Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Franamax (talk | contribs)
18,113 edits
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__
|algo = old(3d)
{{Template:Active editnotice}}<!--
|counter = 361
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 600K
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|counter = 221
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
|algo = old(2d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=48
|index=no
|numberstart=255
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
}}
}}
--><!--
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!--

----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------

--></noinclude>

== [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation]] ==

[[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 22#Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation]] were listed at [[WP:CENT]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACentralized_discussion&action=historysubmit&diff=413864806&oldid=413304772 archived] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Centralized_discussion&diff=next&oldid=413864806 by] {{user|SilkTork}}. Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize these discussions? Thanks, [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 04:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
: While I doubt that any user will be rushing to close the AfD RfC, I want to point out that it has a few days remaining in its 30-day listing period. [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 05:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
::Thank you for the correction. I withdraw for now my request to close the above RfCs. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
::: I miscounted – the RFC bot delisted the AfD RfC yesterday. Thanks for creating this request. [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 05:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead, would an admin (or admins) close and summarize [[Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC]] (initiated 3 January 2011) and [[Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Admins editing through full protection: proposed addition]] (initiated 8 January 2011). These discussions were also listed at [[WP:CENT]] and were archived a few days ago. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this back from the archive. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 10:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:Future timestamp appended so this will not be archived until the four above RfCs are closed. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 09:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

== [[Special:Contributions/Tobby100|Tobby100]] ==

Should these edits be rollbacked? They generally contain links to hedgepedia.com, which is unreliable as a source because it is an open wiki with various mistakes or lacking editorial oversight and useless as an external source because it is inaccurate and incomplete, as per [http://www.hedgepedia.com/content/disclaimer its general disclaimer] page. Should this site be blacklisted as well? [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<font color="red">:| TelCo</font>]][[User talk:TCNSV|<font color="green">NaSp</font>]][[Special:Contributions/TeleComNasSprVen|<font face="Showcard Gothic" color="blue">Ve :|</font>]] 07:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

*{{LinkSummaryLive|hedgepedia.com}}
:Domains added by Tobby100: hedgepedia.com (33).
:Looks like [[WP:REFSPAM]]. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
::Yeah. Roll back. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|::==( o )]]</small></sup> 16:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I rolled back ~20 top edits, all referencing the site and adding no other content. I undid several others that were no longer top edits. &mdash; [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Done, removed all links from the LinkSearch so far (save this page). He also seems to be editing from his IP, 70.31.247.188, according to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/hedgepedia.com|the LinkReport]]. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<font color="red">:| TelCo</font>]][[User talk:TCNSV|<font color="green">NaSp</font>]][[Special:Contributions/TeleComNasSprVen|<font face="Showcard Gothic" color="blue">Ve :|</font>]] 01:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::[[User:Tobby100]] I have read your arguments regarding the hedgepedia postings. Here are some responses to your concerns:

:::::(1) With regards to the site’s disclaimer - Given that the site provides financial information, a disclaimer regarding to the accuracy of the data is common practice. Please have a look at the disclaimers of well established sites in the same field, such as [http://www.hedgefund.net/hfn_public/marketing_index.aspx?template=marketing_pages/disclaimernew.html hedgefund.net disclaimer], or [http://www.absolutereturn-alpha.com/TermsConditions.html absolutreturn-alpha disclaimer] sited on Wikipedia

:::::(2) With regards to the quality of the information - the source of the information is a respected in the industry, quoted on the page of the article and verifiable for those who have access to the 2009 Top 100 hedge funds report.

:::::(3) With regards to the relevance of the information - The information provided relates to the ranking of each hedge funds by AUM. A fund's AUM is a key measure of comparison between funds in the industry and should be relevant to any the reader who takes interest in the industry.

:::::For those reasons, I believe that those additions made are relevant and if no further objection, should be reinstated. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tobby100|Tobby100]] ([[User talk:Tobby100|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tobby100|contribs]]) 21:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::::You're missing the point. Why have you "cited" only hedgepedia.com? [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 04:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Because that page contains the 2009 list of the largest 100 hedge fund ranked by AUM. It therefore applies to numerous funds with a page on Wikipedia and I have cited their specific ranking on their respective pages.--[[User:Tobby100|Tobby100]] ([[User talk:Tobby100|talk]]) 05:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

::::::::...and [[WP:SPA|why do all of your edits to Wikipedia involve inserting citations to this site]]? (Apologies, on reflection this is what I should have asked in the first place.) [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 03:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::I have read your link about SPA and understand where your concern comes from. However, do you feel it makes the information posted any less valid or relevant? It is not redundant with any of the information already posted on the pages, it is unbiased relative to those hedge funds, and offers the reader with the key mesure of the relative importance of each hedge fund.--[[User:Tobby100|Tobby100]] ([[User talk:Tobby100|talk]]) 02:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

== Help ==

General call for help at [[Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011]]. This thing is like a [[Lernaean Hydra|Hydra]]. Polls keep popping up in what is supposed to be a discussion, attempts to steer or target discussion have failed. Admins or really anyone who thinks they can help rope this in and keep it on point, please jump right on in. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
: It ain't gonna happen. Once upon a time there were a number of Wikipedians who were willing to consider Pending Changes objectively -- if someone could provide things like proof that it works, in what situations, & how it should be to best implemented. But no one did: the "experiment" turned out to be a Trojan horse for turning it on permanently, & those of us who didn't have a strong opinion about it either way left to do more rewarding things. All who are left arguing about it are the true believers on either side who are willing to continue until their death -- or they are banned from Wikipedia. I, for one, don't want anything to do with this: IMNSHO, all of you deserve each other, & I hope this debate goes on inconclusively forever & the rest of us can enjoy contributing to Wikipedia in relative peace & quiet. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 05:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::I had a half-formed notion of a way out; noting that this is a very rough pre-alpha-pre-discussion-vague-thoughts-draft, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Chzz/test&oldid=416825181 see here]. Could something like that, possibly, work? I could probably use help with it, if proposing it; my thought was to first come up with something like that, then post it on the RFC talk-page (not the RfC itself), and see if we could form consensus to at least put it forward. I'm totally against any further poll, but if necessary we could perhaps make such a proposal and insist upon "support" or "oppose" with ''brief'' comments (limited to, say, 300 characters or something) and we could move anything longer into a 'discussion' section.
::A very important point, I think, is that the RfC is generally getting decent discussion - so let's not mix up [[WP:TLDR|length problems]] with [[WP:DRAMA|drama]]. Yes, it is long, and yes, it's been going on for a few weeks now - but PC is a complicated issue, and potentially (depending on deployment, scope, etc) quite fundamental to Wikipedia core values of open editing.
::So in other words - Llywrch - I personally think that it ''can'' reach consensus. Not easy, but I think it can...eventually. Maybe I'm naive, idealistic and overly optimistic - but I can live with that. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white">&nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 20:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

== Protector of Wiki unblock request ==

:{{usercheck|Protector of Wiki}}
Protector of Wiki requests unblocking [[User talk:Protector of Wiki#Unblock request|at their talk page]]. The last unblock request ended as no consensus on this page at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=390823835&oldid=390823466] on 15th October 2010 '''[[User:Ronhjones|<span style="border:1px solid black;color:black; padding:1px;background:yellow"><font color="green">&nbsp;Ron<font color="red">h</font>jones&nbsp;</font></span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Ronhjones|&nbsp;(Talk)]]</sup> 23:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Weak Support''' for unblock. When I read the unblock request, my initial reaction was "Why not? We can always reblock if they backslide". After reading the section regarding the email to the blocking admin, I suspect that the backslide may be more likely than not. However, why not unblock them and get it over with? Perhaps they will confound my expectations? So, on that basis... [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 23:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
*I'm trying to AGF here by my spidey-sense is telling me this is going to be a waste of time. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 02:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock''' – Protector of Wiki has made many made good contributions and strictly follows our content policies, including recently creating two articles from [[WP:AFC]] on their talk page. The problem has been in getting along with the community, which is clearly essential. As one of Protector of Wiki's two mentors, I've observed a dramatic improvement in this regard recently, which seems to be driven by a high motivation to contribute. I don't know if this motivation will be sufficient in the long-term to maintain good relations with other editors. Protector of Wiki has been putting into practice many of the anti-frustration techniques that I've suggested. The only way to determine how well it will work is to unblock. If things go bad, it's easy to reblock and the project will at least have gained some valuable contributions in the meantime. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]]&nbsp;([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 03:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - The username really is misleading as a position of Wiki Authority, so under [[WP:U]] it should have probably been blocked. However, if the user has made good faith contributions, then maybe requesting a username change before being unblocked, would be better fitting. IMHO. [[User:Who|Who]] ([[User talk:Who|talk]]) 04:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - For what admins granteth, admins may taketh away. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 05:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*I think any unblock should be '''conditional''' on a [[WP:CHU|namechange]] and a prolonged period of supervision under strict terms which would result in an immediate, unconditional indef block (with the [[WP:standard offer|standard offer]] available) if violated. I still hold concerns from the last unblock request but admit to not having too closely followed his actions since then so if his mentor thinks he's ready, then I'll buy into that. [[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|contribs]] • [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Strange Passerby|Editor review]]) 05:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' The discussion at [[User talk:Protector of Wiki#My email to PeterSymonds]] from a few days ago is highly troubling. In it Protector of the Wiki appears to either be playing a semantic game with {{user|PeterSymonds}} (who was the blocking admin) by pretending to not understand his responses or is genuinely unable to comprehend Peter's clear posts. The thread finishes up with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Protector_of_Wiki&action=historysubmit&diff=416827466&oldid=416769530 this] attack on Peter which seems to me to be entirely unjustified as his responses were clear, polite and helpful and two other editors had pointed out that Peter's responses were fine. Rather worryingly, Protector of Wiki gave this thread as an example of 'good intentions' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Protector_of_Wiki&action=historysubmit&diff=417232632&oldid=417232263 in their latest unblock request]. Whatever's going on here, I think that this indicates that Protector of Wiki is not about to start editing collaboratively and the block should remain in place. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 05:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose'''. Definitely not. This kind of attitude and battleground mentality does not belong on Wikipedia and is not welcome nor ever will be. Reading over this user's talk page only convinces me of that. -- [[User:OlEnglish|<font size="5">&oelig;</font>]][[User talk:OlEnglish|<sup>&trade;</sup>]] 06:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*I recommend that the unblock request be '''declined''' because it does not address the problematic behavior that caused the block (notably, the ALL-CAPS SHOUTING) and so does not convince me that it will not reoccur. In an older section on their talk page, the user states: "I think that everyone knows I've stopped using caps for emphasis and have adopted italics and bold, though I sometimes falter since it is a habit hard to break". This does not fill me with confidence, and neither does the user's generally confrontative approach to editing that is evident from the talk page and even the unblock request. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 08:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Nick D pretty much sums up my opinions on the matter. -[[User:Djsasso|DJSasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 11:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' That recent debate (about email) does not indicate a willingness for collegiate editing. I suggest any request should go to [[Wikipedia:ARBCOM#BASC|BASC]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white">&nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 17:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
*Oppose, and remove talk page access while we are at it. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 18:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for what it's worth. Reading between the lines a bit, arrogance and condescension don't just drop from that unblock request, they practically gush. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 19:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The purpose of a block is the prevent disruptive editing. Editor has declared that he will be better in the future, and AGF tells me that he should be taken at his word. Better to unblock this account so his edits can be monitored, as the other choice is to deny his unblock request which will only serve to drive this editor underground. [[User:Onthegogo|Onthegogo]] ([[User talk:Onthegogo|talk]]) 16:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' and blocking someone for using ALL CAPS and "kinda-sorta" sounding confrontational? Are you shitting me? Blocks are a last resort, not a tool for suggestive speech reform. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 02:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

== User page ==

Please check user page [[User:Alexander "The Great" Talkington]]--[[User:Musamies|Musamies]] ([[User talk:Musamies|talk]]) 18:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
:{{Done|1=Checked}}. Looks to me like it would need some pretty serious editing to become a Wikipedia article. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
::This user page of a minor should be deleted per [[Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy#Current practice]]. Would an admin delete this page? [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 20:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I'll purge the identifying information. The rest should be okay. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 10:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

== Promotional userpage ==

Promotional userpage [[User:Maudimaadil]]--[[User:Musamies|Musamies]] ([[User talk:Musamies|talk]]) 19:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
:Deleted, but, in future, try not to bring routine requests here. Just tag the page with {{tl|db-spam}} and an admin will deal with it soon enough. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 19:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
::Not according to my experience. My experience has been that users are allowed to have spam in their User space, and my MfD was rejected because it was a potential article. <font family="Comic sans">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 22:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Huh? I do that all the time, at least once a day; you aren't allowed to advertise a business anywhere. That's why it's G11, not A11. The restrictions in userspace are somewhat looser, but that doesn't mean all bets are off. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 06:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::::[[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Chasetwomey/Zoro_Tools]]. <font family="Comic sans">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 19:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::What is not allowed in user space is blatant advertisement - anything that meets [[WP:CSD#G11]] ";''Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.''" Just being about company does not make an article, or a draft, an advertisement. We ''want'' users to develop articles in user space rather than put them prematurely in mainspace and get them speedied. This one, as you can see, is purely descriptive, but it was speedy-tagged ''two minutes'' after first input. That is quite inappropriate for a userspace draft; the speedy was properly declined, and the MfD also declined to delete. It may well not be notable, but we do not need to decide that before the author posts it in the main space. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 20:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::So, as I've been told repeatedly in the discussion concerning this page, spam is allowed in User space, which is what I said above. <font family="Comic sans">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 20:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --[[User:Floquensock|Floquensock]] ([[User talk:Floquensock|talk]]) 20:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Look at the definition of [[WP:CSD#G11]]: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. '''Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.'''" and [[WP:SPAM]]: "Articles considered advertisements include '''those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual.'''" The draft considered here is ''not'' spam. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 20:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::And regardless of that (which is all quite true), it is not appropriate to come [[WP:ADMINSHOP|asking here, when you've been told elsewhere]] what was wrong with the deletion requests. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white">&nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 20:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::There was something seriously wrong with the !voting in that MfD, when editors argued to keep a draft for which ''no reliable sources can be found''. That's totally perverse. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 23:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::If you will look again, you will see that '''''I''''' did not being this discussion. <font family="Comic sans">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 00:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Fences and windows, a draft does not need RS. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white">&nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 07:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
*Whatever you do (I really recommend just tagging the pages), don't make a new section with an identical title in a general noticeboard. That's a nuisance for anyone who edits on a mobile device and relies on the TOC for navigation. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 21:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

== Could somecoy take care of cheking ==

Could somecoy take care of cheking show contributions of new accounts only of userpages, there seems to be promotional userpages and out of scope user pages and user pages that shall be move to sub-page. It's more easy way to clean up those pages than study me to mark right way. Thanks for co-opeartion--[[User:Musamies|Musamies]] ([[User talk:Musamies|talk]]) 20:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
:I don't know what the problem is. If you want it deleted, use [[WP:CSD|CSD]]. If you want it moved into a subpage, [[WP:be bold|be bold]] and do it yourself (and tell the user why!). If you aren't sure, ignore it. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 04:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

== Can anyone help out with edits to animation pages ==

This was posted on my user page after a report at AIV. Unfortunately I know nothing about this subject so don't know how to verify. If TServo2050 is correct these IP edits will need to be mass reverted and possibly blocked. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] &#124; [[User talk:Theresa knott|Sort that Knee!]] 20:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
==== 78.155.239.29 and 24.218.241.94 - vandalism ====

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about with this [[Special:Contributions/78.155.239.29|78.155.239.29]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gerald_Potterton&diff=prev&oldid=416066374 the diff page] for an edit to [[Gerald Potterton]] that I removed.

Gerald Potterton never worked at Disney. This can easily be verified by [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0693376/ his IMDB page.]

I first noticed this person because of very, very similar false information being added to IMDB.

Another person to watch out for is [[Special:Contributions/24.218.241.94|24.218.241.94]]. For example, look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Destination%3A_Imagination&action=historysubmit&diff=417448600&oldid=409882962 this diff] - this guy added a bunch of names of Disney crew members who absolutely did not work on "Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Haskett&diff=prev&oldid=417466016 This diff] also adds false information claiming that this person worked on the same show, also mentioning a Disney animator who never worked on "Foster's" either. And he adds mention of the same "Destination: Imagination" title to the biography of Eric Larson in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Larson&action=historysubmit&diff=417465250&oldid=415828653 this diff] - Eric Larson died in 1988, two decades before, so he couldn't have worked on it no matter what.

This is just really frustrating for me, but I don't have the time to go back and remove all the false info added by these people.--[[User:TServo2050|TServo2050]] ([[User talk:TServo2050|talk]]) 19:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

:(I've left a note at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation]] mentioning this thread.) --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 04:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks. I should have thought to do that myself. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] &#124; [[User talk:Theresa knott|Sort that Knee!]] 21:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

== New Twinkle blacklist proposal ==

We are currently embarked on a large [[Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Code_restructuring|rewrite of Twinkle]]. The current method of blocking users from using Twinkle is difficult to use, prone to breaking Twinkle for everyone if an admin makes a mistake, prone to being bypassed by slightly savvy users, and changes may not take effect for weeks due to caching. The new Twinkle offers the possibility to implement blocking in a different way as a byproduct of the transition to using the MediaWiki API exclusively. One approach is that to block a user from performing Twinkle functions, an admin would create a subpage in the userspace of the blocked user of the form [[User:UncleDouggie/No Twinkle]] and apply protection to the page so that it cannot be moved. This page could have any contents desired or even be blank. We can setup Twinkle to immediately disable all functions upon detection of this page. Deleting the page would immediately restore Twinkle functions. The performance impact would be minor because Twinkle would only query the page when actually performing an edit. The query would be embedded within other API calls that are already being centrally performed for all modules in the new version. In most cases, there wouldn't even be an extra API call made. The technique can even be sufficiently embedded into the regular processing so that only an expert user would be able to bypass it. A blocked user would still be able to bring up the Twinkle user interface, but all edits would fail with a [[technobabble]] error message. If we are to make this change, it would be easiest to do it now while the patient is still in the middle of open-heart surgery, so to speak, and before testing has started.

