war, I don't believe anyone can reasonably argue those are isolated examples any more. The apparent POV of the edits does not matter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Based on the evidence provided so far, I don't think RTH has edited extensively enough in the topic area to be considered involved in everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I do think there's evidence that he is involved with Israel–Hamas war and closely related articles. In general, I think that contentious topic areas were identified and delimited by either ArbCom or the community to encompass broad areas in which disruptive editors were editing disruptively. The extant contentious topic areas have lasted because there are still disruptive actors. It is valuable to the community to be able to topic ban disruptive users from these broad areas. I don't think it is sensible to use these categories—ones built specifically to counter disruption—to limit the participation of non-disruptive admins. I'd feel different about the very narrow topic areas (I'm remembering the Shakespeare authorship question topic area). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• WP:INVOLVED is about winning disputes through use of the adminstator toolkit. Simply editing in a subject area, even a contentious one, does not constitute involvement in a dispute. I am not an administrator, but I assist with edit-a-thons where I employ some of the tools to help others (mainly through uncontroversial page moves) and feel a ban on this would be an overreach. Moreover, just because you don't edit in controversial areas does not mean that you have no opinion. While I tend to agree with the sugestion that you should consider yourself involved if people say you are, I note that ArbCom has explicitly rejected this argument in the past. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Valereee: [12] [13] starship.paint (RUN) 13:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• INVOLVED is acting as an editor and admin in the same area to the extent that one cannot be sure they are acting neutrally when taking an admin action. RTH's edits regarding the Israel-Hamas war are significant enough that he should not be acting as an uninvolved administrator in that topic. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• First, I can't I spent part of my night reading through this long discussion. Aside from the section right below these comments (RM comments), what I sense from this discussion is I believe that User:Red-tailed hawk needs to be conscious of the concerns raised in this discussion and to be thoughtful of their actions knowing that a variety of editors have raised concerns about some of his actions. But I don't see any proposals being made to take any particular action and it looks like this discussion has lost its momentum.

A bigger consensus is that there needs to be an update in the wording or our understanding of INVOLVED to provide better guidance with today's make up of Contentious Topic areas that didn't exist when INVOLVED was codified. That is a larger discussion that needs to happen on a policy talk page. That's what I see. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

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: [14]. 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)

Arbitration motion regarding German war effort

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Cinderella157 (talk · contribs) fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will automatically lapse.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 00:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding German war effort

A minimum of 5 accounts from the same user

A minimum of 5 accounts from the same user who creates new pages and then uses those 5 accounts for his page editing. It is best described by the event ip 78.0.209.229 entitled "Four accounts, one user" please read it here [[15]]. I hope you solve this problem. Thanks 93.139.142.50 (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPI is the place to file your case, with evidence. --Yamla (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I tried to put it on now WP:SPI, but IP can't do that, it needs an account. I'm new, so I wouldn't know how to do it even if I had an account. Maybe someone will report it there, Thanks anyway.93.139.142.50 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a look and, without prejudice, done all I'm going to do, which is to tell one of the users to stick to one account. I think there's more than one user. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The topics are the same according to which these various accounts are edited, and they were all created approximately at the same time, a few months ago. It is interesting that all these accounts edit together on the same topic, so I came to the conclusion that maybe there is one user with multiple accounts. I hope that someone will check them, because they change the outcome of battles and do disruptive editing.93.139.142.50 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sock-puppet accusations against prolific accounts awaiting review

There are currently four SPI's open against accounts that have collectively made more than 1000 edits in the past month:

1. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irtapil - 2037 edits in past month, status "Open"
2. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fanny.doutaz - 1590 edits in past month, status "Requires more information"
3. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rawna Praveen singh solanki - 1563 edits in past month, status "Requested CheckUser"
4. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ria Cruz - 1463 edits in past month, status "Requested CheckUser"

It may be beneficial for checkusers and clerks to prioritize these investigations, to minimize the scale of the disruption if they are sockpuppets.

This came out of this discussion about triaging SPI's; a full list can be found at SPI Edit Counts. Suggestions about alternative metrics by which SPI's should be triaged are welcome, and I will try to test them out. BilledMammal (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal thanks, that was very helpful. I put in some quality time on Irtapil, but won't have time to look at any of the others, but hopefully somebody will jump on them. RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thank you! If helpful, I’ll try to provide one of these every week or two, at least until we can get something more regular functioning.

