Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
EyeSerene (talk | contribs)
20,213 edits
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361) (bot
 
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 = 222
|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>

== Audit Subcommittee appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates ==

The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee|Audit Subcommittee]], and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2011 appointments|'''appointments page''']] containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to to [mailto:arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org].

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC) <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 48 hours after 23:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC) -->

: '''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Audit Subcommittee appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates|Discuss this]]'''

== Ban national(ist) barnstars ==

Dialogue among Wikipedia contributors is already heavy with all kinds of biases, including those caused by competing nationalisms. Barnstars that are nationally denoted, without carrying any other qualification, should be banned because (a) they promote divisiveness, when barnstars are supposed to be a playful pat on the back by a fellow wikipedian, and (b) actually denote a compromise in the principles of Wikipedia through rewarding contributors who act in the interests of a certain nationality, when contributors should be instead neutral and unbiased. Note that such barnstars are almost always "awarded" to fellow compatriots, thus adding to cliquishness and tribalism. (I submit a ''random'' example of such a barnstar for purely illustrative purposes.) -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 00:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC) <div style="width:70%;">
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: Aliceblue; width:100%;"
|rowspan="3" valign="top" style="width:5em"| [[Image:Barnstar of National Merit Albania.svg|50px]]
|rowspan="3" |
|style="font-size: x-large;font-color:blue; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The [[Albania|Albanian]] Barnstar of National Merit'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray; height:5em;"| For your work in Albanian pages, keep up the good work, cheers![[User:x|x]] ([[User Talk:x|talk]]) --x 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)(UTC)
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |<sub>''this WikiAward was given to y by [[User:x|x]] ([[User Talk:x|talk]]) --x 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)''</sub>
|}</div></div></div>
:I don't see anything wrong with them. They are used in a similar fashion like thematic barnstars. <font color="#082567">[[User:Armbrust|Armbrust]]</font> <sup><font color="#E3A857">[[User talk:Armbrust|WrestleMania XXVII]]</font></sup> <sub><font color="#008000">[[Special:Contributions/Armbrust|Undertaker 19–0]]</font></sub> 03:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
::Neither do I. Most WikiProjects, which this [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albania/Template|appears]] to have come from, has their own barnstar. [[WP:VIRGINIA]] has their own (see at the far bottom; my creation) and that is in the US. So, this isn't just countries, but states. It is something to award members of that specific WikiProject when they do well inside that WikiProject. - <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>]] • 03:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
:::Working "in Albanian pages" could mean helping keep them neutral, as opposed to acting "in the interests of a certain nationality". [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד&nbsp;מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od&nbsp;Mishehu]] 06:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
::::This probably belongs at [[WP:MFD]] or similar as its not really something admins have any particular influence over. I personally don't see the problem with this kind of barnstar, though I suppose it's possible for them to be misused by some editors (in which case the best response would be to sanction the editor using barnstars to reward bad behaviour rather than delete the barnstar itself, unless it was created for some kind of offensive purpose [eg, a 'barnstar of the greater Albania Wikicrusade']). [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 06:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

::::Re. Od Mishehu: Yes, in theory it ''could'' mean "helping to keep them neutral". In practice, it never does. I cannot remember ever having seen any of these "national" barnstars awarded in any scenario other than the one where it's awarded by one nationally-driven agenda account to the other in reward for helping to fight the fight. – The other thing is that even if they were intended in a neutral, constructive way, their wording and symbolism typically doesn't fit. Using terms like "national merit", together with political symbols like flags, practically screams "patriotism", i.e. a pro-nation-X agenda. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 09:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Here's one - [[User talk:KnightxxArrow#Barnstar]] -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Precisely. I was afraid people would focus on the Albanian barnstar, and this is what happened but Albania -or any other specific country- is not the issue. Picture any other flag here, your own country's, if you want. The issue is that national(ist)-tagged barnstars and symbols tend to worsen the significant and already extensive problem of competing nationalisms in Wikipedia editing. It is indeed, as [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] reminds us, extremely rare to see national barnstars awarded to someone for objectivity or pure encyclopaedic work. Time to re-adjust our focus, methinks. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