Another alternative would be a central page containing a list of blocked users. However, this would have a minor performance impact and would be easier to bypass, although still not as easy as the current method. Yet another approach would be a protected tree at [[WP:Twinkle/blocks]] with one subpage for each blocked user.

There are currently 28 users blocked from using Twinkle. I don't know if the low number is partially due to the difficulty of properly performing a block, or if abuse just isn't that much of a problem. We could also implement selective blocking for only the more advanced Twinkle functions, while still allowing users to issue warnings and use Friendly. I'm hesitant to go there now because I'd really like a decision within the next two days while the surgery on the impacted code is still in progress. To be clear, there is no problem with retaining the current blocking method if that is the desired approach.

I'm raising this issue here instead of on [[Wikipedia talk:Twinkle]] because admins are the ones charged with controlling access to Twinkle. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]]&nbsp;([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 10:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

:From a transparency standpoint, the central page would seem to be the best one (possibly a central list + subsidiary tree if that is more efficient). It'll certainly be interesting to see if taking permissions away becomes more common once it's easier to do - I strongly suspect that it will. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 11:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

:I would favour [[User:UncleDouggie/No Twinkle]]. This seems far simpler to implement for checking than the central page (we will check far more often than we change) and has all the decentralised benefits of robustness. It relies on user subpage protection being simple and robust, which I understand to be the case. A central tree would have these advantages too, but it's just creating a new root to duplicate something we already have from the user: namespace. It also scales well for many blocked users and expands nicely for introducing per-feature access control to Twinkle, by embedding markup onto the control pages. If per-feature control becomes useful, that would drive a massive expansion of this feature as the multitude of unblocked users also had such a page. For that reason it should probably be labelled and discussed as "Twinkle access control" rather than "Twinkle block". [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 11:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:I'm not keen on the [[User:UncleDouggie/No Twinkle]] option, it seems a lot more open to abuse. From what I understand, I could create say [[User:Andy Dingley/No Twinkle]] (hope you don't mind me picking on you Andy!) - which would disable your Twinkle access. It doesn't sound like something that would be noticed to fix. Although, could the page be "noTwinkle.js" instead? Therefore only an admin or the user could create it. On balance, a centralised protected list seems like a much safer solution. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]][[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000"><sup>TT</sup></font></span>]] 12:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::That's a very good point. A user could obviously fix such a problem by moving the page, but that's not a good way to go. Switching to [[User:UncleDouggie/No Twinkle.js]] would fix the problem, assuming that admins remember to put on the .js. Then again, we could just create a new Twinkle function that would automatically create the proper page for an admin. I think this vulnerability makes the [[WP:Twinkle/blocks]] approach unusable because we don't have any equivalent way to provide protection like we do in userspace. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]]&nbsp;([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 13:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Sure we do, just fully protect it like we do with [[WP:AWB|AWB]] at [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Approved_users]].&nbsp; -- '''''[[User:Lear's Fool|Lear's]] [[User Talk:Lear's Fool|Fool]]''''' 13:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::::We can do that, but then the contents of that page will need to be retrieved before a Twinkle edit is performed, which might slow things down a little. It also might not be as expandable to a finer grain access control mechanism.

::Huggle does a similar thing using [[User:UncleDouggie/huggle.css]]. We could say for now that the existence of [[User:UncleDouggie/twinkle limits.css]] will block all access and in the future expand this to a finer grain control if it's needed. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]]&nbsp;([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 13:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I like the idea of a centralized twinkle access control. If you centralized the twinkle page with subpages you could use the title blacklist to keep non-admins from editing or moving the pages. It seems to work well for [[WP:Editnotice|Editnotices]]. User subpages are harder to keep track of and it would be difficult to see which users have access revoked. [[User:Alpha Quadrant|<span style="color:#000070; font-family: Times New Roman">''Alpha Quadrant''</span>]] [[User talk:Alpha Quadrant|<span style="color:#A00000; font-family: Times New Roman"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 14:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

: A user actively bypassing a Twinkle blacklisting hasn't been a problem in the past, as far as I'm aware; if a user were ever found to actively avoid the blacklist and thus typically community consensus that his use of scripts in editing Wikipedia is disruptive, said user can and should simply be blocked.<br>As you said, it has popped up from time to time that a user was blacklisted, but could continue to use Twinkle since he still had the old version of the script cached. It would be nice to decouple the blacklist from the base script to only allow a very brief cache time (down to zero, if so desired, performance impact would probably be negligible).<br>If you're reworking the blacklist format I suggest adding fields/columns to note the date of blacklisting, a suggested date to lift the blacklisting, a permalink to the discussion leading to the blacklisting (if any), and a comment.<br>But changing the mechanism isn't really that important, IMO. It's rare that an editor is abusing Twinkle to the point of blacklisting and can't be reasoned with, but is otherwise constructive. [[User talk:Amalthea|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#832">Amalthea</span>]] 16:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:: Oh, and I'd certainly favor a central blacklisting mechanism, either as one list (as long as it can be kept short, which should be the norm) or as subpages of one central page. [[User talk:Amalthea|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#832">Amalthea</span>]] 16:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

With apologies for sounding negative: I am not convinced the complication is worthwhile. I ''am'' aware of one user who circumvented a "twinkle block" <small>(Amalthea - so yes, it does happen)</small>...however...Twinkle does nothing that the user cannot do otherwise; it doesn't confer any rights. It makes things simpler, sure; but really saying "you cannot use Twinkle" is a bit of a false restriction. Twinkle (for non-admins) just undoes edits, puts messages/warnings on user talks, and reports them to boards. Users are responsible for all their edits, whether using tools or not. If a user is issuing inappropriate warnings, undoing good edits, or inappropriately reporting to boards - then surely that can be dealt with in the normal manner?

Mostly, I'm worried about [[WP:CREEP]] - and people wondering what on Earth this protected page is all about. If it ''must'' be done, I'd certainly say centralise it, not put it in a user subpage - because that at least avoids the user or others wondering what the subpage is. Also concerned about help requests, "Why isn't Twinkle working?" and a quite complex extra thing to have to trace and debug. And, without getting into BEANS, if a user has worked out how to circumvent the current restriction method, it won't take much more for them to circumvent this new method.

But, overall, I'd say it is an unnecessary added complication to our already over-complicated wiki. There's many many other tools...are they all going to start having custom config files and restrictions? If a user is doing things wrong, then surely normal warnings/blocks are fine? <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white">&nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Small technical point - users with "Account Creator" can also bypass the title blacklist. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white">&nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:Well considering there are only a handful of them, I don't think that's likely to be much of a problem. Certainly any account creator who used the permission to get round a Twinkle block wouldn't have it for much longer.
:Twinkle allows editors to edit at a rate that is much quicker than it would be if they were doing everything manually and, in my experience, the reasons for blacklisting are typically a faster rate of editing combined by a lack of thought as to what they're doing. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 17:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::ACC - agreed; as I said, "small technical point", I was just correcting it.
::Twinkle does not ''allow'' editors to edit faster. It simplifies things. A clueful editor could just as easily script a tonne of API calls, and edit faster than Twinkle.<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white">&nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 17:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
*First, a centralized system is definitely much better, since it is easier to track and manage. Isolated user subpages are virtually impossible to track. Second, I agree with Amalthea that we need not worry too much about circumvention. Anyone who is found to be doing that will likely get a swift block - or, if we are feeling particularly lenient, we can blank and protect all of their skin js files. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 18:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


--><noinclude>
:But is it worth the hassle? Adding this check (to see if a page exists) will presumably add *some* tiny amount of time to every single use of Twinkle - and although I suck at maths, I do know that "tiny" times "lots" can be "quite a bit". Of those 28 users currently excluded, 6 are indefinitely blocked, and 4 haven't edited since 2009. Yes, I'm sure admins ''would'' add more people if it was easier...but is that a Good Thing? If they're being disruptive, can't we just ask 'em to please stop it? And if they don't, block - as per every other type of thing?Is this really worth the added complexity? <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white">&nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::We can take out the blocking ability entirely if the admins don't see a need for it. The functionality is there currently, so I assume it was considered valuable at some point. An extra user was also recently blocked. The bypass issue is secondary to the other three shortcomings with the current method. We could greatly reduce extra queries to a centralized page by suppressing such checks for admins, account creators and rollbackers. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]]&nbsp;([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 20:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


==Open tasks==
*Would adding a category to the userpage help with the centralization concerns? [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 20:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
::It might be a little bit aggressive (labelling the editor for a quite specific 'restriction' - and this is kinda what bothers me about this in general...making it a "big deal"), or even a bit of a troll-feed; I can picture a userbox now; "This user is not allowed to play with Twinkle!" <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white">&nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 20:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
{{Clear}}
{{Admin tasks}}
</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->


== Pages recently put under [[WP:ECP|extended-confirmed protection]] ==
I'm not sure it is worth the hassle however if there remain <100 users blocked from twinkle then I am also of the opinion that any solution which garners a performance benefit and doesn't threaten transparency is perfectly ok. I'm willing to endorse whatever the folks working to improve twinkle want to do. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 00:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse top|bg=#F0F2F5|Report}}
{{User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report}}
{{collapse bottom}}
==RfC closure review request at [[:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss]]==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 01:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1715475679}}


:{{RfC closure review links|WP:RSN|rfc_close_page=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss}} ([[User talk:Chetsford#Close of Mondoweiss RfC|Discussion with closer]])
Isn't this just another example of administrators trying to exert their authority where no authority needs to be exerted? How can anyone abuse their use of Twinkle without also falling foul of one or other of wikipedia's policies? A blocked user can't use Twinkle. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 00:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:Well that's presumably partly why there are so few people currently banned from using Twinkle. But it makes sense that there are occasionally cases where a block would be unduly heavy-handed, but a user is just too eager to click the "rollback [vandalism]" button (or whatever) where it's not entirely warranted. Being able to deal with that without needing to block them seems a useful option to have (and exists already, just not in a very easy to use way.) --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 06:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


'''Closer''': {{userlinks|Chetsford}}
Twinkle isn't crack, users can just stop using it. I would have thought that just telling otherwise good faith editors to stop using Twinkle if its a problem, plus [[Wikipedia:People who are not currently allowed to use Twinkle]] tucked away somewhere would be sufficient. If someone has been asked to stop and carries on, just block them. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


'''Notified''': {{diff|User talk:Chetsford|1219154073|1218726050}}
== Is there a way to attract outside input for a controversial [[WP:RM|requested move]]? ==


'''Reasoning''': <small>''The following is copied and modified from my post at Chetsford's talk page.''</small> I think that [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss|Chetsford's close]] was generally correct, but I think that this aspect is an incorrect assessment of consensus: {{tq|A few editors suggested that, regardless of outcome, it should not be used for [[Wikipedia:BLP|WP:BLPs]]. No direct reasoning was presented for that, however, some indirect reference to our policies could be divined within the greater context of the remarks of those editors and these suggestions were not really rebutted.}} I searched the RfC and "BLP" was used six times in the discussion. Only two of those mentions are in relation to the reliability of the source, and as Chetsford noted, neither provided any {{tq|direct reasoning}}:
There is currently a hotly contested requested move (lodged by myself) going on at [[Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states]]. This request is the latest installment of a long-standing debate which has gone on for months to years at this point. The talkpage is "run" by a handful of "regulars" (myself included), who have taken sides and set up their respective barricades long ago (if you'll excuse the [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] analogy). This environment is not particularly conducive to civility, and allegations of user misconduct have been raised in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive672#Is_removing_a_BIAS_tag_vandalism.3F a recent ANI thread], which passed largely unnoticed and was summarily archived (a total of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=Occupation+of+the+Baltic+states+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 27 threads] at ANI have dealt with issues surrounding this controversial topic). Good faith and assumptions thereof often run dry here, making it exceedingly difficult to form a satisfactory consensus.
* {{tq| In addition, based on some of the past statements linked, a use for BLP or politicised situations within the fog or war would be very reckless at best.}}
* {{tq|Yeah, I have very little faith in their editorial review which go beyond [[Wikipedia:BIASED|WP:BIAS]] and regularly [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories|WP:Fringe]]. At best, they really shouldn’t be used for anything related to BLP, Russia and Israel, at worst (and IMO this part is most likely) a full depreciation may be in order.}}
The only {{tq|indirect reference to policy}} is to BIAS (as FRINGE is a guideline), and Chetsford discounted that argument in another part of the close. I can't really {{tq|divine[]}} what other policies these editors may or may not have been thinking about. I'm not sure what {{tq|past statements}} the first commenter is thinking about, and without more reasoning, I wouldn't say that this single argument is strong enough to establish a consensus that ''Mondoweiss'' should not be used for BLPs just because nobody happened to rebut it in a long discussion. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


===Uninvolved===
I submitted an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states/Archive_9#RfC:_Is_the_title_of_this_article_appropriate.3F RfC] not too long ago in an effort to break the deadlock one way or another. However, due to the apparently poor visibility of the RfC process across the project, my request attracted very few responses, and was soon taken over by us "regulars" and driven into yet another wall. Demonstrating the hostile and mistrustful environment of the talkpage, another user even [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states/Archive_9#Intent_of_the_RFC_request questioned my intent] in lodging the request, believing that it was an attempt to rig the vote in some way.
*<s>'''Endorse close'''</s> '''Amend''' While the specifics of BLPs weren't addressed in-depth, it's a reasonable addendum for clarity. They can be used but people should be careful with each individual article...not sure why that's not a blanket statement for every source on Wikipedia. For example, the NYT has published some egregious "journalism", but that doesn't mean it's always wrong on the basic facts. Every source should be evaluated for accuracy on its merits. If I say "Person AB said in an op-ed '<insert quote here'" and then cite it, there's very little reason to doubt ''that'' statement is true, but quoting it for purposes of establishing it as something that's true is inappropriate without additional verification. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 14:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
*:Amended: This sounds like a [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|WPian hearing what they want to hear]]. There isn't a need to add additional steps beyond what we normally do if people are going to abuse that to exclude the contributions of others. I'd prefer to keep it as-is, but I certainly can see that point. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
*::Wow...the EXACT reason I said it SHOULD be included was used...#clairvoyance [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Amend''' Remove the BLP clarification: 1) Regardless of the sources' reliability, we always them with great caution for biographies of living people. 2) No valid reason was given for why Mondoweiss should be treated differently from the other RS. 3) Such an unneeded clarification can easily be misconstrued to mean that Mondoweiss shouldn't be used for BLP. Just this week, one of the RfC participants used the close statement [[Talk:Mohamed_Hadid#Footnote_13_for_BLP|to claim]] that {{tq|we should avoid using Mondoweiss for BLP.|q=yes}} Obviously, it [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_MW_better_or_worse_than_aboutself_for_a_claim_about_Mohamed_Hadid|ended up]] in RSN again. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 16:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Amend''' to remove the statement about BLPs. If only two editors made an unsupported assertion and nobody else discussed it, then it isn't a valid part of the consensus. I'm all for interpreting arguments to try and pull a consensus out of the flames where it isn't obvious, but "divining within the greater context" in this manner is a [[WP:SUPERVOTE|left-field supervote]] and should be removed. The rest of the closure is reasonable. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Amend''' per M.Bitton and Wordsmith. We already treat BLP with caution, and this issue was not discussed enough to reach consensus. If needed, a new discussion on how to use MW with regard to BLP can be made. Meanwhile, I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6 to conclude that option 3 should be reached. Note that since option 2 is essentially the middle ground, option 1 and 3 have the same weight, but '''option 4 has twice the weight of option 1 when skewing option 2'''. This doesn’t seem very fair, and then rounding 2.6 to 3 because of this is increasing the unfairness, leading to essentially 13 editors overruling 21 editors. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 03:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
*:A-men [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Two minor points of clarification:''' I have zero problem with amending per above and, while I can't -- objectively -- read the RfC that way, I would ''personally'' be glad to see this outcome.<br/>That said, I am concerned that some editors are reading the aggressive and misinformed arguments of two relatively new editors on the "anti-" MW side who have attempted, very poorly, to summarize my close and assuming those summaries accurately represent the close. The only closing statements I wrote are [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_433#Closing_(archived)_RfC:_Mondoweiss|this one]] and [[User_talk:Chetsford#RFC_close|this explanatory comment]], both of which are much more modest than the way in which two editors are summarizing them to make sweeping changes across multiple articles. To avoid the further spread of this misinformation, I would ask, as a personal favor, that editors attempting to describe my close (regardless of where you land on it) reflect only on the source material, and not the apocrypha it's spawned. To wit:
:::*{{Xt|"I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6"}} The "average" of 2.6 was never used for anything (and, yes, I realize the incidental appearance of this meaningless number in the close has been fixated upon by the aforementioned editors to make major changes to articles). As per the text of the close rationale, the number 2.6 was simply noted as ''"indicative but not definitive as per WP:NOTAVOTE"'' and then immediately discarded as ''"not clearly learning toward either option"'' before the narrative analysis began.
:::*{{xt|"to conclude that option 3 should be reached"}} The RfC close reached no such conclusion in any dimension of time or space; in this reality or any parallel reality that the mind of man can conceive or imagine. It stated that no ''"consensus as to its underlying reliability"'' emerged which, if anything at all, was a "2" close (but, actually, no consensus).<br/>
::To summarize, this was a "no consensus" close with a relatively modest (and not proscriptive) BLP corollary described by [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] in this first (now stricken) comment. The fact my loquacious reasoning, intended to promote transparency, instead provided an opening to wedge in battleground behavior is beyond both my control and mandate <small>(RfC closers are not RfC enforcers)</small>. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 23:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you for the clarity...I think... :-) [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 01:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
:::*{{re|Chetsford}} - perhaps there has been a misunderstanding, you quoted from me, but I was not referring to your RfC close. I was referring to the below analysis by FortunateSons. I apologise for my vagueness having caused confusion. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 08:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