Regarding the others, I see Dreamy Jazz has done Fanny.doutaz; just Rawna Praveen singh solanki and Ria Cruz to go. BilledMammal (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

EytanMelech unbanned

The Arbitration Committee unbans EytanMelech following a successful appeal of his site ban. His topic ban from the Arab–Israeli conflict remains in force.

Support: Aoidh, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, Primefac, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree

Oppose:

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § EytanMelech unbanned

help me with wikidata

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

---

Hi everybody. sorry, my english language is not good at the moment. i want to link Slavic studies with it's persian translation in fa.wikipedia (this article), but Slavic studies in wikidata is locked and i couldn't fix it. does someone can link 2 articles together to solve my problem? Hulu2024 (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an admin issue, but I have made the link at WD. In the future I think it would be best to ask for help at WikiData itself, but others may have better suggestions. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Breach of NPOV and disruptive editing/edit warring

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

---

Hello, I didn't expect it to come to this, but I have to address such actions. On the Claude of France page, last night, a user intervened to remove an entire section that I had added some moths ago, which discussed the very likely possibility that Claude may have had Down syndrome. This was done in collaboration with @Pronoia, who manages the WP:FR Twitter page, and with whom I had discussed the topic when they posted an overview of Claude. They had suggested that I add the information to the page so they could post about it. After doing so, in June or July, I believe, as I was doing at that time, I decided to translate these passages into English so as not to impact the English-speaking encyclopedia, where I contribute more. These changes remained without issue until last night, when a user came and removed them all at once(1)(2), before being reverted twice, followed by an IP address 13 minutes later that made the same changes, insulted me(3), and was then blocked after being reverted(4). The first user came to my talk page on the French Wikipedia, and I transferred their message to my talk page on the English-speaking Wikipedia to respond there, where I answered them cordially and openly. Then I saw that the person had also intervened on the talk page of the Claude of France article, where another user had already responded, and where I also replied.

Surtsicna intervened on the page shortly after, while we were discussing the matter on the talk page, and started by removing a sentence from the introduction that had already been removed by the two previous accounts(5), and this BEFORE participating in the talk page discussion. The account in question intervened there later(6). I reverted once, saying that we should wait for responses on the talk page before forcing changes on a page where protection had just been established on these points, literally(7). The account in question reverted me again, this time removing almost the entire section and claiming that none of the sources supported this claim (which is not true; the reliability of the sources and their general nature was being discussed on the talk page, not that they didn't make the claim)(8) and thus began an edit war, to which I referred them to WP:BRD(9)(10) for the first time, also re-reverting their changes.

It should be noted that in this exchange, the account in question seemed to hide behind edits intended to obscure the extent of the material removed from the page(11)(12). Meanwhile, on the talk page, the account changed its position during the discussion, no longer maintaining that the sources didn't support the claim but rather that it was the introductory sentence that needed to be removed, which seemed very strange to me, and I pointed this out(13), as it was clearly the visibility of the disability topic that was the issue, not its historicity. I reached out to people involved in the project dealing with disabilities, thinking it would be better since these editors are probably much more aware of the issues at hand than I am, and I suggested we wait for their input(14). The person in question continued their problematic edits, kept reverting, and defended themselves by saying that reverting their edits was attacking their spelling corrections, even though, of course, in their edits, they were subtly removing the contested introductory sentence (and obviously didn't speak about it in their edit summaries)(15). After some time, I intervened one last time to revert, this time using Huggle, so that it would automatically leave a message on their talk page, asking them to calm down and discuss the matter on the talk page, but it was useless as the account continued their edits without taking into account the ongoing talk page discussion(16).