{{Award2
|image={{#switch:gold
|Gold|gold=CanadaGoldBarnstar.png
|Silver|silver=CanadaSilverBarnstar.png
|Red||CanadaRedBarnstar.png}}
|topic=The {{#switch:gold
|Gold|gold=Golden&nbsp;
|Silver|silver=Silver&nbsp;
|Red|red||=Red&nbsp;}}Maple Leaf Award
|text= Nation themed barnstars are not a problem, and for editors that work on articles related to a specific country, offer a nice local touch when rewarding good work. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 22:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
}}

:In principle, these barnstars are fine. I've awarded threeMalaysian barnstars of national merit: one to a quiet wikignome and the other two to editos who got Malaysian articles to FA or GA status. It's a way of recognising good work within a national wikiproject. But, they can of course be abused. Per NickD, if an editor is found to be giving barnstars to editors as a reward for pushing a nationalist POV the community, or if discretionary sanctions apply, administrators, can impose sanctions for battleground behaviour accordingly. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 18:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:: Agreed. I'm sorry, but the notion that these barnstars "''compromise in the principles of Wikipedia through rewarding contributors who act in the interests of a certain nationality, when contributors should be instead neutral and unbiased''" is nothing more than editor bashing. What The Gnome's statement contends is that one's heritage does '''<u>not</u>''' promote a desire to share and inform the world regarding that heritage based on reliable sources fairly and accurately represented and to bring awareness of that heritage to a wider audience. Rather, The Gnome tars and feathers as intrinsically disruptive to Wikipedia anyone with an identifiable national background. I suggest The Gnome work on promoting reliable content regardless of the venue instead of attacking editors ''en masse'' based on a label. This sort of insulting pontificating only polarizes the community and results in uninformed editors believing that their ignorance equals lack of bias, as if it were some sort of inoculation against ''by-definition'' biased editorial positions espoused by carriers of the nationalist plague. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small>&nbsp;<s>J</s>&nbsp;V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Why is my suggestion "editor bashing"? I raise the possibility of a certain act of "harmless fun" in Wikipedia degenerating into an incentive and a mindframe for biased, non-objective contributions. I have no specific editor in mind, nor any specific nationality. This is not about editors ("en masse"!) doing some ...horrible things on purpose but about the threats inherent in accolade and success. The rest of your post seems equally misguided ("insulting pontification") and full of ad hominems, so I cannot comment on it. I was hoping for an exchange of experiences of other editors and some informed opinions. Hopefully, we'll get some of that.-[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 18:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::: Of course it's editor bashing as your comment in no way discriminates "nationalist" bad from "nationalist" good. Wikipedia has already degenerated, barnstars are not a symptom, not an instigator, not a reward, not a problem. A barnstar is an "Atta Boy!" with a picture attached. Unless you are going to ban the passing of all on-Wiki congratulations between "nationalist" editors, there's no point in banning barnstars. The issue is not that I'm engaging ''ad hominems'', it's that you don't even realize your position regarding "nationalist" editors is itself an ''ad hominem''. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small>&nbsp;<s>J</s>&nbsp;V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 21:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::The issue is about the misuse and the excesses of nationalist viewpoints, already causing significant problems in wiki editing, the least of which is time wasting. There is nothing in Wikipedia about "nationalist editing", so, therefore, trying to protect the integrity of the site from it (by definition, a non-neutral kind of editing) is entirely legitimate. And, incidentally, this better not become a political discussion ("nationalist" good vs "nationalist" bad); the distinction between "good" and "bad" nationalisms is irrelevant to the point I'm making - and it's a point clearly about nationalist viewpoints going overboard here. (Call 'em "bad nationalisms" if you want.) It's gone beyong the "atta boy!" phase a long time ago. The barnstars, in themselves, are not the problem; but they do seem to amplify it. Let's turn down the volume a bit, I say.-[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 20:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:: Short version, discuss the edit not the editor. You do know that principle, no? Just because you're not naming anyone specific doesn't make your contentions any less offensive. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small>&nbsp;<s>J</s>&nbsp;V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 00:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Gnome has a point, albeit a philosophical one that applies to all barnstars, which isn't really that far from P<small>ЄTЄRS</small>&nbsp;<s>J</s>&nbsp;V's position. Creating boy scout badges means some scouts will aspire to get them all, and arguing they are not symbols of merit doesn't prevent them from being sported as such. If they have to exist at all, they should be for general merit relating to encyclopedic achievements devoid of all other characteristics. Facts are facts, right? Good copy is good copy no matter who writes it, right? A barnstar for contributions that suck but fill a perceived gap somewhere is just mutual masturbation.