===Involved===
Another user recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states/Archive_9#We_have_professor_M.C3.A4lksoo.27s_opinion sought the personal opinion] of a notable scholar in the area on the matter. This did not change the opinions of those involved much, and the discussion quickly disintegrated into debates over various interpretations of this opinion. Neither side has shown particularly willing to give up much ground.
* I've archived my discussion with Voorts [[User_talk:Chetsford#Close_of_Mondoweiss_RfC|here]] for ease of review (versus diffs). For what it's worth, considering the contentious topic area involved, I am in full agreement with [[User:Voorts|Voorts]] that review of the close is appropriate. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 07:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
* Amend close to read "and that it should <s>either not be used at all — or</s> used with <s>great</s> caution for biographies of living people." I don't think that the relative silence on the issue should have been construed as agreement with the two editors raising that specific, there was a lot else going on in the discussion besides that, especially since one of those editors appears to have construed the close as a license to remove citations for BLPs. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Amend close to 3 (Gunrel), optionally clarify the statement about BLP requirements per the qualifiers suggested by Chetsford''' <s>per the arguments made by @[[User:Chess|Chess]] and @[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]], which were not sufficiently addressed</s>; also using the votes as an indicator. Acknowledging that I advanced the BLP arguments poorly (and thanking @[[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] for his generally accurate deciphering of what I meant), I would suggest the following, in the spirit of his comment made [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1219524558&title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diffonly=1 here], @[[User:Bobfrombrockley|Bobfrombrockley]] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1218542171&title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diffonly=1 here] and as a compromise: ''used with great caution for biographies of living (and recently deceased) people, and not to be used in cases of (a) for statements that, if proved false, would be legally defamatory; (b) for extraordinary claims (c) for analytical statements about the person; (d) for quotes and facts the accuracy of which is contested by RS or the subject him/herself.'' In addition and as a partial clarification, perhaps e) should be ''content marked as activism and similar'' would be appropriate. [[User:FortunateSons|FortunateSons]] ([[User talk:FortunateSons|talk]]) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
*:You're going to need to bolster your opinion more than "we should do what I want", when support for #2 had ~6.5:1 support over yours. This is not the place to relitigate this RfC, IMHO. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
*::I‘m pretty sure you’re off on the math, as I voted 4 (which obviously endorses 3 over 2). That option obviously does not have consensus (and just for the sake of clarity, removal of problematic BLP uses is not backdoor deprecation, the overwhelming majority of MW uses are non-BLP or unproblematic). The straight vote count (as stated by Chetsford) has the average at 2.6, and of the counted votes, 14 votes included at least 3 (including 2 or 3), while 21 did not, of which an overwhelming amount were 3 or lower (please check my math).
*::I was unaware that we are not supposed to reference specific points when requesting a reassessment of the outcome, and have struck that part, except in context of the phrasing to avoid (light) plagiarism. Thanks for making me aware, this is one of my first contributions to such a noticeboard :) [[User:FortunateSons|FortunateSons]] ([[User talk:FortunateSons|talk]]) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::When giving a list of options (1. Action A 2. Action B 3. Action C 4. Action D and 5. Action E), saying "the average is 2.6 so we should choose option 3" is a horrible misunderstanding of statistics. You are heavily weighting all other actions other than #1 (Example, 20 people !vote 1, 2 people !vote 2, and 3 people !vote 5, the "average" is 2 despite an overwhelming preponderance of people !voting 1...in other words, a 5 is worth 5x a 1). Rounding up only further exacerbates the issue. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
*:Second attempt at a more policy-compliant argument, please correct me if this one is also wrong:
*:The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed, and similar arguments where not fully rebuffed in general; therefore, the section regarding BLP should remain as is, or be alternatively clarified while remaining in the spirit of discussion and close.
*:Regarding the status of the entire source, I believe that the arguments made by those voting for „higher than 2“ should have led to a close of 3, and respectfully request that it is amended (as well). [[User:FortunateSons|FortunateSons]] ([[User talk:FortunateSons|talk]]) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
*::"''The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed''" They were addressed. You just didn't agree. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Amend''' per The Wordsmith. My own views on the source aside, the issue of BLP use was barely discussed - there was no consensus on it one way or another, so to assert one in the closure seems odd. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] 19:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
*I don't object to the amendment that is being proposed here, because I think it goes without saying that ''any'' source where there are serious reliability concerns should be used with extreme caution in BLPs, especially where content is potentially defamatory. While no consensus was reached, given that 15 out of 36 !votes (I think) were for an option higher than 2 and only one editor considered option 1, this is obviously a source with serious reliability concerns. My only worry is that editors will take this amendment as permission ''not'' to use extreme caution with the source on BLPs or, worse, that this source has somehow been cleared for use in BLPs, so I hope that editors supporting this amendment will be vigilant in ensuring that we do not use this poor source inappropriately in BLPs. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 11:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


===Discussion===
I wish to attract sufficient outside input from uninvolved editors so as to provide the most satisfactory end to the debate possible, without giving the impression of canvassing. I would like to make it clear up front that I have certainly contributed to the problems in this debate, and I accept full responsibility for my actions. My desire here is not to enforce my own POV, but to reach an acceptable consensus on the matter. Since the topic matter falls within the bounds of such cases as [[WP:DIGWUREN]], it is necessary to exercise a certain deal of caution in dealing with this. The move request was an effort on my part to induce some kind of focused debate; what I believe to be necessary now is to involve people other than the regulars so that accusations of collusion or partisanship do not stick, whichever way the request goes.


*Could we get an admin to close and amend this. Consensus seems quite clear. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 22:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
My question is, how can I involve neutral editors in reaching a final decision here? Do I file another RfC? Do I seek higher arbitration/mediation? Or do I simply continue with the move request and hope for the best?
**I already listed this at [[WP:CR]] for maybe more than a week. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 06:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


== Edits from The Banner ==
Thanks in advance for any help,


I would like to request another perspective on edits made by [[User:The Banner|TheBanner]]. I am uncertain about their intentions, as they seem to be consistently reverting many edits, often citing [[WP:CIR]], I know my edits are not perfet however I have seen problems. For instance, my addition of a military service module on Chuck Norris's page—similar to those on Morgan Freeman and Elvis Presley—was removed with the rationale that Norris is "not known for his military service." Although this is true, the inclusion of such a module can be informative. Furthermore, there have been issues regarding [[WP:Civility]]; TheBanner has described my edits as "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALuxembourg_rebellions&diff=1220124615&oldid=1220123071 cringe]" and made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utah_War&diff=1214775588&oldid=1214771489 sarcastic remarks], asserting that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALuxembourg_rebellions&diff=1220131291&oldid=1220130080 competence supersedes civility]. This focus on my contributions has been puzzling, and I would appreciate an external review. My editing history is publicly accessible, and I anticipate that TheBanner might respond to this discussion. I am simply seeking additional opinions on this matter. [[User:LuxembourgLover|LuxembourgLover]] ([[User talk:LuxembourgLover|talk]]) 00:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 11:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


:In fact, I have a severe concern about the competency of [[User:LuxembourgLover]] to edit wikipedia. The main problem is his failure to judge the due weight of many items, resulting in him writing articles about tiny events. I just point to [[Talk:Luxembourg rebellions]], [[Talk:Morrisite War]], [[Draft:Battle of Amalienborg]] and [[USCG Auxiliary Flotilla 6-9]] (and related [[Talk:United States Coast Guard Auxiliary]]). <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 00:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
::It appears the dispute is going in circles. You could submit a [[WP:MEDCAB|request for mediation]], or I could offer to step in as mediator. [[User:Alpha Quadrant|<span style="color:#000070; font-family: Times New Roman">''Alpha Quadrant''</span>]] [[User talk:Alpha Quadrant|<span style="color:#A00000; font-family: Times New Roman"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 14:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::{{U|The Banner}}, that response would have been so much better if you'd but the first sentence and a half. You're probably right in suggesting (?) (the diff above must be off) that competence supersedes civility, but that doesn't mean that a lack of civility isn't problematic. I don't think the comments here rise to a blockable level or I wouldn't be commenting, I'd just block, but I wish you'd think twice before pushing "Publish changes". [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 00:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Since there is already a discussion in motion, I feel that it is too late for the former. In retrospect, going to [[WP:MEDCAB]] is what should have been done instead of hastily submitting a move request; I fear this may only be feeding the flames, for the only "new" editors commenting at the moment have not improved the rhetoric and general atmosphere at the page. Both are presumably Russian and seem to have a friendly history with one another, which may draw claims of bias from some users. One of them has a history of less-than-pleasant interactions with several of the "regulars" and has been placed under [[WP:DIGWUREN]] restrictions in the past.
:::Even advice to use a spell checker (done by multiple people) is ignored. AfC-drafts turned down within a couple of hours. Copyvio. I have even requested a third party to take up some coaching (what he agreed to). But see also [[Talk:Morrisite War]] and [[Talk:San Elizario Salt War#Info box]]. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 09:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::However, I think that it would be immensely helpful if you were to provide some mediation services. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 21:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Please note I have two well done drafts waiting review. [[Draft:Latter-day Saints Militias and Military Units]] and [[Draft:Hector C. Haight]]. [[User:LuxembourgLover|LuxembourgLover]] ([[User talk:LuxembourgLover|talk]]) 00:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm with Drmies on this one. Tempers have clearly run a bit high (or patience has run out) but I'm not seeing any need for admin action this time around.
::::Regarding long term behaviour in the section below, it's worth remarking that the "February 2023" thread actually relates to activity in December 2022; the other threads listed are obviously from even further back. While it's sometimes important to examine long term behaviour patterns, we really don't need to drag up old threads every time a new one is created. I appreciate that it wasn't resolved to everyone's satisfaction as The Banner was cut some slack due to his computer issues, but some kind of [[statute of limitations]] seems appropriate.
::::One final thing for me to say here is that The Banner and I come from opposite sides of the Irish Sea and both edit in the often-controversial ''British Isles'' area. That means we encounter points of disagreement semi-frequently, yet I've always found The Banner to be civil, polite and patient, abiding by consensus and policy in those discussions. Obviously that's just my own experience but I felt it was worth adding some balance to this thread. [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 13:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


=== The Banner history of hounding and disruptive editing ===
::::I'm not sure what there is to mediate. It seems we have a number of editors who desire moving an article contrary to Wikipedia policy. They are saying we should ignore [[WP:TITLE]]'s direction to survey a wide variety of sources and instead rely upon the opinion of one single scholar in finding a common name, and to ignore [[WP:TITLE]]'s direction to consider only English-language sources but instead also to consider the POV of Russian-language sources (though no one has actually furnished such a source). --[[User:Martintg|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 05:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::: {{user5|The Banner}} has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AThe+Banner more than several blocks for disruptive editing]
* February 2023: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive350#Long-term_pattern_of_hounding_and_disruptive_editing_by_User%3AThe_Banner|Long-term pattern of hounding and disruptive editing by User:The Banner]]. {{pb}} '''The Banner went missing from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=The+Banner&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2023-02-04&end=2023-06-24&limit=250 February to June 2023] to avoid sanction''' after clear hounding of [[User:Another Believer]] and a return to the AFD problem.
* 2022: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#The_Banner_conduct|The Banner conduct]]
* 2020: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#The_Banner|The Banner]], iBan
* 2016: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive927#The_Banner|The Banner]]
* 2015: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#WP%3ACIVIL%2C_edit_warring%2C_and_user_talk_page_violations_by_The_Banner|WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner]].
* 2015: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive902#The_Banner_-_AFD_Topic_ban?|AFD Topic ban?]]
There's more. Why are we still here ? Drmies, [[User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned|my friend, it's time to stop defending]] this editor, who is a bully. It's time for a site ban. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 09:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:Let me correct you on your first bullet: I had a computer crash. It took me months to recover from that. I had never seen that discussion before I came back. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 13:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:: Now you have seen it and now you can respond to it. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::"I had never seen that discussion before I came back." To be blunt, SG has more AGF than I do. You were clearly informed about it and had an opportunity to respond. If you are going to archive everything so quickly, you need to go back and check your archives. Regardless of others' behavior, yours continues unabated. I side with SG here [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::The case was closed before I came back. And as said, the break was not because of my own free will but due to a broken hard disk. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 12:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
::::It's here now, and with two responses, you aren't addressing the long-term issues: hounding of Another Believer and {{u|SusanLesch}}, faulty tagging of a '''most clearly''' notable article, and your history of generally disruptive editing. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
::::And, yet, you still have not responded, despite being back online for almost a year + being informed of this issue for 4+ days now. You've found the time to make 100+ edits. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Last chance to reply... [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 03:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:I have tried to ignore this user for nearly twelve years, since he made an edit in support of the sockpuppets at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salty Fingers (plant)]]. I'm rather surprised that the editor is still allowed to edit, given the long-term disruption shown. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
::Unless it is your contention that The Banner actually knew he was supporting sockpuppets, I'm afraid I don't see how that discussion ''from almost a dozen years ago'' is relevant. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 01:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I believe this is an attempt to show a long-term pattern of disruptive behavior. Beyond that, I would concur it's irrelevant. Admins, can take the input and assess what it's worth. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 18:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't see what's inherently disruptive about voting keep in an AfD. I'm sure that the case against The Banner can be made without dredging up grudges from more than a decade ago. Heck, I'm pretty sure I've had a beef or two with him, although the specifics are lost to my memory. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 22:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


== SPI ==
:::::Martin, though I certainly respect your opinion, you ''must'' recognise that the way things are going, there is not going to be a satisfactory outcome for all parties involved. We have been see-sawing back and forth for months now without any resolution of conflict; something needs to be done. Since neither side trusts the other, and since nobody can seem to agree on the interpretation of WP policy, we require outside intervention. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 11:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


I hate doing this because I know there's a backlog at SPI but seeing this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit#Suspected_sockpuppets sock-master] being so militantly aggressive in steamrolling their POV to the point where it's unsettling, using numerous burner accounts, openly making a mockery out of Wikipedia and manipulating people, time and time again deceiving or attempting to deceive admins in which he nearly succeeded multiple times, and him taking advantage of the long time it takes for SPI reports against him to be looked at, has me extremely concerned. I want to proceed with dealing with some of his more active, disruptive accounts but for that I'd need to deal with the current accounts in his SPI as it would establish precedence and bolster future cases. If possible, can this SPI be dealt with soon? It's been languishing for over a month now. [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 23:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::Well mediation may work, but even if consensus was achieved by a small group of editors on an article talk page in this particular case, it cannot override the wider community consensus on policy. --[[User:Martintg|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The debate at the talkpage indicates that there are different interpretations of this "consensus". When such a dispute exists, it is best for it to be mediated by an impartial individual or group. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:You could consider listing the move request at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]]. However, it could be that the topic holds little interest for other editors, the issues are too complex, it takes too long to read the discussion and editors may not wish to become involved in a highly controversial subject about which they do not hold strong opinions. However this is not the correct forum for this discussion - but then I do not know what forum is. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 15:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Uh, if you ''request'' a ''move'', then it is automatically listed at [[WP:RM|WP:''requested moves'']]. Check the log for March 6 if you don't believe me.
::::Re "''this is not the correct forum for this discussion''": I never intended for this discussion to be moved here – y'all just decided to follow me here and turn what was meant to be a request for advice into another battleground. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:: To several above, the additional input of a noted scholar has not helped because the various parties interpret that source to suit their position, e.g., one editor states the scholar says Soviet "intervention" not occupation, while the scholar writes that the USSR "crushed" the Baltic states and occupied them. Or editors are focusing on the finer points of the Soviet annexation and making more far reaching contentions which are not fundamentally supported. The bottom line regarding the article in question is that it is a summary of a <u>'''continuous period'''</u> of <u>'''three'''</u> contiguous occupations by <u>'''two'''</u> invading foreign powers, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, focused on the policies and actions of both of those powers with regard to the rights and lives of the Baltic nationals (ethno-agnostic) subjugated under said foreign powers.
:: IMHO, some editors appear hell-bent on expunging "occupation" wherever it touches upon the portrayal of the Soviet legacy under the false mantle of "NPOV" ("occupation" implies something "bad" happened, "bad" is judgemental, etc., etc., etc.). My perception only, of course.
:: Regardless, there is nothing wrong with the title or article content or scope. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small>&nbsp;<s>J</s>&nbsp;V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 16:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Please save this for the talkpage, Pēters. I did not intend for this to turn into another forum. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::: The point is that the move is "controversial" because it is solving a problem which does not exist. We might consider some non-article specific forum for addressing these sort of endemic disputes so we don't recreate the same tedious argument at the ever-rotating well-trodden collection of articles "in scope." <u>'''The current "dispute" has nothing to do with the specific article'''</u>, the article is just a venue for rehashing the same old specious argumentation about Soviet occupation or not or to what degree of the Baltics. I would suggest a "Soviet legacy taskforce" to at least least keep it to a single conversation. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small>&nbsp;<s>J</s>&nbsp;V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 00:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


:3 others, including 2 admins, have expressed concerns that the first account Historian2325 is a SPA, by the way. [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 01:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
== Sandbox pages ==