These methods seem very strange to me in general, not very consensus-seeking (to say the least—since the account completely ignores this aspect) and even quite dishonest, and it would be good if a reminder or intervention by administrators could help resolve the situation. AgisdeSparte (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not an "account". I am an editor. And at this point I am going to call you a liar for repeating the assertion that I deleted the section discussing the Down syndrome claim. I have already pointed out to you on the article talk page that I did not delete that section and that I deleted another, entirely unrelated section. Yet here you are peddling a lie. In your haste to force in the content that was being challenged by multiple editors on the talk page you reverted multiple unrelated edits, including orthography corrections, which I find unacceptable.
And while I am fact checking you, I will also point out that you did not insert your Down syndrom section "several months ago" but 1 month 12 days ago.
Good luck to you in reporting discordant editors for being "very strange". Surtsicna (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Surtsicna My apologies, you didn't remove the edit (I correct this point in my claims, which is one of the 17 links I provided regarding your behavior, by the way). You only changed the title, removed the summary in the introduction, and claimed it wasn't supported by sources, which is misleading, before changing your position when you saw it wasn't sustainable—though you didn't change your approach or your edits. Also, note that 'multiple editors' isn't accurate; so far, it's only you and one other person on the talk page (you, the IP that got blocked, and another user who was reverted and warned multiple times before going to Reddit to claim otherwise, which arguably led to the IP coming to the page and making edits—unless it's the same person, but there's currently a sockpuppet investigation regarding that as we speak). The same number of editors have defended the addition on the talk page, including myself, Aciram, who supported it, and then Mats, who didn’t take a position on the issue but complained about the canvassing caused by the Reddit post from the account you agree with. As for using the term 'account in question,' it was simply a gender-neutral designation—there's no need to feel victimized by it; it was actually a sign of respect to avoid misgendering you. My claim that you removed the entire section is incorrect; upon further review, it was an honest mistake on my part. However, that doesn't explain the edit war you initiated over one of the contentious points still being discussed; your subtle attempt to get this accepted by concealing your edits, the fact that even though it was a contentious point that led to the page's protection, you still intervened before participating in the discussion on the talk page where we were discussing it, and your categorical refusal to wait for input from other users (because despite my request to wait for other inputs, you still intervened to continue what you deemed most appropriate, or what amounts to POV-pushing). You didn't wait for the discussion, and only later intervened to defend your position—yet this was one of the central reasons for the page's protection just a few hours earlier.

Again, I apologize—you didn’t remove the entire section, you 'simply' changed its title, even though it was a contentious issue being discussed on the talk page, and you removed its summary from the introduction, even though, as I pointed out on the talk page, it accounts for 1/5 of the sources in the article. Playing the victim doesn’t change the fact that you engaged in an edit war, didn’t wait for the talk page discussions, ignored them, disregarded the contributors who supported the text that had been on the page for over two months without issue—you simply made your edits, posted a message declaring that it should be this way, and forced it through. These methods are dishonest or very poorly advised, but given that you have a relatively old account with numerous edits, I doubt you’re poorly advised. Perhaps mistaken, but you’re not foolish, and you knew exactly what you were doing. How can you intervene on a page before even engaging on the talk page to impose your POV when that page has been protected on that very point for just a few hours? It wouldn't have been an issue if it had stopped after the first revert; I made two reverts, explaining that you needed to calm down and wait for the discussion, which might have supported your stance, but you didn’t. AgisdeSparte (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention that you completely disregarded the ideas I proposed to solve the matter, such as tagging random members of the disability project (whom I didn't know and never interacted with) to have their opinion, because this seemed as an interesting way to wait for their insights in the matter and the inclusion in the introduction. AgisdeSparte (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

More fact checking:

1. It is not true that it is only I and one other editor who are challenging your addition. By the time you wrote this, Adam Bishop, Kansas Bear, and GoodDay had all expressed doubts about the content. You even responded to Adam Bishop, so I must call your count another lie.
2. My position is, and has always been, that the article should not state that Claude is "known" for having had Down syndrome. It has not changed one bit.
3. "Editor" or "user" or even "person" are no less gender neutral than "account". Referring to me as an "account" is not a sign of respect. It is dehumanizing and the obvious agenda behind it is to suggest that I may be a sockpuppet.

Now, expressions such as "playing the victim" speak about the sincerity of your apologies. Surtsicna (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• This is a content discussion that should happen on the article talk page. Please participate there. Also, you have both been edit-warring, that needs to stop. I have warned you both. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe @AgisdeSparte: has retired. GoodDay (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Large number of bad edits need revision

Morolakerrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) rapidly made about 140 edits where they mainly added extra spaces in the text of articles. They stopped about the same time I gave them a warning. It’s daunting for me to try to rollback all those edits. Does an admin have a tool to fix this? Thanks — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: This is now done. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• rsjaffe, you should put a notification on the editor's User talk page about this discussion. It's not too late to do this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Now done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