That said, if barnstars really don't mean anything, why do they exist at all? That question is entirely relevant to the recent invite to comment on statistics about contributors and how to make newcomers feel more welcome (http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update).

<span style="border: 1px solid black;"><font style="background-color: black; color:#FC0;">Peter S Strempel&nbsp;</font> [[user:Peterstrempel|Page]] &#124; [[user_talk:Peterstrempel|Talk]]&nbsp;</span> 11:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

: What The Gnome decries is known purveyors of nationalist clap-trap trading barnstars with their cohorts. Quite frankly, I'm prepared to live with that. The (random) choice of Albania <u>is</u> telling, as twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, all of Eastern Europe is still held hostage to a general ignorance of its history. Bringing that history and culture to light is a noble purpose; casting aspersions based on labels one has indiscriminately hung on editors only serves the ignorance which those very same editors are seeking to dispel. I'm happy to receive any barnstar for any good work I've done. The Gnome's going around suggesting more ways we can rain on each others' parade doesn't do anything to make Wikipedia a friendlier place to contribute. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small>&nbsp;<s>J</s>&nbsp;V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 21:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
::Then, what about a HISTORY (or MODERN HISTORY; or POST-EASTERN BLOC HISTORY) barnstar? It would be awarded ("Atta boy!") to anyone who's judged by a fellow wikipedian to have contributed to that topic, ''irrespective of the specific topic's geography''.-[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 21:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

: As for making Wikipedia a friendlier place, that's not possible now that WP is at the top of every search engine. For every editor seeking to bring reputable balanced content to WP in an area of contention you have two trying to persuade us the Earth is flat. That is why Wikipedia is steadily losing editors. Unless you have a very thick skin and make the conscious choice to put up with the escalating level of crap, you leave. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small>&nbsp;<s>J</s>&nbsp;V]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 21:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

::On a personal level I couldn't agree more about flat-earthers and charlatans in droves trying to re-write history, adding utter nonsense and wasting everyone's time. I have been involved for some days now in an effort to ensure that certain aspects of Soviet history published on WP are reviewed to ensure accuracy, neutrality and an absence of the kind of revisionism that used to make unpalatable facts and people disappear from official records in the Soviet Bloc. But I don't see how doing so under the banner of any particular nation would assist; in fact, it might act as an automatic signal to distrust the motivations of the bearer. The efforts to improve WP must be neutral about nationality, and about personal loyalties or affiliations.

::It is true, too, that it would be entirely rational to walk away from time-wasting disputes fuelled by irrational zealots who count on the fact that some good-natured but wrong-headed admin will try to seek 'consensus', which is really to be understood as a term for killing truth in order to pander to personal agenda: there is no committee version of truth, which is never ever subject to a convenient consensus. But defining and defending truth is never a national concern for the same reasons. It must transcend all personal allegiances to stand on rationality and facts alone. I think this is what The Gnome was getting at.

::National emblems displayed with pride have their place, but not as adjuncts to discussions about language and sources worthy of an encyclopedia. Similarly, not all the barnstars in the world guarantee that their bearer has or will always produce worthy contributions, or that those contributions should not be subject to careful scrutiny, or that a many-decorated contributor's comments are always more worthy than those of others with no barnstars at all; truth, facts and rationality are not subject to any kind of seniority, rank, title or majority vote. That is why I am against barnstars of any kind.

::Having said all of that, I recognise that I am expressing a personal opinion fully contestable in open debate, and subject to the same rationality I try to champion. That rationality tells me that if people want barnstars, they will have them. My best effort, then, can only be to make my case, as I hope I have, and to keep making it when it is challenged on grounds that do not persuade me. For what it may be worth, and without meaning to patronise, I recognise in you, P<small>ЄTЄRS</small>&nbsp;<s>J</s>&nbsp;V, the kind of passion necessary to overcome the petty or sinister subversion of facts and rationality we have already touched on. But that will not happen if we walk away in disgust. Regardless of the outcome of this or any other debate, I hope to encounter many more engaged and interested people like you and The Gnome because I think no matter how much we may disagree or agree on any issue, by debate we learn from each other how to become more able not only as contributors to Wikipedia, but as versatile thinkers in our lives in general.