:Has anyone thought of making the following change to [[Wikipedia:CheckUser]] to see whether it works.
I would like to have these sandbox pages which i had previously gotten deleted brought back, together with their talk pages. I wish to work on certain potential articles, and bringing back the pages would save me quite some time and effort.
:OLD - "The CheckUser tool is used by a small group of trusted Wikipedia users (called checkusers)."
* [[User:Joyson Noel/Luis de Menezes Bragança]]
:NEW - "The CheckUser tool is used by a very large group of trusted Wikipedia users (called checkusers)."
* [[User:Joyson Noel/Francisco Luís Gomes]]
:[[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 02:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
* [[User:Joyson Noel/Joaquim Heliodoró da Cunha Rivara]]
::I'm not entirely sure if there's a double meaning behind your comment, but the reason I'm so concerned is because this sockmaster is currently operating an account which is creating an extreme amount of disruption and illegitimately subverting Wikipedia's processes by brazenly vote stacking. He's so incredibly relentless that it's unnerving and to see him time and time again evade accountability is nauseating. It'll become more clear once I file the report. [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 02:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
* [[User:Joyson Noel/Sebastião Rodolfo Dalgado]]
:::In my perfect world we would all be checkusers, or there would be a very large number of them. Socking in Wikipedia is, for me, maybe one of most important unsolved issues here. Wikipedia's rules-based system breaks down when there are 2 sets of editors, one set that has to follow the rules and the other that does not because they effectively have unlimited number of lives. Using deception as a tool is pretty common in Wikipedia, especially in contentious topic areas, and the resources allocated to deal with it don't seem to match up with its corrosive effects. As you say, important processes that sample community views like RSN, RfC, AfD etc. are particular susceptible to the negative effects of deception. On the other hand, it's quite funny that we are training generative models using content that is partly the product of dedicated pathological liars. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 03:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Joyson Noel |<big><FONT FACE="Haettenschweiler" COLOR="#ff0000">Joyson Noel</FONT></big>]][[User talk:Joyson Noel |<small><sup><FONT FACE="Haettenschweiler" COLOR="#ff0000"> Holla at me!</FONT></sup></small>]] 19:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::I don't think we can make that wording change to the policy. A more actionable idea might be asking some admins with spi experience to apply to be checkusers, to help with the backlog. Although in this case, the delay is actually clerk endorsement, which doesn't require a checkuser. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 06:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:All restored. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 20:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Right, but wouldn't the endorsement of 2 admins be a suitable substitute for clerk endorsement? [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 06:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Do the spi rules say that? I think it's supposed to be clerks. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 06:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:I would suggest removing the IP addresses as a checkuser will not link IP addresses to accounts plus most have been inactive for sometime, between one and six months, and no action is likely to be taken because any disruption by these IPs is neither recent nor ongoing. [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 07:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::I didn't put the IPs/proxies because I wanted them to be blocked but rather because the sockmaster has many different proxies at his disposal which helped his other accounts like {{noping|Finmas}} and {{noping|Dazzem}} evade CUs. The former was found "Unrelated" and then "Inconclusive" by CUs. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ponyo#PakistanHistorian? It was later revealed] that the Finmas account was exclusively using VPNs, which is what I had originally suspected. I figured that listing some of his proxies that I've dealt with before might help CUs establish a technical connection. [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 07:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:The problem here isn't a lack of CUs, the problem is that you've written a 20,000 byte wall of text that is going to be a major slog for someone to read through. If you want people to read and action an SPI case you need to present the information as concisely as possible. CUs and admins are volunteers and SPI is chronically backlogged - most SPI regulars coming across that case are just going say "[[TLDR]]", pass over it and go deal with another, better presented, case.
:You need to trim this down drastically to just the key evidence.
:*Rather than listing out a dozen IPs that haven't been used for months you could just write "This sockmaster has used VPNs to evade checkuser detection in the past"
:*Instead of writing massive long paragraphs of background information about how certain edits are POV pushing to inflate certain figures and how this is related to Sikh military accomplishments you could just point out that the edits are similar.
:*Instead of writing out massive bullet points where you describe every edit a sockmaster and suspected sockpuppet have made to a page you could just point out that this new account has returned to a page that they have edited in the past.
:*There is a ton of unnecessary "This is the nail in the coffin", "PS: Maplesyrupsushi is a legitimate and excellent editor/content creator, ..." "Keep in mind this is a small sample of edits, there are hundreds of more edits like this." type commentary that adds nothing to the case but severley bloats the wordcount.
:Looking through the page history it looks like you've had issues with wall of text reports in the past [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit&oldid=1212560602] and you were asked to cut your reports down to a more reasonable length 2 months ago [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit&diff=prev&oldid=1211534004]. Remember that SPI clerks and Checkusers have a lot of experience dealing with sock puppetry and don't need the basics explaining to them. [[Special:Contributions/86.23.109.101|86.23.109.101]] ([[User talk:86.23.109.101|talk]]) 19:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for the advice, I've trimmed some of the details in the SPI. I think the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit current version] is much more digestible. [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 08:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Other editors have also been complaining about the POV pushing from SPAs listed in the SPI. As I've said before, the disruption that this sockmaster is creating is ridiculous. [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 03:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
::::One of the SPAs even tried to illegitimately delete an AFD notice on an article-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ali_Masjid_(1839)&diff=prev&oldid=1222506521]. [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 10:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


==RfC closure review request at [[:Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14]]==
== Informational post re: McDonald's & corporate communications ==
:{{RfC closure review links|COVID-19 pandemic|rfc_close_page=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14}} ([[User talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close|Discussion with closer]])


'''Closer''': {{userlinks|Chetsford}}
I don't think there's any admin action required here, but this is something I thought would be of interest to admins -- if true, it's certainly a new take on how corporate communications departments might deal effectively with Wikipedia.


'''Notified''': [[User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion]]
An editor claiming to be part of McDonald's "communications team" - [[User:Egerstea]] - has in the last three months contacted three editors to thank them for their work on the [[McDonald's]] article, and to offer themselves as a resource should any information be needed. The comments are boilerplate - here's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerem43&diff=prev&oldid=410385265 the first one].


'''Reasoning''': The closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. #1 closer ignored roughconsenus pointing to "the discursive failures that occurred in this RfC." #2 the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of [[WP:RS]] in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article [[COVID-19 lab leak theory]] that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred to [[Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Discussion]] in which I stated ""Controversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China.['''34''']" Note that no editor made an RS claim in the discussion on the oppose side, thus the closer seems to have improperly summarized the discussion and rather than summarizing instead pointing to his own view of lack of RS, MEDRS, and discursive failures (none of which were not discussed in the RFC). When I sought to discuss the close with the closer on their talk page, the closer instead failed to [[WP:AGF]] stating "I know it wouldn't be as personally satisfying" and going on to say "we may sometimes feel shorted if our comments aren't recognized." Note, I had not been asking the editor why my "comments aren't recognized", I instead asked the editor to justify their own novel claim that no RS were provided in the RFC. #3 eventually the closer goes on to contradict themselves apparently stating "As already noted in the close, the RfC should have been an easy consensus close to strike #14" as if some procedural failure in the RFC didnt gain such consensus, I suppose pointing the editors vague claim of "discursive failures," rather than the very succinct explanations of many of the editors that participated in the RFC. In summary, the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus, instead suggesting that the RFC be run again and explained "I've reviewed it and decline to reverse." The discussion with closer (and additional information) can be found [[User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close]]. I adding it here as something is amiss with the template link above, maybe due to the closer archiving their talk page recently.
As you can see there's no request for any specific edits to be made, information to be added or deleted, it just looks like "bridge building". The only pitfall I can see is that any information coming directly from the McDonald's corporate communications people should probably be in the form of pointers to already published information, rather than stuff released specifically for use on Wikipedia - although, if they were to seperately publish any new information provided to us in a press release, that could alleviate that concern. In any event, I would think that anything coming directly from McD's should be clearly labelled as such, and, if possible, verified with third-party reliable sources, just to make sure that they're not shaping data in a way that's advantageous to their public image.
Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


===Uninvolved (COVID19)===
I would never want Wikipedia to be an appendage of the corporate world, but it would be nice to be able to get information directly from companies when it's necessary to do so. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 21:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
This close was within the threshold of reasonable. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
* I don't recall ever editing that article so I think I'm uninvolved. Will strike if mistaken. The closure looks entirely reasonable to me. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


What does it even mean to "strike down" a consensus? In this case, that consensus is a documented statement that the lab leak theory shouldn't be mentioned. Does "striking it down" mean removing the consensus statement because it's used to preempt discussion/proposals? Or does it mean finding consensus to talk about the lab leak in the article? If the former, given the way documented past consensus serves to limit present discussion (for good reason, in many cases), I'd think we'd need affirmative consensus to retain it, and not just default to it with no consensus. If the latter, it's worded oddly and it's hard to see that RfC as yielding a clear result. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:Corporate publicity isn't something I know a lot about, but when I did have limited contact with public relations firms about ten years ago, some of the main services they provided was indeed collecting and organising pointers to already-published information about their client organisations. So there is more potential for this to be useful from a Wikipedia perspective than might initially be imagined - the sort of information that these people would collect pointers to, would quite often be exactly the sort of reliable sources that Wikipedia articles need. (With a little bit of natural bias thrown in, of course.) --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 06:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
: For what it's worth, my reading of the discussion would be that it's attempting the former. —[[User:Sirdog|<span style="color:#056300">'''Sirdog'''</span> ]]([[User talk:Sirdog|talk]]) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


I'd say any other editor in good standing reviewing that discussion could reasonably find the same result. I am unconvinced by the challenger that the close is fundamentally flawed. —[[User:Sirdog|<span style="color:#056300">'''Sirdog'''</span> ]]([[User talk:Sirdog|talk]]) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
== Edit Request for [[Special:Newpages]] ==
*'''Overturn''' This seems to be a clear supervote and WAY outside what reliable sources state. At this point, any restriction on this viable theory is political in nature and feels very much like the last vestiges of clinging to "no, I can't possibly be wrong". [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


===Involved (COVID19)===
The Twinkle feature that marks new pages patrolled when tagging them is currently down. Would an admin please add the following to the instructions:
*'''Comment by Closer:''' While I personally would like to have seen the RfC close in favor of the RfC proposal , I ultimately closed it as "no consensus" (not as "a consensus against" as, I believe, the challenger thinks occurred).<br/>As I read it, the challenge seems to spin on four assertions advanced by the challenger which I summarize here to the best of my understanding:
<blockquote>"The Twinkle feature that automatically marks pages patrolled is currently down. New Page Patrollers, please mark pages patrolled manually before tagging them with Twinkle."</blockquote>
:*'''A belief that (a) ROUGHCONSENSUS is a synonym for Referendum, and, (b) consensus was achieved by process of majority vote.'''<br/>In [[User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close|their request for review on my Talk page]], the challenger invoked [[WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS]] to repeatedly demand the RfC be treated as a referendum or plebiscite and reversed on the apparent basis that the {{xt|"count"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1221842950] of {{xt|"votes"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1221842950] (6-4 in favor of the RfC - though challenger claimed it was 7-1 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1221502592] somehow) favored the RfC proposal.<Br/>I repeatedly counseled challenger that this was [[WP:NOTAVOTE]], pointing to our [[WP:CONSENSUS]] policy which explicitly describes that a simple majority does not represent the ''"sense of the community"'' described by ROUGHCONENSUS in the absence of strength of policy-based argument. The challenger appeared non-plussed by this. Here, challenger goes on to again advance the false premise that {{xt|"the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus"}}, based on their insistent belief that consensus was achieved by a simple majority headcount.
Thank you. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;">[[User:N419BH|<span style="color:Black;background:#FFD700;">N419</span>]][[User talk:N419BH|<span style="background:Black;color:#FFD700;">BH</span>]]</span> 01:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:*'''A belief that it's the closer's duty to engage in textual analysis of sources presented across the project and the zeitgeist, rather than arguments made in the RfC.'''<Br/>The challenger writes that {{Xt|"the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred"}}<br/>This, again, appears to be a severe misunderstanding of the close by the challenger. RS was mentioned merely as part of the closer's formulary recitation of facts and summary of arguments made which is a customary and perfunctory part of the close. Nothing involving "RS" was part of the close rationale. (Nor is it the responsibility of the closer to evaluate the alleged "hundreds" of RS. Closes occur based on strength of policy-based argument, not the closer's independent and original evaluation of source material.)
:Do you mean on [[MediaWiki:Newpages-summary]]? Also, any idea on how long it will be down? If it's just temporary, I don't think a note is really needed, but if it's a few days, sure. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 02:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:*'''A belief that geopolitical factors must be taken into account in closing RfCs.'''<br>The challenger explained in the RfC, on my Talk page, and now here, that {{xt|"[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China."}} as an example of an unrebutted argument, apparently in the belief that the lack of rebuttal to this assertion tips the scale in favor of the RfC. But the RfC is the place to argue the application of WP policy. The state of Sino-American relations is completely irrelevant to the application of WP policy.
::{{edit conflict}}Wherever the directions are edited is where I mean...and I'm not sure where that is. And it's already been down for several days. I have no idea how long it will continue. The [[Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Bugs|twinkle bug report page]] doesn't indicate any timeframe for bug resolution. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;">[[User:N419BH|<span style="color:Black;background:#FFD700;">N419</span>]][[User talk:N419BH|<span style="background:Black;color:#FFD700;">BH</span>]]</span> 02:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:*'''A belief that an (alleged) lack of social grace afforded to an editor is cause to overturn a close.'''<Br/>The challenger explains {{xt|"the closer instead failed to WP:AGF"}} in his discussion with the challenger, nested as part of their appeal to overturn. Accepting, for sake of argument, that I did fail to AGF in a discussion on my Talk page with the challenger, failure to AGF in a Talk page discussion is not a rational cause to overturn a close. Closes are overturned due to some failure of the close itself, not as a sanction against the closer when we believe we were not treated with the deference we feel we deserve.
:::Done. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 02:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:As I repeatedly said, this should have been an easy RfC to pass. Policy (and, frankly, reality) favored it. But those policies were never argued by the participants. For the closer to invoke his independent awareness of policy would be a [[WP:SUPERVOTE]] and, moreover, completely unfair as it would deny the opposing side the opportunity to rebut. I suggested to the challenger that if they were to rerun the RfC and remedy the significant defects in their first attempt it would almost certainly pass. They appear to be disinterested in doing that. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 09:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
::::It will be down until the rewrite is complete, which will be several weeks. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]]&nbsp;([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 17:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::This response by the closer is further astray:
::*First the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus, see [[WP:NHC]].
::*Second the closer talks about a nonsensical duty to provide textual analysis of sources. This is laughable. The closer failed to notice there was an RS mentioned in the RFC (and ignored the sub-article as well) and stated these omissions in the close. The closer argued that a lack of RS in the RFC was a justification for the close, and failed to understand that #34 was an RS.
::*Third, in responding to this review the closer is confused of even the subject of the RFC. {{xt|"[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China."}} is '''the exact text in the article at the time of the RFC''' that is being discussed in this RFC. I was discussing the text of the article, and even put it in quotes. I am confused if the closer even read the RFC at this point. I have never made an argument that any geopolitical blah blah must be taken in to account. Where is this coming from? You will find this exact text quoted verbatim [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=1212111774 here] in the article at the time of the RFC.
::*Forth the AGF issues are simply me pointing out that the closer has chosen solely himself to paint this in some sort of personal issue, and continues to not understand the content that was being discussed (see #3). Note I have always been civil to this closer as well as everyone in the RFC, this argument is baseless, a strawman, and an odd response.
::*Fifth, RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy nor RFC policy, it is the closer that applies the policy to the arguments offered by the participants. In this RFC we are simply discussing if the RS support the text in bold (that the closer seems to be confused is my words), if due weight should be given to wikilink (a link that is prohibited under consensus #14), and if the consensus #14 on the article was appropriate given the text in bold and the current state of RS.
::Seems the closer failed to grasp the RFC and still hasnt bothered to review it. Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::{{xt|"the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus"}} I'll just note again, here, that this is a furiously repeated statement based on a false premise. As I have explained many times, there was no consensus to ignore. That's why the RfC closed as ''"no consensus"'' (versus ''"consensus for"'' or ''"consensus against"''). I appreciate your view that your {{xt|"count"}} [sic] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1221842950] of the {{xt|"vote"}} [sic] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1221842950] led you to believe the 6 of 10 editors in favor of your RfC constituted a consensus, however, as detailed in our policy [[WP:CONSENSUS]], consensus is not determined by plebiscite and your RfC was not a referendum. I sincerely regret if you were under a different impression.<br/>{{xt|"RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy"}} Sure, you aren't "required" to present policy-based argument, but by your decision not to do so, you ended up with the result you got here. Please see [[WP:NHC]]: ''"... after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue ... [if] discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it"''. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Which editors made arguments that you felt met this criteria "after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" and why? Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 22:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
::What exactly do you mean by ''reality''? Can you explain what you meant by that? [[User:FailedMusician|FailedMusician]] ([[User talk:FailedMusician|talk]]) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:::[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html We could start here, but this is only a beginning...] [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 20:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I mean it's very clear the actual state-of-the-world does not support a proscription such as #14 and this RfC should have resulted in a consensus to strike it, in my opinion (indeed, #14 should never have been put in place to begin with). And had I been a participant in the discussion, I would have sided with the strike camp. But I wasn't a participant, I was the closer, and for me to close this as "a consensus to strike" when only a bare majority of participants - advancing virtually no cogent policy arguments - supported that would constitute a SUPERVOTE and be out of compliance with our [[WP:CONSENSUS]] policy. Suppressing my innate knowledge of the external world beyond WP and deciding on no set of facts beyond what was contained in the RfC, it was clear there was no consensus (as undesirable of an outcome as that is). [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::::I do not concur with your assessment. Majority opinion, professional opinions, WP consensus within the article, general consensus on the RfC, and a host of other options all show clearly that this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded. This is ''exactly'' the kind of reason we have and should use [[WP:IAR]]. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{Xt|"this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded"}} - I agree with this<br/>{{xt|"This is ''exactly'' the kind of reason we have and should use [[WP:IAR]]."}} - I disagree with this. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 17:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment by SmolBrane:''' In the close, you(Chetsford) stated that “First, several editors in the oppose camp note that consensus can't occur implicitly in this case (the opposite of what we usually observe in WP:EDITCON), since #14 established a clear consensus and the mere presence of content against consensus that may have gone unnoticed doesn't overturn it.”
:The presence of content against the formal RfC consensus '''for six months''' on a high traffic article (8k views per day!) SHOULD overturn the two year old RfC. That's the whole point of implicit consensus—not to mention that '''this was the long-standing stable state of the article'''. TarnishedPath made the same error “Arguing that the content has been in the article for a while is putting the cart before the horse.” Why would we undo a six-month old undisputed edit here? We should not presume that the bold edit went 'unnoticed'--this is not a valid exception w/r/t [[WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS]]. Implicit consensus has a great deal of weight on a contentious article with 2,200 watchers. The RfC establishing consensus #14 from '''May 2020''' is very old in COVID-terms, and this RfC only had three keep !votes, which means only three individuals wanted to revise the article to a retroactive state—a situation that should require more opposers to stray from the current stable and long-standing state.
:Aquillion made a similar error “Sometimes things fall through the cracks even on high-traffic articles”. Bold edits are not “falling through the cracks”, This is again a lack of understanding of policy, and the collaborative nature of the project. Those !votes(Aquillion and TarnishedPath) likely should have been discarded.
:Both Crossroads and IOHANNVSVERVS made strong arguments in favor of striking, based on new sourcing and [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] respectively. Ortizesp and Lights and Freedom also made strong cases in relation to coverage by sources.
:The closer evidently erred “since no actual examples of RS were presented by those making this argument”. As Jtbobwaysf points out, there were three inline citations supporting the sentence about the lab leak. The closer did not correctly assess the policy-based arguments made by the supporters, nor the RSes involved. The current stable state of the article should have had more deference by the closer in light of the comments that were provided. The closer also commented about WP:MEDRS which was mentioned in the May 2020 RfC, '''not this one''', so that stipulation was inappropriate. [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk:SmolBrane|talk]]) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
::The "stable state" argument is laughable and HORRIBLE circular logic. The article is stable, therefore we shouldn't change our restrictions. But the reason it cannot be updated is BECAUSE of the restrictions. No restrictions like these should be enacted ''and'' held in place when they are demonstrably not in alignment with our [[WP:PILLAR|five pillars]], specifically, NPOV (and with that RS) + no firm rules. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 20:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree with your last sentence and I think you misunderstand my position; the lab leak theory was mentioned and linked to for six months prior to this RfC, despite the consensus 14 not being formally overturned. [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk:SmolBrane|talk]]) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was concurring with you :-) [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