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

Administrator changes

Pppery

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

Oversighter changes

Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

• Courcelles
• GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

Miscellaneous

• Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tryfle

Can someone please deal with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tryfle? Random IPs keep "closing" the discussion but I'm at three reverts. Thanks. C F A 💬 23:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Already closed by Liz. Deor (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We have a LTA who edits, both with registered accounts and as an IP editor (based, I think, in NY) whose habit is to close multiple AFDs, usually as "No consensus" and often prematurely (before the 7 day period is over). This one was unusual as they closed it as "Delete". They are usually reverted and blocked. They seem to show up about once a month and last about an hour before they are discovered. I don't know of any way to stop them, long term, but I though I'd detail their MO in case editors and admins come across some unusual AFD closures by inexperienced editors. These aren't NACs, they are just LTA vandalism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The edit filter may be the best solution. Use specific texts used primarily or only in the closure of discussions (don't discuss the specific texts publicly), which no anonymous user or new account may add to pages with specific prefixes. Animal lover |666| 11:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Search results for "TU5" intercepted and hijacked to an article

Bug on platform? When trying to search from en.wikipedia.org home page with search term " TU5 " , instead of returning search results for all the different ' TU5 ' possible, instead the page is hijacked to an article about a jet airplane. 85.51.18.10 (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not a bug, nor is it a "hijack", it is a redirect page that was created in 2013. What you are thinking of is commonly known as a disambiguation page, which usually lists more than one subject covered by Wikipedia. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other uses for TU5 on Wikipedia. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably change it to a disambiguation page. See PSA TU engine#TU5. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Done RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Although, it's not clear why TU5 ever redirected to Tupolev Tu-154 since that article never actually mentions "TU5" as a name for the plane. But I'll let somebody else worry about that. RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

LDS Church-related topics TBAN - partial appeal

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

Why I was banned

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

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

Plans for work in non-article space

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

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

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

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

Work on other subjects

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sockpuppet of banned vandal

WYMORE2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another avatar of long-term (since at least 2007) cross-wiki vandal Charito2000, with the same themas and pattern of edits (as usual, distorting sources to promote his Levieux/Candia fantasy, etc)--Phso2 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting reconsideration/removal of indefinite topic ban

Per this ANI discussion I received an indefinite topic ban from "witchcraft, magic, religion, and the supernatural, broadly construed." I recognize that I was aggressive in my editing. If this ban is removed I intend to resume what I did for the more than 15 years I have edited Wikipedia; mostly focusing on navigation improvements through connections, copyediting, and topics with minimal interest. My intent remains to edit in ways that conform to the policies, guidelines, and, most importantly, the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. Darker Dreams (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If this ban is removed I intend to resume what I did for the more than 15 years I have edited Wikipedia That isn't very reassuring, since what you did resulted in the topic ban. In addition, you say My intent remains to edit in ways that conform to the policies, guidelines, and, most importantly, the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, yet in the discussion that led to the ban, you insisted that what other editors were complaining about was you editing in conformance with PAG. There's nothing in your request that indicates that the previous issues won't happen again, and you've made so few edits since the topic ban that there isn't really enough data to show that you can modify your approach to contentious content. Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time, for two reasons. First, I recognize that I was aggressive in my editing is a far too brief and incomplete acknowledgement of their inappropriate POV pushing that resulted in the topic ban. Second, the editor made roughly 1300 edits in the five months leading up to their topic ban. They have made only 39 edits in the ten plus months since their topic ban was imposed. I would expect to see at least six months of active, productive, problem free editing in other topic areas before supporting a lifting of the topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen328. A successful appeal would need a credible edit history (ie not just a handful of trivial redirects over 11 months), plus a clearer indication that the POV-pushing would not resume. As above, recommend (say) six months of productive editing elsewhere, including evidence of an willingness to work collaboratively with others on article improvement. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - editor has acknowledged their "aggressive" behavior, and has made a re-commitment to conform to the policies, guidelines, and, most importantly, the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. They've been here 19 years, and have a low edit count to begin with, only 2909 edits in those 19 years. And if 1300 of them were made in a five month period, that leaves ~1600 for the remaining 18.5 years, so the return to a low edit count and being less active is encouraging in my view. And if those 39 edits have been productive and free of problematic behavior that resulted in the topic ban, I see no reason it shouldn't be lifted. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)