::<span style="border: 1px solid black;"><font style="background-color: black; color:#FC0;">Peter S Strempel&nbsp;</font> [[user:Peterstrempel|Page]] &#124; [[user_talk:Peterstrempel|Talk]]&nbsp;</span> 01:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that barnstars are abused is not a reason to ban them. I've seen barnstars abused, but amusingly, not wikiproject one, but regular ones (like giving a barnstar to another user for disruptive behavior...). Also, calling project barnstars nationalist is hardly nice. We have country-themed noticeboards, wikiprojectts and awards. I cannot speak for all of them, but the ones I am familiar with are quite helpful for this project. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

* If the objectives behind banning those barnstars will not practically be accomplished upon banning those barnstars, I would think it's a pointless exercise. That is, some could argue that some WikiProjects promote cliquishness and tribalism and that they promote divisiveness; given that, merely eliminating the barnstars will not accomplish anything useful because such contributors would still find ways to congratulate one another, praise one another's contributions, or to show their "pride" in some other manner which doesn't require the use of barnstars. And the converse can also be said about some WikiProjects; that they promote appropriate collaboration (in which event, the same could be said about barnstars when used appropriately/effectively). [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 04:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

* This request to ban nation-related barnstars reminds me, in a way, of the userbox wars of early 2006. Okay, a lot of things recently have reminded me of the userbox wars -- but I had to put that out there before I make my point. Which is the problem is not with the barnstar -- or the userbox -- itself, but in how it is used. If a barnstar is awarded for an edit which strengthened both Wikipedia & knowledge about a given nationality, that is a good thing. If a barnstar is awarded for an edit which weakens Wikipedia while promoting some nationalistic agenda, then it is a bad thing & the barnstar should be revoked & the person awarding it sanctioned. But that's just my opinion as someone who has contributed to Wikipedia for many years. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

*I don't really see it as a problem. While nationalist barnstars are given out to both NPOV and POV editors, it does not take long to realize which is which, and in the case of the later, it can be a useful warning that this marked editor promotes nation X's agenda, beware. [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 21:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

*Pretty much any flavour of barnstar can be abused, not just "nationalist". This is a moot proposal, and debate should be closed. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 01:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::That is very obviously false. Not "any barnstar" can be abused. Moreover, abuse (wrong, malicious use) of other barnstars at worst causes friction between sender and received. But nationalist barnstars indicate far more widespread and significant anomalies in Wikipedia. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 22:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Perhaps not "any", but certainly more than just the "nationalist" ones. I have seen examples of individuals (who shall remain nameless) who deal out barnstars for "reliable sources" and similarly innocuous-sounding things for pushing certain POVs. Indeed, I believe that the banning of "nationalist" barnstars would just open up the door for the abuse of otherwise innocuous ones.
:::"Nationalist" barnstars are as about as well-established as political userboxes. They serve some divisive purposes which are unappealing to those Wikipedians who refuse to deal with the fact that the encyclopaedia will inevitably end up becoming a forum for national/historical/policitcal/otherise-unspecified ideological battles. Banning them will pose an unnecessary headache. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 03:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
'''Support.''' These decorations serve primarily to create an even more welcoming atmosphere for [[WP:PLAGUE|nationalist cliques]]. This by far outweighs the benefit of easier identification of those cliques per Passionless (though I agree that such badges on userpages, sometimes combined with NPOV and similar userboxes, are a pretty good indication that something is wrong with that user as well as the one who decorated him.) The award templates should be redirected to show something like the box below:

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color:#FFEFEF; width:100%;"
|rowspan="2" valign="center" style="width:5em"|[[File:NYS NYW8-46.svg|125px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: large;font-color:blue; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''National Merit Award Notice'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray; height:5em;"| Editor [[Thud!|<Insert name here>]] has identified your edits to be of "national merit" and tried to award you a respective virtual medal. Those medals are typically designed like military decorations and are usually awarded by editors pursuing some [[WP:PLAGUE|nationalist agenda]] to editors they perceive to be "on the right side" in their virtual battles. Now there are two chances:
*If you find yourself <s>glorifying</s> duely presenting [[WP:TRUTH|true facts]] about that nation's greatness and heros and <s>messing up</s> correcting articles whitewashing that nation's enemies and traitors, '''go away.''' Neither the majority of people [[Imagined communities|you think of as your compatriots]] nor the majority of the wikipedia community will endorse your edits. If you have not yet come across an admin enforcing the respective arbitration or community restrictions against you, that has more to do with the admins than with you.
*If you reject the idea that your edits have any "national merit," you might chose to either ignore this notice or leave a respective message on [[Zarathustra's Roundelay|Talk:<Insert name here>]].''
|}
[[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 09:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. I'd have to oppose any ban on country-based barnstars. There are lots of country-specific articles that need attention, and the barnstars are a way to recognise good work. The majority of the world's countries don't attract nationalistic POV-warring, and those that do should not be allowed to spoil it for the rest -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 17:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
*:Oh, and the [[Wikipedia:Barnstars 2.0/Barnstar of National Merit]] versions are much nicer than the old ones - I awarded one recently for good work improving Cambodia-related articles. -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 17:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] ==

Got a mop but nothing to clean? Between today's ripe-for-closing discussions and the backlog, there's now an unprecedented 160 discussions needing to be closed (or relisted) at requested moves. We need some new blood. If you're unfamiliar with the area it can actually be quite educational and interesting. If willing to help out, but not very familiar, I'd suggest before plunging in reading:
*[[Wikipedia:Article titles]]
*[[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]]
*[[Wikipedia:Official names]]
*[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)]] and of course,
*'''[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions]]'''--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 04:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Here's a cheat sheet with some text that you might need to use a lot on closes, and some of the code and instructions for the mechanics of doing the close:
<pre><nowiki>{{subst:polltop}}</nowiki> '''move per request'''.--~~~~ ← replace the requested move template, just below the
---- ← section header, with something like this, as tailored
<nowiki>{{subst:pollbottom}}</nowiki> ← place at bottom of discussion

Fix double redirect ← edit summary when fixing double redirects

closing requested move survey; moving ← edit summary on the close
Requested move; see talk page ← reason given in text box when performing the move</pre>

I don't have a lot of backlog time available with "now" issues, but I am more than willing to help the inexperienced with history merges. I'm quite good at it. Email me or contact my talk page with questions. [[User:Keegan|Keegan]] ([[User talk:Keegan|talk]]) 05:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Nitpick: I've found that the automated message ''Redirected page to [[Whatever]]'' (produced by a blank edit summary field) is a lot more helpful edit summary than "fix double redirect". It's also faster, so you have time to close more requests! :P [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] ([[User talk:Jafeluv|talk]]) 11:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::It is very slightly faster (though {{Keypress|ctrl|v}} takes milliseconds), but the edit summary is not as useful in my opinion. When I see "redirected page to X" I think "why was that done?" and may investigate. When I see "fix double redirect" I know the page was already a redirect and not an article, and knowing that it was doubled informs me (by implication) that there was probably a page move.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 11:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