===Discussion===
== A question for Administrators (and others interested) ==
*Please note that the template link (above) "Discussion with closer" is linking to the user's mainspace talk page however the user recently archived their talk page, could another editor please assist to link to the correct archive link which is [[User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close]]. Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 05:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*:{{Fixed}}, I think. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


Ignoring the massive discussion, the facts are abundantly clear. I went [[WP:BEBOLD]] and invoked [[WP:IAR]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Current_consensus&diff=prev&oldid=1222902214]. [[WP:BRD]] if you feel I'm in error. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I am considering advancing a proposal. Because it might increase the admin workload and perhaps create a new notice board similar to AIV and UAA I would like to first ask for some opinions here. If this is not appropriate, accept my apologies and remove the thread as misplaced. I think there should be a direct option, at some appropriate screen, perhaps the one when selecting (cur | prev), to request RevDel, for certain egregious examples which qualify for redaction. I would propose that when a user, presses Revdel, the edit is reverted as in rollback, and a report filed to a notice board for admin consideration. Of course the decision to redact would rest where it properly exists now, and abusive reporting should be discouraged, and carry consequences. But for the most blatantly obvious, which fit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revdel#Criteria_for_redaction the criteria] a mechanism for reporting could increase use of this perhaps underused resource. I would anticipate it as a good fit to bundle as a Rollbacker user right. Thank you and please comment regarding the merits of such a proposal. '''[[User:My76Strat|<span style="background:red;color:white">My</span><span style="background:red;color:white">76</span>]][[User talk:My76Strat|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Strat</span>]]''' 10:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


:I went ahead and reverted your [[WP:SUPERVOTE]] that goes against the RFC result, and the emerging consensus here. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
:I like the idea. There would have to be a confirmation dialog though, to avoid accidental requests. &mdash; [[User:Pyfan|Oli]] <sup>OR</sup> [[User_talk:Pyfan|Pyfan!]] 10:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::Well, I wasn't the closer, so it wasn't a [[WP:SUPERVOTE]]. As for the rest, I do not see the same consensus. People here appear to be much more concerned about debating process rather than doing the correct thing by deprecating a "rule" that is clearly not being followed and a clear consensus on both Wikipedia and IRL. The idea that we should stick to restrictions imposed a few months after COVID hit vs what we know now four years later is absurd. [[WP:IAR]] could easily fix this and so could anyone with half a brain that isn't fixated on procedural hurdles.
::{{NAO}}: It is a good idea, but there is a possibility of misuse. I think a better way is to have a link that allows for easy access reporting to RFO for RevDel and Oversight. Instead of having to go to [[WP:RFO]], click the link, fill out the email with the links, wait for a reply, rinse, repeat. Just a button for reporting, or something like that in TWINKLE or HUGGLE. Putting it in Rollbackers access would be bad. RevDel should only be for admins. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;">Neutralhomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;">Talk</span>]] • [[Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Media and Telecommunication Policy spring 2011 (Obar)|<span style="color:#18453b;">Coor. Online Amb'dor</span>]] • 10:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
::All that said, I was bold. It was reverted (I hold no ill will against anyone for such an action). Time to discuss. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 18:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


== Marketing-related draft essays ==
:::[[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] wasn't saying that revdelete powers should be given to rollbackers, but rather that rollbackers should have access to a link that makes it easy to request an admin revdelete something. &mdash; [[User:Pyfan|Oli]] <sup>OR</sup> [[User_talk:Pyfan|Pyfan!]] 10:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Ah, gotcha! My goof. :S Then this is a definite good idea. Should be put into the other links we already have. The link should just forward the information to the RFO email address, with a checkbox for RevDel or Oversight to make it easier on the admins. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;">Neutralhomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;">Talk</span>]] • [[Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Media and Telecommunication Policy spring 2011 (Obar)|<span style="color:#18453b;">Coor. Online Amb'dor</span>]] • 10:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
:::::I agree, and to clarify I do not suggest rollbackers be able to RevDel, Only that perhaps the one button report should be part of their user right. Or as you stated it could be part of twinkle and available to a wider user base if that is deemed appropriate. Just like AIV and UAA, the action must be accomplished by an admin. I only suggest a streamlined mechanism to initiate the report. Thanks for your interest and response. '''[[User:My76Strat|<span style="background:red;color:white">My</span><span style="background:red;color:white">76</span>]][[User talk:My76Strat|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Strat</span>]]''' 10:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm slightly confused: how would this work technically? Or are you saying that you'd like to gauge interest and then find out if it would work technically? The idea sounds very good; my only hesitation is on the actual implementation side. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 12:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I am really gauging for the opinion of the user group most impacted by the possibility of an increased workload. I think the technical aspects are less daunting, but could be wrong. And the important considerations are likely to be highlighted from a discussion here. For example I hadn't considered, but acknowledge the importance of a multifaceted tool. One which could append the majority of reports to a noticeboard while allowing the necessary ability to divert some of the more sensitive reports through oversight. And the benefit of a redundant confirmation to reduce false reporting and accidental clicks. So yes, all of this seems within reasonable reach and I do appreciate every response. I know there is likely to be some valid opposition and I eagerly anticipate that as well. '''[[User:My76Strat|<span style="background:red;color:white">My</span><span style="background:red;color:white">76</span>]][[User talk:My76Strat|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Strat</span>]]''' 13:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I posted a question to the techs on the IRC and this response seems to corroborate my assumptions: "It could be implemented in the software, but it shouldn't be too hard to do it in JavaScript, or even as a new feature in something like Twinkle". '''[[User:My76Strat|<span style="background:red;color:white">My</span><span style="background:red;color:white">76</span>]][[User talk:My76Strat|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Strat</span>]]''' 13:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::This sounds like a very good idea to me. Decreasing the visibility of RevDel requests would be a good thing; the current practice of posting them on a widely-read noticeboard is less than ideal for obvious reasons. Could all the requests appear on a Special: page that only admins could see? That would seem preferable to a public queue, if it's possible to implement it that way. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 13:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::You could simply have twinkle send a report to AIV marked with '''!!''' or something similar. No separate noticeboard needed. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] <sup>[[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]]</sup> 13:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:Neutral on the noticeboard issue but adding an extra link to Twinkle when viewing diffs (next to the current rollback/revert links in red/green/whatever) seems reasonable. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


As of late we've been seeing a glut of drafts at [[WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk]] which, on a read, appear to be essays about some aspect of the sales process. A (very likely incomplete) list is:
== Arbitration motion regarding Ebionites 2 ==
*[[Draft:Sales Blunder]]
*[[User:Bhukya Gangadhar Naik/sandbox]] (Deleted under [[WP:U5]])
*[[Draft:Understanding The Seller]]
*[[User:L N MANISH/sandbox]] (Deleted under [[WP:G12]])
*[[Draft:A day in the life of a salesman/woman]] (Deleted under [[WP:G2]])
*[[Draft:Science of Persuasion]]
*[[Draft:Traits of a Successful salesperson]]
Our best guess is that this is possibly a class on marketing which is being taught outside of WikiEd's purview, with the end result being the instructor is essentially setting his students up to fail. However, this is just speculation, and I'd rather first figure out if there are any more of these drafts out in the wild and then go from there. I'm not inclined to call for blocks or bans just yet - but if the scale of this is much bigger, there possibly needs to be a discussion on how to more easily ferret out rogue classes like this. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|AE thread summaries]]</small></sup> 16:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


:New one just popped up at AfC/HD: [[User:Sravanthi chekka/sandbox]]. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|AE thread summaries]]</small></sup> 06:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Per an <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=417548648#Interim_motion interim motion]</span>:
<blockquote> The request for arbitration is accepted (titled Ebionites 2). However, the case will be held in abeyance for four weeks to allow mediation to proceed. After four weeks, or earlier if the mediation is closed as unsuccessful, the Committee will reexamine the situation to determine whether the case will proceed or be dismissed.</blockquote>


== IP now in Algeria ==
''On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,'' [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 14:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


The IP is now behaving with the same behavior as the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#IP%20from%20France]]. I will list out my concerns.
:'''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Ebionites 2|Discuss this]]'''


The editor removes other editors' original research [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taraka_Ramudu&diff=prev&oldid=1221661190] while adds their own [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vennira_Aadai_Moorthy&diff=prev&oldid=1221670358]. The editor seems like they want to promote Telugu i. e. they add Telugu to non-Telugu actors films [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poornam_Viswanathan&diff=prev&oldid=1221681067] and remove non-Telugu films from Telugu actors [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L._B._Sriram&diff=prev&oldid=1221665415] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahmanandam_filmography&diff=prev&oldid=1221664161]. I'm having a feeling that this person does not speak English and is good with French after one of the French IPs used début instead of debut.
== Sandbox page ==


The editor seems to have an ocean of knowledge in regard to older films without articles and adding missing films. If the problematic edits were not done, this editor is doing a fairly good job. If only you guys could find a way to make them communicate. [[User:DareshMohan|DareshMohan]] ([[User talk:DareshMohan|talk]]) 04:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
{{Resolved}}
Please bring back the following sub-page, which i had previously gotten deleted:
* [[User:Joyson Noel/José Gerson da Cunha]]
Thanks. [[User:Joyson Noel |<big><FONT FACE="Haettenschweiler" COLOR="#ff0000">Joyson Noel</FONT></big>]][[User talk:Joyson Noel |<small><sup><FONT FACE="Haettenschweiler" COLOR="#ff0000"> Holla at me!</FONT></sup></small>]] 16:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:{{done}} - in future you can ask for a [[WP:REFUND]]. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 16:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


:{{courtesy link|Special:Contributions/105.99.197.187}} '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 04:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
== QuackGuru again - what do I do now? ==


== [[Ecotechnics]] and [[Ecotechnology]] ==
Ok, I'm at a loss. A while back I asked for a site ban on {{user|QuackGuru}} for deeply tendentious editing practices, which you guys saw fit to deny (that's fine, I bow to your judgement on that), but now I have no idea how to deal with him. The current issue - which is another manifestation of the behavioral problems I had with QG previously - is at the [[pseudoscience]] article. There is an ongoing tussle over the removal of a paragraph (you can see the RfC statement [[Talk:Pseudoscience#RfC_-_problematic_paragraph|here]], which contains links to the paragraph in question and the abstract of the source involved). The removal of the paragraph and source is a bit contentious, for reasons I have a hard time understanding, but I seem to be getting the basic point across to most people, slowly and painfully. However, I keep running into the following issues with QG:
* He continually harps on [[wp:V]] and [[wp:RS]], even though no one is arguing that there is a problem with the reliability or verification of the source.
* He never addresses the issues of [[wp:WEIGHT]] and [[wp:SYN]] that are the core of the problem with the paragraph, despite the fact that I and others have stated numerous times that that is where the issue lies
* He continually makes claims in the vein ''"...no editor has given justification for deleting text..."'', when in fact two or three threads on the talk page are ''filled'' with reasoned justifications for removing the text
* He constantly accuses me or others of OR or other policy violations in edit summaries and text: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APseudoscience&action=historysubmit&diff=417282094&oldid=417280467], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APseudoscience&action=historysubmit&diff=417293573&oldid=417290329], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APseudoscience&action=historysubmit&diff=417481666&oldid=417475146], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APseudoscience&action=historysubmit&diff=417504353&oldid=417495517], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APseudoscience&action=historysubmit&diff=417815284&oldid=417747388]
I can handle the content dispute perfectly well, for the most part - that's just a matter of walking people through the logic of it enough times so that they see the sense of the removal - but there is no way to handle someone who simple refuses to address (or is incapable of addressing, maybe) the pertinent issues. His attitude (as far as I can tell from his monomaniacal focus on [[wp:V]]) is that he is going to defend the use of this quote come hell or high water, completely ignoring any assertions that the quote is being misused, that the author is being misrepresented, that the source is being taken out of context... It's like being trapped in one of those funky, depressing existentialist plays where the meaning of language itself is denied.


Sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place, but [[Ecotechnics]] and [[Ecotechnology]] appear to be two articles about the same thing. I could be wrong because I have trouble understanding exactly what the ecotechnics article is about. The ecotechnology article is easier to understand, but it is almost entirely copied from [https://web.archive.org/web/20061019022958/http://www.mps.si/ips/echo.htm here]. Perhaps someone who understands this subject could have a look? [[User:Counterfeit Purses|Counterfeit Purses]] ([[User talk:Counterfeit Purses|talk]]) 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
So, you guys want to keep QuackGuru around as an editor - okayfine. Now, tell me how to get him to use even a ''modicum'' of common sense and reason so that we can have a proper discussion on the page. I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm ''very'' capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly. We don't want that (or at least I don't), so give me another solution. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 19:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


:The Ecotechnics article is about a philosophical idea, so it's a separate thing from the Ecotechnology article. Someone with better skills for handling copyright issue should look at [[Ecotechnology]], the original version[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecotechnology&oldid=42155560] was a direct copy of the link mentioned.[https://web.archive.org/web/20061019022958/http://www.mps.si/ips/echo.htm] However the current article has been substantially changed, with only a small amount of copied material remaining.[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Ecotechnology&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20061019022958%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.mps.si%2Fips%2Fecho.htm] -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:Editors have repeatedly added/restored [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pseudoscience&curid=23768&diff=417834422&oldid=417831677 OR to the article] while deleting source text and I have addressed the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=417815284 context issue]. What are editors supposed to do when Ludwigs2 and other editors continue to restore text that failed V and delete text that is well sourced. Ludwigs2 and other editors are unable to provide [[WP:V]] when asked to provide V. [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|talk]]) 20:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


== Please undelete incorrectly speedily deleted article (now at AfD): [[Kalloor]] ==
Given how the last discussion of this type ended (see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive220#Community ban for User:QuackGuru]]) I think the best thing we can hope for is that some of those who at the time were against a ban get involved at [[WP:Pseudoscience]] to get some first hand experience with QG's behaviour. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 20:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
{{resolved}}
See [[Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Kalloor]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalloor]]. The article was at AfD when it was speedily deleted, something that the deleting admin politely apologized for not noticing while also saying they are too busy to undelete right now (errr.... shrug). It is a technicality, I believe we have a rough consensus to not speedy delete but delete through regular AfD. I hope someone here can click the right button instead bureaucratically directing me to another forum, TIA. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 00:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
: Done. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 02:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::Might need to undelete the talk page too, the last edit on the article is referencing it. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80B2:ED01:19B2:48CF:F504:23F5|2804:F14:80B2:ED01:19B2:48CF:F504:23F5]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80B2:ED01:19B2:48CF:F504:23F5|talk]]) 03:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Good idea. Thanks @[[User:Zero0000|Zero0000]] - can you click the undelete button once more? TIA, <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 03:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::: Done. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 06:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


== Please review my block [[User:Blaze The Movie Fan]] ==
:Hans Adler, you blindly restored OR [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=417132506 after it was discussed on the talk page] and in my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=417135410 edit summary]. Your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=417158643 controversial edit is being discussed on the talk page]. Do you agree you won't restore the text that failed verifaction when you are unable to provide V. [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|talk]]) 20:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
{{atop|Block has been adequately reviewed. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 17:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)}}
::Regardless of any problem with QG, L2 should be banned from any discussion which involves interpretation of policies and guidelines. I admit I've crossed paths with him, before, but he has a — interesting — interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is any issue with the block, which was the unfortunate yet inevitable conclusion to an editor having stress issues they could not resolve. Let's leave it at that. As they may themselves ask for review, given their latest posts about "abusive admins", I figure it is better to simply put it out here and let others opine as to whether my actions were appropriate or not. It's not the usual circumstance, and was done as a last resort to prevent further disruption, but in the interest of transparency, I ask for review. I won't post diffs, a look at their contribs should be sufficient when combined with their talk page. As always, any admin is free to modify my actions without my prior permission if they feel I've made a mistake. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 07:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::(ec) QG, I don't think it's a good strategy for you to ignore [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APseudoscience&action=historysubmit&diff=417834422&oldid=417831677 my detailed explanation] after you responded to it.
*'''Endorse''' {{user|Blaze The Movie Fan}} A block is the only way to draw the problems to a close. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 08:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::Also, since when do you refer to yourself in the third person? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APseudoscience&action=historysubmit&diff=417834422&oldid=417831677] How many accounts do you have? [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 21:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' Wikipedia is not a group therapy session. Editors with mental health issues are welcome to edit productively which may be therapeutic in some cases, but are not permitted to act out disruptively. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 08:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::You cannot explain away the OR and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=417135410 blindly ignoring my edit summary]. But you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=417132506 stop doing] what other editors are doing. I asked here if you agree to stop restoring OR but you did not give a specific answer here. I don't think it is good strategy for any editor to continue to restore OR. Do you agree with any of my comments. [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|talk]]) 21:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' (surely non-admins can endorse too?) Very reasonable reaction to a likely coming [[WP:SBA]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 10:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*:<small>Yes, anyone can give their opinion, endorse or oppose. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 10:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)</small>
*'''Endorse''' I'm actually one to champion that Wikipedia can be therapeutic, even the criticism one receives, but that is not without limits and is no excuse to be disruptive. Dennis, your action was done with care and concern for protecting the encyclopedia, the community, and the editor. I appreciate your efforts. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 10:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' [[WP:NOTTHERAPY]] applies here. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 13:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' again. Blocks are preventative not punitive - there to protect the project and to give editors some time out to reflect when they need it. That's exactly what you've done here. Good block. [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 13:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. I'll paraphrase a hard lesson I've learned very, very, recently: If you find Wikipedia hurting your mental health and/or your ability to communicate, it would be for the best to disengage for a long while so that you don't fuck up and find yourself dragged here or elsewhere. Or if you cannot disengage for some sort of reason, it would be better to say or do as little as possible so that you don't dig yourself into a hole. You can try to come back once you start feeling better. [[User:The Night Watch|<span style="color:black;"><span style="font-size:110%">''The Night Watch''</span></span>]] [[User talk:The Night Watch|<span style="color:brown;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(talk)</span></span>]] 13:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*Good block, obviously, but I can't help but wonder whether opening yet another discussion is a good idea. I don't doubt your intentions in opening this, of course, but it seems to me like the last thing this user needs is a bunch of other people dogpiling endorsements of their block. Perhaps it would've been better to leave well enough alone. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 17:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*:Well, fwiw, the editor seems to be in favor. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Experience closers needed in discussion ==
No substantive new material means this complaint is not going to get anywhere very fast at all. Like or hate QG's queries, the response to a question about whether precise wording is found in a cite is a matter of providing ''the precise wording found in the cite.'' [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 21:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:That's a clear and logical way of dealing with the situation, and as such violates long-standing community norms. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


There is a need for experienced closers to participate in the discussion at: [[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles]]
As far as I can tell this is basically a content dispute about whether a particular paragraph is [[WP:OR]] etc., and as such it does not need admin attention. Please use [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], for which this board is not a venue. <p>But I am concerned about the following statement by Ludwigs2 above: "I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly." That sounds like a threat to me. Threats are [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|not an acceptable mode of dispute resolution]]. Ludwigs2 has previously been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludwigs2&diff=240156443&oldid=240043979 warned] that they may be subject to discretionary sanctions if they violate community norms in the pseudoscience topic area. I therefore invite Ludwigs2 to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for making threats against others. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 21:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:I have to agree that there is a festering problem with [[User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru's]] editing. He is delaying the development of the [[pseudoscience]] article by repetitious insistence on irrelevant trivialities. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC).
::If there is a persistent problem with this editor's editing then the correct place to raise it would be [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru]] or, in this topic area, [[WP:AE]] (but only with solid evidence). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 22:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Thanks, I wasn't aware of that thread. It seems that QG has been generating concern in more areas than this one. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 23:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC).
Looking at the talk page it appears the foxes are trying to take over custody of the henhouse. Thanks to Ludwigs2 for bringing the situation to wider attention. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 22:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:Absolutely. Any chance of us ever making pseudoscience advocacy a blockable offense in and of itself? That would do the most to calm these contentious areas down.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 22:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::No. Arbcom once passed [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Serious_encyclopedias |this]], but present-generation Arbcom has increasingly distanced itself from that view. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 22:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


The discussion centers on if it is permissible to return to discussion you had closed, wait (in this case 4 days), then reopen it, change the outcome, and perform a mass move. In this case, it is a [[WP:BADNAC]].
::: @ Boris: hunh?


The claim is being made that this is common and within closing guidelines [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_May&diff=prev&oldid=1222062940].
::: @ Sandstein: with respect to this being a content dispute: no, this is a behavioral issue. The content dispute can be handled properly if QG can be convinced to discuss the matter rather that simply obstruct the discussion. However, If you you really think this is the wrong venue, say so and I will close this thread and move it to arbitration enforcement. I think I can reasonably ask for a topic ban for QG under the pseudoscience arbitration ruling.


I think this would be a horrible precedent to set, but either way it needs to be clear if this is acceptable. <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b>&nbsp;//&nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&nbsp;::&nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&nbsp;</b></span> 18:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::: With respect to your other point: hunh? what are you talking about?


:{{ping|TimothyBlue}} I'd advise you to reword this notification. Using non-neutral notifications to bring attention to a consensus-seeking discussion is considered an [[WP:INAPPNOTE|inappropriate notification]] under [[WP:CANVASSING]]. [[User:ModernDayTrilobite|ModernDayTrilobite]] ([[User talk:ModernDayTrilobite|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ModernDayTrilobite|contribs]]) 19:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
:::@ kww: are you referring to me as a 'pseudoscience advocate' because I'm trying to remove [[wp:synthesis|synthesis]] from an article?


:I've been closing discussions, to include move requests, for many years, and this is just part of the process. An editor closes an RM, another editor discusses it on the closer's talk page, the closer then makes a decision to leave things as they are or to change things that need to be changed. It is not unprecedented for that part of the process to take several days while I or other closers mull it all over. Don't know why you think it's "horrible", that's just how the process works sometimes. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>01:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)</small>
::: @ everyone: please note that QG started right in here (at this thread) doing exactly what I'm complaining about: focusing on V and RS, ignoring other editor's comments, accusing people of policy violations. All I can do is thank him for the examples. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 22:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac]] closed ==
Blocking for pseudoscience advocacy would potentially mean anyone proposing edits in any article that even looks like they think the subject is real could be blocked if enough anti-whatever editors are involved. That would be the last nail in the balance coffin. Why not look at the fact that QG is not willing to negotiate his position. [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler|talk]]) 22:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


An arbitration case regarding [[User:Mzajac]] has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in February to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Mzajac requested it within three months. Because Mzajac has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac#Motion to suspend]].
:Tom, they are not being serious. they are just trying to insult/intimidate me in the hopes that I will react badly. this is a standard tactic (one I experience all the time from these editors), so don't give it too much thought. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 23:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::Actually, Ludwig, I am quite serious. This particular event is a symptom, not the disease. QG does seem to be acting out of frustration, which never leads to good results. I simply believe that removing the source of the frustration is the best solution. To Tom: balance doesn't include treating pseudoscience as real. Never has, never will, and editors that believe that presenting pseudoscience in a favorable light is necessary to achieving balance don't have sufficient [[WP:COMPETENCE|competence]] to edit.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I fully agree with you. The source of the disruption is QuackGuru's incompetence. If you find a way of removing that I will be most obliged. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 00:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
:::More seriously, it's not Ludwigs2's fault, or at least only to a small extent, when editors fantasise that the removal of nonsensical claims that amount to saying that astrology and creationism are quackery and a threat to public health is "presenting pseudoscience in a favorable light". If you don't like pseudoscience, you shouldn't support pseudoscientific methods such as taking statements of academic sources out of context and make them appear to say things that are clearly absurd and were never intended by the authors. The real way to make pseudoscience appear in a favourable light is by turning the [[pseudoscience]] article into something that looks as if written by a kook. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 00:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
{{userlinks|Ludwigs2}} has not withdrawn or addressed the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=417834067 threat] with respect to another editor referred to above ("I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm ''very'' capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly"). Considering their block log, in order to prevent such conduct from reocurring, in application and enforcement of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions]], I am blocking Ludwigs2 for 72 hours. <p>Everybody else, please remember that [[WP:AN]] is not a dispute resolution forum. Please take your concerns to the appropriate venues per [[WP:DR]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac closed}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 21:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->


== AFD ==
:On Hans' comment @ 20:52 about people who opposed a ban:
:I asked most of them for help with QuackGuru at a different page last month, and the response was underwhelming, with all but two editors refusing to lift a finger. It left me with the sour impression that a majority of people opposed to a ban don't care how much QuackGuru hurts Wikipedia, so long as it doesn't inconvenience them personally. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
::Now that Sandstein has decided to shoot the messenger, at least part of this mess is going to be looked at by Arbcom. Probably a good occasion to spend the effort necessary for solving the problem once and for all. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 00:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


could anyone start the AFD [[Artur Orzech]] on my behalf? [[Special:Contributions/178.164.179.49|178.164.179.49]] ([[User talk:178.164.179.49|talk]]) 07:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
*Sandstein, I hope you'll consider unblocking Ludwigs. Our failure to ban QuackGuru is an example of AGF extended to the point of a suicide pact, but then the people who say no to the ban move on; they don't stick around to help deal with his edits. So Ludwigs brings it here, and ends up blocked because his language was a little aggressive. That seems unjust. <font color="black">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|TALK|]]</font><font color="lime">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|CONTRIBS]]</font></sup></small> 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
*Both QG and Ludwigs2 can be, for lack of a more discreet term, serious pains in the ass. (As can I.) But the block is totally disproportionate and Sandstein should be censured for such a hamfisted move. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 01:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
===Request unblock===


:Hello 178.164.179.49, the page now exists (empty); please go ahead. Next time, please provide the deletion reason too. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 07:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Ludwigs2]] was blocked for his comments at ANI, "I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:AN&oldid=417866404#QuackGuru_again_-_what_do_I_do_now.3F] However, despite the administrator saying that he would block Ludwigs2 is he "decline[d] to respond to this concern if you do not do so within two hours of your next", he blocked him forty minutes later after he requested the administrator explain what comments he was referring to. Ludwigs2 has offered to redact his comments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ludwigs2#Your_recent_AN_thread] Therefore request unblock. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


== Probable vandalism ==
:The words he used about shouting down another editor etc. (to wit: "'' if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly.''") violates ''every principle on civility ever enunciated by ArbCom''. His responses that he would seek desysopping of Sandstein was ''extraordinarily ill-advised''. He appeared, at best, to be using a complaint about an editor when the issue was clearly one of a content dispute, and seeking action against Quackguru was inapt at best. I suspect that he will, indeed, not be unblocked, and may actually have his block extended. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 01:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
:::{{facepalm}} With your comment you gave the signal for the mob against Ludwigs2 to form. Don't you think it's about time for you now to acquaint yourself with the actual background? Quackguru's failure to communicate in a meaningful way is hardly a content dispute. He has even demonstrated his behaviour here at AN. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 01:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inah_Canabarro_Lucas
::[[WP:BOOMERANG]] strikes again. I've got the article watchlisted and will keep an eye on it. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;">[[User:N419BH|<span style="color:Black;background:#FFD700;">N419</span>]][[User talk:N419BH|<span style="background:Black;color:#FFD700;">BH</span>]]</span> 01:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
:::''That'' is the appropriate way to handle the situation: get more eyes on the article. Not with trying to get people sanctioned or making disproportionate responses to bluster. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
:We don't expect editors to cause disruption in order to get their way, no matter how nefarious the opponent is alleged to be. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
::Respectfully advise administrators to reduce block to time served. Penalty was disproportionate. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 02:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC).
Considering the user's statement that he will redact the comments that the blocking admin found to be a threat, adding that he didn't mean the comments to be a threat of disruption, the comments here by editors who support unblocking, and the fact that this block is a long stretch of the ArbCom pseduoscience restrictions, I'm going to unblock Ludwigs2. At this point, the block is punative, not preventive. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">☥</span>]]</small> 02:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
* Sandstein correctly identified a threat to cause diaruption and acted on it as an AE measure, which allows braod discretion. They asked for a response from Ludwigs2 within a time frame and the response was "what exactly are you referring to?" and "hunh? what are you talking about?". Since the subject under discussion was abundantly clear, this could be either complete failure to grasp the point, or wiki-play to make someone else do more work. Either are grounds to proceed in areas covered by AE special discretion. However, S set a timeframe of 2 hours to respond adequately and blocked well before then. In addition, the "warning" cited by S [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludwigs2&diff=240156443&oldid=240043979] was actually a "notification". It explicitly says that normally there will be another warning, except in cases of "serious disruption". I see no such case here. The discretionary sanctions allow wide latitude, so I can't support an unblock. I'd urge Sandstein though to re-examine the duration with a view to unblocking if Ludwigs2 will retract the statement and also agree not to carry through with the threat and pursue avenues of dispute resolution. [[User:Franamax|Franamax]] ([[User talk:Franamax|talk]]) 02:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
*I have granted the unblock request by this user. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">☥</span>]]</small> 02:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
:Well that was a seriously bad move. Can you show evidence of your discussion with the admin who blocked under AE remit? Or consensus of uninvolved admins or even all editors for that matter that overriding a discretionary block was warranted? [[User:Franamax|Franamax]] ([[User talk:Franamax|talk]]) 03:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
:The show must go on, I guess. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 03:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
::This was an extremely inappropriate unblock. Here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=349940199#Motions_regarding_Trusilver_and_Arbitration_Enforcement] is the motion by arbcom regarding the undoing of discretionary sanction blocks. I see neither written authorization from arbcom nor a significant consensus of uninvolved editors to unblock. Furthermore, the unblock was done by an admin who has advocated fringe topics and has had significant content disputes revolving around pseudoscience. [[User:Skinwalker|Skinwalker]] ([[User talk:Skinwalker|talk]]) 03:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


People have made this lady over 1,000 years old, and someone else should look to see what is valid. I tried to sort it out, but it appears that valid edits are mixed in with vandalism. [[User:Quebec99|Quebec99]] ([[User talk:Quebec99|talk]]) 11:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
:::There was consensus for an unblock, and AE allows unblocks in those cases. Also, I'm not sure Sandstein should have blocked under AE in the first place, because it was clear the block was going to be contentious, and it was made in response to Ludwig's request for help here, not for behavior on the article or talk page. [[User:SlimVirgin II|SlimVirgin II]] ([[User talk:SlimVirgin II|talk]]) 04:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
*It was just simple vandalism. Someone has already reverted it. Nothing special. Feel free to revert obvious vandalism like that. I went ahead and semi-protected it for a bit since there has also been some other minor issues. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 13:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
::::I strongly disagree there was consensus for an unblock. This is not (or at least shouldn't be) a race to see who can shout the loudest the quickest, and pick the first five. Which editors commenting here are uninvolved in previous discussions? (Not discounting myself as uninvolved either) [[User:Franamax|Franamax]] ([[User talk:Franamax|talk]]) 04:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:49, 9 May 2024

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Open tasks[edit]

    XFD backlog
    V Feb Mar Apr May Total
    CfD 0 0 40 8 48
    TfD 0 0 1 6 7
    MfD 0 0 3 0 3
    FfD 0 0 3 1 4
    RfD 0 0 51 30 81
    AfD 0 0 1 8 9


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (71 out of 7724 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Assembly theory 2024-05-09 01:47 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; previous protection level has not been sufficient; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Dumraon Raj 2024-05-09 00:34 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA Daniel Quinlan
    On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians 2024-05-08 19:28 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
    Jaffa riots 2024-05-08 04:31 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq
    Russia–Ukraine relations 2024-05-08 03:05 indefinite edit,move Enforcement for WP:GS/RUSUKR; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Rapunzel's Lantern Festival 2024-05-08 02:35 2024-05-15 02:35 create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    Dhadhor 2024-05-07 19:28 2024-06-07 19:28 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content Ponyo
    Background of the Rafah offensive 2024-05-07 18:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Sophie Anderson (actress) 2024-05-07 13:21 2024-11-07 13:21 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Draft:Karintak operation 2024-05-07 12:48 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA enforcement Firefangledfeathers
    Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-07 06:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Robertsky
    Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived/Archive 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/February 2009 election/Oversight/Lar 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/WJBscribe 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/White Cat 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dmcdevit 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/AntonioMartin 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Everyking 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grawp 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Lesser General Public License 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Filiocht 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/BillMasen 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/FayssalF/Questions for the candidate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Snowspinner 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Kmweber 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Hemlock Martinis 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Fish and karate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Lifebaka 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Vassyana 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/AGK/Questions for the candidate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Dream Focus 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Blankfaze 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Merovingian 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    User:Halibutt/Archive 15 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Shell Kinney 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Proposed decision 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Year-linking responses 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Trial/Votes 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed decision 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Wizardman 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Wizardman 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dbiv 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 2 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Coren 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Rlevse 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Alexia Death 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Privatemusings 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Charles Matthews 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    User talk:Leonidlednev 2024-05-07 03:26 2024-10-08 05:50 move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Yusufzai 2024-05-07 02:34 indefinite edit make ECP indef Daniel Case
    Islamic Resistance in Iraq 2024-05-07 02:15 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Palestinian political violence 2024-05-07 02:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: restore previous indef ECP Daniel Case
    Battle of Beit Hanoun 2024-05-06 22:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    A-1 Auto Transport 2024-05-06 21:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated ToBeFree
    Killing of Sidra Hassouna 2024-05-06 19:17 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I ToBeFree
    China 2024-05-06 08:12 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: upgrade to WP:ECP due to long term and sustained disruption from multiple confirmed accounts El C
    Module:Chart/Default colors 2024-05-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2583 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Module:Chart 2024-05-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2578 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Draft:Cheese 2024-05-05 17:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pppery
    Revisionist Zionism 2024-05-05 12:54 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian
    Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024 2024-05-05 12:22 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Universities and antisemitism 2024-05-05 07:00 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: inextricably tied to WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    User:Zee Saheb 2024-05-05 06:19 2024-06-05 06:19 create Repeatedly moving drafts to User space Liz
    User talk:Fathia Yusuf 2024-05-05 06:03 indefinite edit,move Foolishly moving a User talk page Liz
    Battle of Krasnohorivka 2024-05-05 04:30 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C
    Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure 2024-05-05 03:40 indefinite edit,move This does not need to be indefinitely fully-protected Pppery

    RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss[edit]

    WP:RSN (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

    Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Notified: [1]

    Reasoning: The following is copied and modified from my post at Chetsford's talk page. I think that Chetsford's close was generally correct, but I think that this aspect is an incorrect assessment of consensus: A few editors suggested that, regardless of outcome, it should not be used for WP:BLPs. No direct reasoning was presented for that, however, some indirect reference to our policies could be divined within the greater context of the remarks of those editors and these suggestions were not really rebutted. I searched the RfC and "BLP" was used six times in the discussion. Only two of those mentions are in relation to the reliability of the source, and as Chetsford noted, neither provided any direct reasoning:

    • In addition, based on some of the past statements linked, a use for BLP or politicised situations within the fog or war would be very reckless at best.
    • Yeah, I have very little faith in their editorial review which go beyond WP:BIAS and regularly WP:Fringe. At best, they really shouldn’t be used for anything related to BLP, Russia and Israel, at worst (and IMO this part is most likely) a full depreciation may be in order.

    The only indirect reference to policy is to BIAS (as FRINGE is a guideline), and Chetsford discounted that argument in another part of the close. I can't really divine[] what other policies these editors may or may not have been thinking about. I'm not sure what past statements the first commenter is thinking about, and without more reasoning, I wouldn't say that this single argument is strong enough to establish a consensus that Mondoweiss should not be used for BLPs just because nobody happened to rebut it in a long discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved[edit]

    • Endorse close Amend While the specifics of BLPs weren't addressed in-depth, it's a reasonable addendum for clarity. They can be used but people should be careful with each individual article...not sure why that's not a blanket statement for every source on Wikipedia. For example, the NYT has published some egregious "journalism", but that doesn't mean it's always wrong on the basic facts. Every source should be evaluated for accuracy on its merits. If I say "Person AB said in an op-ed '<insert quote here'" and then cite it, there's very little reason to doubt that statement is true, but quoting it for purposes of establishing it as something that's true is inappropriate without additional verification. Buffs (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Amended: This sounds like a WPian hearing what they want to hear. There isn't a need to add additional steps beyond what we normally do if people are going to abuse that to exclude the contributions of others. I'd prefer to keep it as-is, but I certainly can see that point. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow...the EXACT reason I said it SHOULD be included was used...#clairvoyance Buffs (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend Remove the BLP clarification: 1) Regardless of the sources' reliability, we always them with great caution for biographies of living people. 2) No valid reason was given for why Mondoweiss should be treated differently from the other RS. 3) Such an unneeded clarification can easily be misconstrued to mean that Mondoweiss shouldn't be used for BLP. Just this week, one of the RfC participants used the close statement to claim that we should avoid using Mondoweiss for BLP. Obviously, it ended up in RSN again. M.Bitton (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend to remove the statement about BLPs. If only two editors made an unsupported assertion and nobody else discussed it, then it isn't a valid part of the consensus. I'm all for interpreting arguments to try and pull a consensus out of the flames where it isn't obvious, but "divining within the greater context" in this manner is a left-field supervote and should be removed. The rest of the closure is reasonable. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend per M.Bitton and Wordsmith. We already treat BLP with caution, and this issue was not discussed enough to reach consensus. If needed, a new discussion on how to use MW with regard to BLP can be made. Meanwhile, I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6 to conclude that option 3 should be reached. Note that since option 2 is essentially the middle ground, option 1 and 3 have the same weight, but option 4 has twice the weight of option 1 when skewing option 2. This doesn’t seem very fair, and then rounding 2.6 to 3 because of this is increasing the unfairness, leading to essentially 13 editors overruling 21 editors. starship.paint (RUN) 03:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A-men Buffs (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Two minor points of clarification: I have zero problem with amending per above and, while I can't -- objectively -- read the RfC that way, I would personally be glad to see this outcome.
      That said, I am concerned that some editors are reading the aggressive and misinformed arguments of two relatively new editors on the "anti-" MW side who have attempted, very poorly, to summarize my close and assuming those summaries accurately represent the close. The only closing statements I wrote are this one and this explanatory comment, both of which are much more modest than the way in which two editors are summarizing them to make sweeping changes across multiple articles. To avoid the further spread of this misinformation, I would ask, as a personal favor, that editors attempting to describe my close (regardless of where you land on it) reflect only on the source material, and not the apocrypha it's spawned. To wit:
    • "I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6" The "average" of 2.6 was never used for anything (and, yes, I realize the incidental appearance of this meaningless number in the close has been fixated upon by the aforementioned editors to make major changes to articles). As per the text of the close rationale, the number 2.6 was simply noted as "indicative but not definitive as per WP:NOTAVOTE" and then immediately discarded as "not clearly learning toward either option" before the narrative analysis began.
    • "to conclude that option 3 should be reached" The RfC close reached no such conclusion in any dimension of time or space; in this reality or any parallel reality that the mind of man can conceive or imagine. It stated that no "consensus as to its underlying reliability" emerged which, if anything at all, was a "2" close (but, actually, no consensus).
    To summarize, this was a "no consensus" close with a relatively modest (and not proscriptive) BLP corollary described by Buffs in this first (now stricken) comment. The fact my loquacious reasoning, intended to promote transparency, instead provided an opening to wedge in battleground behavior is beyond both my control and mandate (RfC closers are not RfC enforcers). Chetsford (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarity...I think... :-) Buffs (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Chetsford: - perhaps there has been a misunderstanding, you quoted from me, but I was not referring to your RfC close. I was referring to the below analysis by FortunateSons. I apologise for my vagueness having caused confusion. starship.paint (RUN) 08:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved[edit]

    • I've archived my discussion with Voorts here for ease of review (versus diffs). For what it's worth, considering the contentious topic area involved, I am in full agreement with Voorts that review of the close is appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend close to read "and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution for biographies of living people." I don't think that the relative silence on the issue should have been construed as agreement with the two editors raising that specific, there was a lot else going on in the discussion besides that, especially since one of those editors appears to have construed the close as a license to remove citations for BLPs. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend close to 3 (Gunrel), optionally clarify the statement about BLP requirements per the qualifiers suggested by Chetsford per the arguments made by @Chess and @BilledMammal, which were not sufficiently addressed; also using the votes as an indicator. Acknowledging that I advanced the BLP arguments poorly (and thanking @Chetsford for his generally accurate deciphering of what I meant), I would suggest the following, in the spirit of his comment made here, @Bobfrombrockley here and as a compromise: used with great caution for biographies of living (and recently deceased) people, and not to be used in cases of (a) for statements that, if proved false, would be legally defamatory; (b) for extraordinary claims (c) for analytical statements about the person; (d) for quotes and facts the accuracy of which is contested by RS or the subject him/herself. In addition and as a partial clarification, perhaps e) should be content marked as activism and similar would be appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're going to need to bolster your opinion more than "we should do what I want", when support for #2 had ~6.5:1 support over yours. This is not the place to relitigate this RfC, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I‘m pretty sure you’re off on the math, as I voted 4 (which obviously endorses 3 over 2). That option obviously does not have consensus (and just for the sake of clarity, removal of problematic BLP uses is not backdoor deprecation, the overwhelming majority of MW uses are non-BLP or unproblematic). The straight vote count (as stated by Chetsford) has the average at 2.6, and of the counted votes, 14 votes included at least 3 (including 2 or 3), while 21 did not, of which an overwhelming amount were 3 or lower (please check my math).
      I was unaware that we are not supposed to reference specific points when requesting a reassessment of the outcome, and have struck that part, except in context of the phrasing to avoid (light) plagiarism. Thanks for making me aware, this is one of my first contributions to such a noticeboard :) FortunateSons (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When giving a list of options (1. Action A 2. Action B 3. Action C 4. Action D and 5. Action E), saying "the average is 2.6 so we should choose option 3" is a horrible misunderstanding of statistics. You are heavily weighting all other actions other than #1 (Example, 20 people !vote 1, 2 people !vote 2, and 3 people !vote 5, the "average" is 2 despite an overwhelming preponderance of people !voting 1...in other words, a 5 is worth 5x a 1). Rounding up only further exacerbates the issue. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Second attempt at a more policy-compliant argument, please correct me if this one is also wrong:
      The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed, and similar arguments where not fully rebuffed in general; therefore, the section regarding BLP should remain as is, or be alternatively clarified while remaining in the spirit of discussion and close.
      Regarding the status of the entire source, I believe that the arguments made by those voting for „higher than 2“ should have led to a close of 3, and respectfully request that it is amended (as well). FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed" They were addressed. You just didn't agree. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend per The Wordsmith. My own views on the source aside, the issue of BLP use was barely discussed - there was no consensus on it one way or another, so to assert one in the closure seems odd. The Kip 19:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't object to the amendment that is being proposed here, because I think it goes without saying that any source where there are serious reliability concerns should be used with extreme caution in BLPs, especially where content is potentially defamatory. While no consensus was reached, given that 15 out of 36 !votes (I think) were for an option higher than 2 and only one editor considered option 1, this is obviously a source with serious reliability concerns. My only worry is that editors will take this amendment as permission not to use extreme caution with the source on BLPs or, worse, that this source has somehow been cleared for use in BLPs, so I hope that editors supporting this amendment will be vigilant in ensuring that we do not use this poor source inappropriately in BLPs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion[edit]

    • Could we get an admin to close and amend this. Consensus seems quite clear. Buffs (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits from The Banner[edit]

    I would like to request another perspective on edits made by TheBanner. I am uncertain about their intentions, as they seem to be consistently reverting many edits, often citing WP:CIR, I know my edits are not perfet however I have seen problems. For instance, my addition of a military service module on Chuck Norris's page—similar to those on Morgan Freeman and Elvis Presley—was removed with the rationale that Norris is "not known for his military service." Although this is true, the inclusion of such a module can be informative. Furthermore, there have been issues regarding WP:Civility; TheBanner has described my edits as "cringe" and made sarcastic remarks, asserting that competence supersedes civility. This focus on my contributions has been puzzling, and I would appreciate an external review. My editing history is publicly accessible, and I anticipate that TheBanner might respond to this discussion. I am simply seeking additional opinions on this matter. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact, I have a severe concern about the competency of User:LuxembourgLover to edit wikipedia. The main problem is his failure to judge the due weight of many items, resulting in him writing articles about tiny events. I just point to Talk:Luxembourg rebellions, Talk:Morrisite War, Draft:Battle of Amalienborg and USCG Auxiliary Flotilla 6-9 (and related Talk:United States Coast Guard Auxiliary). The Banner talk 00:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Banner, that response would have been so much better if you'd but the first sentence and a half. You're probably right in suggesting (?) (the diff above must be off) that competence supersedes civility, but that doesn't mean that a lack of civility isn't problematic. I don't think the comments here rise to a blockable level or I wouldn't be commenting, I'd just block, but I wish you'd think twice before pushing "Publish changes". Drmies (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even advice to use a spell checker (done by multiple people) is ignored. AfC-drafts turned down within a couple of hours. Copyvio. I have even requested a third party to take up some coaching (what he agreed to). But see also Talk:Morrisite War and Talk:San Elizario Salt War#Info box. The Banner talk 09:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note I have two well done drafts waiting review. Draft:Latter-day Saints Militias and Military Units and Draft:Hector C. Haight. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Drmies on this one. Tempers have clearly run a bit high (or patience has run out) but I'm not seeing any need for admin action this time around.
    Regarding long term behaviour in the section below, it's worth remarking that the "February 2023" thread actually relates to activity in December 2022; the other threads listed are obviously from even further back. While it's sometimes important to examine long term behaviour patterns, we really don't need to drag up old threads every time a new one is created. I appreciate that it wasn't resolved to everyone's satisfaction as The Banner was cut some slack due to his computer issues, but some kind of statute of limitations seems appropriate.
    One final thing for me to say here is that The Banner and I come from opposite sides of the Irish Sea and both edit in the often-controversial British Isles area. That means we encounter points of disagreement semi-frequently, yet I've always found The Banner to be civil, polite and patient, abiding by consensus and policy in those discussions. Obviously that's just my own experience but I felt it was worth adding some balance to this thread. WaggersTALK 13:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Banner history of hounding and disruptive editing[edit]

    The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has more than several blocks for disruptive editing

    There's more. Why are we still here ? Drmies, my friend, it's time to stop defending this editor, who is a bully. It's time for a site ban. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me correct you on your first bullet: I had a computer crash. It took me months to recover from that. I had never seen that discussion before I came back. The Banner talk 13:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you have seen it and now you can respond to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I had never seen that discussion before I came back." To be blunt, SG has more AGF than I do. You were clearly informed about it and had an opportunity to respond. If you are going to archive everything so quickly, you need to go back and check your archives. Regardless of others' behavior, yours continues unabated. I side with SG here Buffs (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The case was closed before I came back. And as said, the break was not because of my own free will but due to a broken hard disk. The Banner talk 12:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's here now, and with two responses, you aren't addressing the long-term issues: hounding of Another Believer and SusanLesch, faulty tagging of a most clearly notable article, and your history of generally disruptive editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And, yet, you still have not responded, despite being back online for almost a year + being informed of this issue for 4+ days now. You've found the time to make 100+ edits. Buffs (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Last chance to reply... Buffs (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to ignore this user for nearly twelve years, since he made an edit in support of the sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salty Fingers (plant). I'm rather surprised that the editor is still allowed to edit, given the long-term disruption shown. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless it is your contention that The Banner actually knew he was supporting sockpuppets, I'm afraid I don't see how that discussion from almost a dozen years ago is relevant. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this is an attempt to show a long-term pattern of disruptive behavior. Beyond that, I would concur it's irrelevant. Admins, can take the input and assess what it's worth. Buffs (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what's inherently disruptive about voting keep in an AfD. I'm sure that the case against The Banner can be made without dredging up grudges from more than a decade ago. Heck, I'm pretty sure I've had a beef or two with him, although the specifics are lost to my memory. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SPI[edit]

    I hate doing this because I know there's a backlog at SPI but seeing this sock-master being so militantly aggressive in steamrolling their POV to the point where it's unsettling, using numerous burner accounts, openly making a mockery out of Wikipedia and manipulating people, time and time again deceiving or attempting to deceive admins in which he nearly succeeded multiple times, and him taking advantage of the long time it takes for SPI reports against him to be looked at, has me extremely concerned. I want to proceed with dealing with some of his more active, disruptive accounts but for that I'd need to deal with the current accounts in his SPI as it would establish precedence and bolster future cases. If possible, can this SPI be dealt with soon? It's been languishing for over a month now. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    3 others, including 2 admins, have expressed concerns that the first account Historian2325 is a SPA, by the way. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone thought of making the following change to Wikipedia:CheckUser to see whether it works.
    OLD - "The CheckUser tool is used by a small group of trusted Wikipedia users (called checkusers)."
    NEW - "The CheckUser tool is used by a very large group of trusted Wikipedia users (called checkusers)."
    Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure if there's a double meaning behind your comment, but the reason I'm so concerned is because this sockmaster is currently operating an account which is creating an extreme amount of disruption and illegitimately subverting Wikipedia's processes by brazenly vote stacking. He's so incredibly relentless that it's unnerving and to see him time and time again evade accountability is nauseating. It'll become more clear once I file the report. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my perfect world we would all be checkusers, or there would be a very large number of them. Socking in Wikipedia is, for me, maybe one of most important unsolved issues here. Wikipedia's rules-based system breaks down when there are 2 sets of editors, one set that has to follow the rules and the other that does not because they effectively have unlimited number of lives. Using deception as a tool is pretty common in Wikipedia, especially in contentious topic areas, and the resources allocated to deal with it don't seem to match up with its corrosive effects. As you say, important processes that sample community views like RSN, RfC, AfD etc. are particular susceptible to the negative effects of deception. On the other hand, it's quite funny that we are training generative models using content that is partly the product of dedicated pathological liars. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we can make that wording change to the policy. A more actionable idea might be asking some admins with spi experience to apply to be checkusers, to help with the backlog. Although in this case, the delay is actually clerk endorsement, which doesn't require a checkuser. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but wouldn't the endorsement of 2 admins be a suitable substitute for clerk endorsement? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the spi rules say that? I think it's supposed to be clerks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest removing the IP addresses as a checkuser will not link IP addresses to accounts plus most have been inactive for sometime, between one and six months, and no action is likely to be taken because any disruption by these IPs is neither recent nor ongoing. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't put the IPs/proxies because I wanted them to be blocked but rather because the sockmaster has many different proxies at his disposal which helped his other accounts like Finmas and Dazzem evade CUs. The former was found "Unrelated" and then "Inconclusive" by CUs. It was later revealed that the Finmas account was exclusively using VPNs, which is what I had originally suspected. I figured that listing some of his proxies that I've dealt with before might help CUs establish a technical connection. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here isn't a lack of CUs, the problem is that you've written a 20,000 byte wall of text that is going to be a major slog for someone to read through. If you want people to read and action an SPI case you need to present the information as concisely as possible. CUs and admins are volunteers and SPI is chronically backlogged - most SPI regulars coming across that case are just going say "TLDR", pass over it and go deal with another, better presented, case.
    You need to trim this down drastically to just the key evidence.
    • Rather than listing out a dozen IPs that haven't been used for months you could just write "This sockmaster has used VPNs to evade checkuser detection in the past"
    • Instead of writing massive long paragraphs of background information about how certain edits are POV pushing to inflate certain figures and how this is related to Sikh military accomplishments you could just point out that the edits are similar.
    • Instead of writing out massive bullet points where you describe every edit a sockmaster and suspected sockpuppet have made to a page you could just point out that this new account has returned to a page that they have edited in the past.
    • There is a ton of unnecessary "This is the nail in the coffin", "PS: Maplesyrupsushi is a legitimate and excellent editor/content creator, ..." "Keep in mind this is a small sample of edits, there are hundreds of more edits like this." type commentary that adds nothing to the case but severley bloats the wordcount.
    Looking through the page history it looks like you've had issues with wall of text reports in the past [2] and you were asked to cut your reports down to a more reasonable length 2 months ago [3]. Remember that SPI clerks and Checkusers have a lot of experience dealing with sock puppetry and don't need the basics explaining to them. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advice, I've trimmed some of the details in the SPI. I think the current version is much more digestible. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Other editors have also been complaining about the POV pushing from SPAs listed in the SPI. As I've said before, the disruption that this sockmaster is creating is ridiculous. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the SPAs even tried to illegitimately delete an AFD notice on an article-[4]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC closure review request at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14[edit]

    COVID-19 pandemic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

    Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Notified: User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion

    Reasoning: The closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. #1 closer ignored roughconsenus pointing to "the discursive failures that occurred in this RfC." #2 the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred to Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Discussion in which I stated ""Controversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China.[34]" Note that no editor made an RS claim in the discussion on the oppose side, thus the closer seems to have improperly summarized the discussion and rather than summarizing instead pointing to his own view of lack of RS, MEDRS, and discursive failures (none of which were not discussed in the RFC). When I sought to discuss the close with the closer on their talk page, the closer instead failed to WP:AGF stating "I know it wouldn't be as personally satisfying" and going on to say "we may sometimes feel shorted if our comments aren't recognized." Note, I had not been asking the editor why my "comments aren't recognized", I instead asked the editor to justify their own novel claim that no RS were provided in the RFC. #3 eventually the closer goes on to contradict themselves apparently stating "As already noted in the close, the RfC should have been an easy consensus close to strike #14" as if some procedural failure in the RFC didnt gain such consensus, I suppose pointing the editors vague claim of "discursive failures," rather than the very succinct explanations of many of the editors that participated in the RFC. In summary, the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus, instead suggesting that the RFC be run again and explained "I've reviewed it and decline to reverse." The discussion with closer (and additional information) can be found User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close. I adding it here as something is amiss with the template link above, maybe due to the closer archiving their talk page recently. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved (COVID19)[edit]

    This close was within the threshold of reasonable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't recall ever editing that article so I think I'm uninvolved. Will strike if mistaken. The closure looks entirely reasonable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What does it even mean to "strike down" a consensus? In this case, that consensus is a documented statement that the lab leak theory shouldn't be mentioned. Does "striking it down" mean removing the consensus statement because it's used to preempt discussion/proposals? Or does it mean finding consensus to talk about the lab leak in the article? If the former, given the way documented past consensus serves to limit present discussion (for good reason, in many cases), I'd think we'd need affirmative consensus to retain it, and not just default to it with no consensus. If the latter, it's worded oddly and it's hard to see that RfC as yielding a clear result. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, my reading of the discussion would be that it's attempting the former. —Sirdog (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say any other editor in good standing reviewing that discussion could reasonably find the same result. I am unconvinced by the challenger that the close is fundamentally flawed. —Sirdog (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Overturn This seems to be a clear supervote and WAY outside what reliable sources state. At this point, any restriction on this viable theory is political in nature and feels very much like the last vestiges of clinging to "no, I can't possibly be wrong". Buffs (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved (COVID19)[edit]

    • Comment by Closer: While I personally would like to have seen the RfC close in favor of the RfC proposal , I ultimately closed it as "no consensus" (not as "a consensus against" as, I believe, the challenger thinks occurred).
      As I read it, the challenge seems to spin on four assertions advanced by the challenger which I summarize here to the best of my understanding:
    • A belief that (a) ROUGHCONSENSUS is a synonym for Referendum, and, (b) consensus was achieved by process of majority vote.
      In their request for review on my Talk page, the challenger invoked WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to repeatedly demand the RfC be treated as a referendum or plebiscite and reversed on the apparent basis that the "count" [5] of "votes" [6] (6-4 in favor of the RfC - though challenger claimed it was 7-1 [7] somehow) favored the RfC proposal.
      I repeatedly counseled challenger that this was WP:NOTAVOTE, pointing to our WP:CONSENSUS policy which explicitly describes that a simple majority does not represent the "sense of the community" described by ROUGHCONENSUS in the absence of strength of policy-based argument. The challenger appeared non-plussed by this. Here, challenger goes on to again advance the false premise that "the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus", based on their insistent belief that consensus was achieved by a simple majority headcount.
    • A belief that it's the closer's duty to engage in textual analysis of sources presented across the project and the zeitgeist, rather than arguments made in the RfC.
      The challenger writes that "the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred"
      This, again, appears to be a severe misunderstanding of the close by the challenger. RS was mentioned merely as part of the closer's formulary recitation of facts and summary of arguments made which is a customary and perfunctory part of the close. Nothing involving "RS" was part of the close rationale. (Nor is it the responsibility of the closer to evaluate the alleged "hundreds" of RS. Closes occur based on strength of policy-based argument, not the closer's independent and original evaluation of source material.)
    • A belief that geopolitical factors must be taken into account in closing RfCs.
      The challenger explained in the RfC, on my Talk page, and now here, that "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." as an example of an unrebutted argument, apparently in the belief that the lack of rebuttal to this assertion tips the scale in favor of the RfC. But the RfC is the place to argue the application of WP policy. The state of Sino-American relations is completely irrelevant to the application of WP policy.
    • A belief that an (alleged) lack of social grace afforded to an editor is cause to overturn a close.
      The challenger explains "the closer instead failed to WP:AGF" in his discussion with the challenger, nested as part of their appeal to overturn. Accepting, for sake of argument, that I did fail to AGF in a discussion on my Talk page with the challenger, failure to AGF in a Talk page discussion is not a rational cause to overturn a close. Closes are overturned due to some failure of the close itself, not as a sanction against the closer when we believe we were not treated with the deference we feel we deserve.
    As I repeatedly said, this should have been an easy RfC to pass. Policy (and, frankly, reality) favored it. But those policies were never argued by the participants. For the closer to invoke his independent awareness of policy would be a WP:SUPERVOTE and, moreover, completely unfair as it would deny the opposing side the opportunity to rebut. I suggested to the challenger that if they were to rerun the RfC and remedy the significant defects in their first attempt it would almost certainly pass. They appear to be disinterested in doing that. Chetsford (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This response by the closer is further astray:
    • First the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus, see WP:NHC.
    • Second the closer talks about a nonsensical duty to provide textual analysis of sources. This is laughable. The closer failed to notice there was an RS mentioned in the RFC (and ignored the sub-article as well) and stated these omissions in the close. The closer argued that a lack of RS in the RFC was a justification for the close, and failed to understand that #34 was an RS.
    • Third, in responding to this review the closer is confused of even the subject of the RFC. "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." is the exact text in the article at the time of the RFC that is being discussed in this RFC. I was discussing the text of the article, and even put it in quotes. I am confused if the closer even read the RFC at this point. I have never made an argument that any geopolitical blah blah must be taken in to account. Where is this coming from? You will find this exact text quoted verbatim here in the article at the time of the RFC.
    • Forth the AGF issues are simply me pointing out that the closer has chosen solely himself to paint this in some sort of personal issue, and continues to not understand the content that was being discussed (see #3). Note I have always been civil to this closer as well as everyone in the RFC, this argument is baseless, a strawman, and an odd response.
    • Fifth, RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy nor RFC policy, it is the closer that applies the policy to the arguments offered by the participants. In this RFC we are simply discussing if the RS support the text in bold (that the closer seems to be confused is my words), if due weight should be given to wikilink (a link that is prohibited under consensus #14), and if the consensus #14 on the article was appropriate given the text in bold and the current state of RS.
    Seems the closer failed to grasp the RFC and still hasnt bothered to review it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus" I'll just note again, here, that this is a furiously repeated statement based on a false premise. As I have explained many times, there was no consensus to ignore. That's why the RfC closed as "no consensus" (versus "consensus for" or "consensus against"). I appreciate your view that your "count" [sic] [8] of the "vote" [sic] [9] led you to believe the 6 of 10 editors in favor of your RfC constituted a consensus, however, as detailed in our policy WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not determined by plebiscite and your RfC was not a referendum. I sincerely regret if you were under a different impression.
    "RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy" Sure, you aren't "required" to present policy-based argument, but by your decision not to do so, you ended up with the result you got here. Please see WP:NHC: "... after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue ... [if] discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". Chetsford (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which editors made arguments that you felt met this criteria "after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" and why? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you mean by reality? Can you explain what you meant by that? FailedMusician (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We could start here, but this is only a beginning... Buffs (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean it's very clear the actual state-of-the-world does not support a proscription such as #14 and this RfC should have resulted in a consensus to strike it, in my opinion (indeed, #14 should never have been put in place to begin with). And had I been a participant in the discussion, I would have sided with the strike camp. But I wasn't a participant, I was the closer, and for me to close this as "a consensus to strike" when only a bare majority of participants - advancing virtually no cogent policy arguments - supported that would constitute a SUPERVOTE and be out of compliance with our WP:CONSENSUS policy. Suppressing my innate knowledge of the external world beyond WP and deciding on no set of facts beyond what was contained in the RfC, it was clear there was no consensus (as undesirable of an outcome as that is). Chetsford (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not concur with your assessment. Majority opinion, professional opinions, WP consensus within the article, general consensus on the RfC, and a host of other options all show clearly that this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded. This is exactly the kind of reason we have and should use WP:IAR. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded" - I agree with this
    "This is exactly the kind of reason we have and should use WP:IAR." - I disagree with this. Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by SmolBrane: In the close, you(Chetsford) stated that “First, several editors in the oppose camp note that consensus can't occur implicitly in this case (the opposite of what we usually observe in WP:EDITCON), since #14 established a clear consensus and the mere presence of content against consensus that may have gone unnoticed doesn't overturn it.”
    The presence of content against the formal RfC consensus for six months on a high traffic article (8k views per day!) SHOULD overturn the two year old RfC. That's the whole point of implicit consensus—not to mention that this was the long-standing stable state of the article. TarnishedPath made the same error “Arguing that the content has been in the article for a while is putting the cart before the horse.” Why would we undo a six-month old undisputed edit here? We should not presume that the bold edit went 'unnoticed'--this is not a valid exception w/r/t WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Implicit consensus has a great deal of weight on a contentious article with 2,200 watchers. The RfC establishing consensus #14 from May 2020 is very old in COVID-terms, and this RfC only had three keep !votes, which means only three individuals wanted to revise the article to a retroactive state—a situation that should require more opposers to stray from the current stable and long-standing state.
    Aquillion made a similar error “Sometimes things fall through the cracks even on high-traffic articles”. Bold edits are not “falling through the cracks”, This is again a lack of understanding of policy, and the collaborative nature of the project. Those !votes(Aquillion and TarnishedPath) likely should have been discarded.
    Both Crossroads and IOHANNVSVERVS made strong arguments in favor of striking, based on new sourcing and WP:NOTCENSORED respectively. Ortizesp and Lights and Freedom also made strong cases in relation to coverage by sources.
    The closer evidently erred “since no actual examples of RS were presented by those making this argument”. As Jtbobwaysf points out, there were three inline citations supporting the sentence about the lab leak. The closer did not correctly assess the policy-based arguments made by the supporters, nor the RSes involved. The current stable state of the article should have had more deference by the closer in light of the comments that were provided. The closer also commented about WP:MEDRS which was mentioned in the May 2020 RfC, not this one, so that stipulation was inappropriate. SmolBrane (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "stable state" argument is laughable and HORRIBLE circular logic. The article is stable, therefore we shouldn't change our restrictions. But the reason it cannot be updated is BECAUSE of the restrictions. No restrictions like these should be enacted and held in place when they are demonstrably not in alignment with our five pillars, specifically, NPOV (and with that RS) + no firm rules. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your last sentence and I think you misunderstand my position; the lab leak theory was mentioned and linked to for six months prior to this RfC, despite the consensus 14 not being formally overturned. SmolBrane (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was concurring with you :-) Buffs (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion[edit]

    Ignoring the massive discussion, the facts are abundantly clear. I went WP:BEBOLD and invoked WP:IAR: [10]. WP:BRD if you feel I'm in error. Buffs (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I went ahead and reverted your WP:SUPERVOTE that goes against the RFC result, and the emerging consensus here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I wasn't the closer, so it wasn't a WP:SUPERVOTE. As for the rest, I do not see the same consensus. People here appear to be much more concerned about debating process rather than doing the correct thing by deprecating a "rule" that is clearly not being followed and a clear consensus on both Wikipedia and IRL. The idea that we should stick to restrictions imposed a few months after COVID hit vs what we know now four years later is absurd. WP:IAR could easily fix this and so could anyone with half a brain that isn't fixated on procedural hurdles.
    All that said, I was bold. It was reverted (I hold no ill will against anyone for such an action). Time to discuss. Buffs (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Marketing-related draft essays[edit]

    As of late we've been seeing a glut of drafts at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk which, on a read, appear to be essays about some aspect of the sales process. A (very likely incomplete) list is:

    Our best guess is that this is possibly a class on marketing which is being taught outside of WikiEd's purview, with the end result being the instructor is essentially setting his students up to fail. However, this is just speculation, and I'd rather first figure out if there are any more of these drafts out in the wild and then go from there. I'm not inclined to call for blocks or bans just yet - but if the scale of this is much bigger, there possibly needs to be a discussion on how to more easily ferret out rogue classes like this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New one just popped up at AfC/HD: User:Sravanthi chekka/sandbox. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 06:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP now in Algeria[edit]

    The IP is now behaving with the same behavior as the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#IP from France. I will list out my concerns.

    The editor removes other editors' original research [11] while adds their own [12]. The editor seems like they want to promote Telugu i. e. they add Telugu to non-Telugu actors films [13] and remove non-Telugu films from Telugu actors [14] [15]. I'm having a feeling that this person does not speak English and is good with French after one of the French IPs used début instead of debut.

    The editor seems to have an ocean of knowledge in regard to older films without articles and adding missing films. If the problematic edits were not done, this editor is doing a fairly good job. If only you guys could find a way to make them communicate. DareshMohan (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Courtesy link: Special:Contributions/105.99.197.187 LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ecotechnics and Ecotechnology[edit]

    Sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place, but Ecotechnics and Ecotechnology appear to be two articles about the same thing. I could be wrong because I have trouble understanding exactly what the ecotechnics article is about. The ecotechnology article is easier to understand, but it is almost entirely copied from here. Perhaps someone who understands this subject could have a look? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Ecotechnics article is about a philosophical idea, so it's a separate thing from the Ecotechnology article. Someone with better skills for handling copyright issue should look at Ecotechnology, the original version[16] was a direct copy of the link mentioned.[17] However the current article has been substantially changed, with only a small amount of copied material remaining.[18] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please undelete incorrectly speedily deleted article (now at AfD): Kalloor[edit]

    Resolved

    See Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Kalloor and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalloor. The article was at AfD when it was speedily deleted, something that the deleting admin politely apologized for not noticing while also saying they are too busy to undelete right now (errr.... shrug). It is a technicality, I believe we have a rough consensus to not speedy delete but delete through regular AfD. I hope someone here can click the right button instead bureaucratically directing me to another forum, TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Zerotalk 02:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might need to undelete the talk page too, the last edit on the article is referencing it. – 2804:F14:80B2:ED01:19B2:48CF:F504:23F5 (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Thanks @Zero0000 - can you click the undelete button once more? TIA, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Zerotalk 06:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review my block User:Blaze The Movie Fan[edit]

    Block has been adequately reviewed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I don't think there is any issue with the block, which was the unfortunate yet inevitable conclusion to an editor having stress issues they could not resolve. Let's leave it at that. As they may themselves ask for review, given their latest posts about "abusive admins", I figure it is better to simply put it out here and let others opine as to whether my actions were appropriate or not. It's not the usual circumstance, and was done as a last resort to prevent further disruption, but in the interest of transparency, I ask for review. I won't post diffs, a look at their contribs should be sufficient when combined with their talk page. As always, any admin is free to modify my actions without my prior permission if they feel I've made a mistake. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse Blaze The Movie Fan (talk · contribs) A block is the only way to draw the problems to a close. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Wikipedia is not a group therapy session. Editors with mental health issues are welcome to edit productively which may be therapeutic in some cases, but are not permitted to act out disruptively. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse (surely non-admins can endorse too?) Very reasonable reaction to a likely coming WP:SBA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, anyone can give their opinion, endorse or oppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse I'm actually one to champion that Wikipedia can be therapeutic, even the criticism one receives, but that is not without limits and is no excuse to be disruptive. Dennis, your action was done with care and concern for protecting the encyclopedia, the community, and the editor. I appreciate your efforts. --ARoseWolf 10:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse WP:NOTTHERAPY applies here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse again. Blocks are preventative not punitive - there to protect the project and to give editors some time out to reflect when they need it. That's exactly what you've done here. Good block. WaggersTALK 13:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. I'll paraphrase a hard lesson I've learned very, very, recently: If you find Wikipedia hurting your mental health and/or your ability to communicate, it would be for the best to disengage for a long while so that you don't fuck up and find yourself dragged here or elsewhere. Or if you cannot disengage for some sort of reason, it would be better to say or do as little as possible so that you don't dig yourself into a hole. You can try to come back once you start feeling better. The Night Watch (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block, obviously, but I can't help but wonder whether opening yet another discussion is a good idea. I don't doubt your intentions in opening this, of course, but it seems to me like the last thing this user needs is a bunch of other people dogpiling endorsements of their block. Perhaps it would've been better to leave well enough alone. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, fwiw, the editor seems to be in favor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Experience closers needed in discussion[edit]

    There is a need for experienced closers to participate in the discussion at: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

    The discussion centers on if it is permissible to return to discussion you had closed, wait (in this case 4 days), then reopen it, change the outcome, and perform a mass move. In this case, it is a WP:BADNAC.

    The claim is being made that this is common and within closing guidelines [19].

    I think this would be a horrible precedent to set, but either way it needs to be clear if this is acceptable.  // Timothy :: talk  18:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @TimothyBlue: I'd advise you to reword this notification. Using non-neutral notifications to bring attention to a consensus-seeking discussion is considered an inappropriate notification under WP:CANVASSING. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been closing discussions, to include move requests, for many years, and this is just part of the process. An editor closes an RM, another editor discusses it on the closer's talk page, the closer then makes a decision to leave things as they are or to change things that need to be changed. It is not unprecedented for that part of the process to take several days while I or other closers mull it all over. Don't know why you think it's "horrible", that's just how the process works sometimes. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac closed[edit]

    An arbitration case regarding User:Mzajac has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in February to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Mzajac requested it within three months. Because Mzajac has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac#Motion to suspend.

    For the Arbitration Committee, Aoidh (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac closed

    AFD[edit]

    could anyone start the AFD Artur Orzech on my behalf? 178.164.179.49 (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello 178.164.179.49, the page now exists (empty); please go ahead. Next time, please provide the deletion reason too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Probable vandalism[edit]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inah_Canabarro_Lucas

    People have made this lady over 1,000 years old, and someone else should look to see what is valid. I tried to sort it out, but it appears that valid edits are mixed in with vandalism. Quebec99 (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • It was just simple vandalism. Someone has already reverted it. Nothing special. Feel free to revert obvious vandalism like that. I went ahead and semi-protected it for a bit since there has also been some other minor issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1222969003"