== [[User:HCPUNXKID]] ==

In short, [[User:HCPUNXKID]] is continuing to edit [[2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests]] in a disruptive manner pushing POV regarding Western Sahara, the users' home country. User has been unwilling to stop despite a clear consensus against the users' actions. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 21:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:Please explain what consensus are you talking about. The issue is that some users avoid the inclusion of relevant related sourced content to the article, depending on what user edits, while accept the inclusion of dubious or directly false claims (source gambling). Some users are trying to erase any presence of W. Sahara in the article, while others had put a fictitious date of start of the events. So consensus doesnt exists even between that users. Also, the only time the issue had been voted, 4 users agree to include the W. Sahara protests, while 3 disagree. I also point the issue that the POV & Unbalanced tags had been removed without any discussion, only because some users opinion.--[[User:HCPUNXKID|HCPUNXKID]] ([[User talk:HCPUNXKID|talk]]) 11:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::For that past month you have been heavily edit-warring (see his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HCPUNXKID contribution history] starting from Feb.19). Wikipedia is not a vote. Also, making a retaliatory report on Muboshgu just shows how much disruption you caused. [[User:TL565|TL565]] ([[User talk:TL565|talk]]) 17:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Comment :''' I tried to discuss this issue with [[User:HCPUNXKID|HCPUNXKID]], however the discussion wasn't successful. The fact is that there is a consensus about the information added to the article (discussed in the main+7 archives talk page), but [[User:HCPUNXKID|HCPUNXKID]] stated that "only him got the truth". These are 2 discussions of what was supposed to be a discussion : [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010%E2%80%932011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests&oldid=418510621#Starting_point] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010%E2%80%932011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests/Archive_4#HCPUNXKID].
:::On the other hand, there were (I think) more than 6 users reverting [[User:HCPUNXKID|HCPUNXKID]]'s edits, which are clearly POV.
:::[[User:Omar-Toons|Omar-Toons]] ([[User talk:Omar-Toons|talk]]) 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::'''Additional comment :''' The issue is also discussed here : [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010%E2%80%932011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests&oldid=419512679#Western_Sahara_edits_by_HCPUNXKID]
::::[[User:Omar-Toons|Omar-Toons]] ([[User talk:Omar-Toons|talk]]) 20:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::'''Comment:''' The user in question has made a number of POV edits to the 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa Protests page regarding Western Sahara. A quick view into the history of the user's page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:HCPUNXKID&oldid=362468429] reveals specific POV, including (translated) "This Wikipedian supports the independence of [[Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic]]." and "This user supports the right to self-determination referendum of the [[Sahrawi]] people." This user's repeated POV edits reflect this particular viewpoint. [[User:ZeLonewolf|ZeLonewolf]] ([[User talk:ZeLonewolf|talk]]) 04:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Comment''': Imho, he has the right to have an opinion about WS issue (as I have have the right to have mine), however, he hasn't the right to edit articles according to his views, which is considered as extreme-PoV.
:::The problem is that his edits shows extreme PoV, for example, this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010%E2%80%932011_Sahrawi_protests&action=history] is a case of [[WP:OWN]] and [[WP:POV]] : I can't understand how an "activist" pro-Polisario woman can be cited as a source, as it is a primary one? I think the author should read [[WP:IRS]], especially [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources paragraph 4.2]. :::--[[User:Omar-Toons|Omar-Toons]] ([[User talk:Omar-Toons|talk]]) 19:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I had just warned him about edit warring in [[2010–2011 Sahrawi protests]] (had 10 reverts and also looks like a case of [[WP:OWN]]). This was his response, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TL565&diff=419963835&oldid=419499371]. I STRONGLY recommend something be done about this user. He is disrupting articles wherever he goes and no one can discuss with him. [[User:TL565|TL565]] ([[User talk:TL565|talk]]) 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:'''Additional comment''' : He reverted my edits and removed the Unbalanced template despite I started the discussion about the fact that he refers to activists as specialists, to some sources as the truth while adding "according to" to the ones related to the other side of the conflict (I fixed that but he reverted my edits). We also see a case of [[WP:OWN|Own]] and [[WP:PA|Personal attacks]].
:Can an admin intervene and make sth to stop that? Thanks.
:--[[User:Omar-Toons|Omar-Toons]] ([[User talk:Omar-Toons|talk]]) 23:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

== Histmerge needed ==

Today, {{user|Hasteur}} made an AFD for {{la|Villains in Power Rangers Samurai}}, but {{user|Rtkat3}} edited {{lw|Articles for deletion/Villains in Power Rangers Samurai}} before Hasteur could complete the nom so now we have a misleading {{lw|Articles for deletion/Villains in Power Rangers Samurai (2nd nomination)}} when there's only been one AFD. Could someone histmerge the pages so there's only the one AFD?—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">竜龙</font>]]) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:I don't believe the hist-merge is necessary, really. Rtkat3 made the first AfD page in an attempt to contest a PROD, which was removed from the article regardless. Then Hasteur nominated it for AfD. I've deleted the first AfD page and moved the second one to its title without redirect, so everything should be fine now. Cheers. <font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font>[[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 01:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
::All right then.—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">竜龙</font>]]) 01:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
::You left four red-linked transclusions lying around in places, which I've repaired. If you're going to move an AFD without a redirect, please make sure you change the transclusion on the daily log and the Deletion Sorting pages. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 01:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:It should be noted that Ryulong did not follow the big orange notification box for the page and did not include any sort of notification to me regarding this. I only bring this up as their interpretation and application of core Wikipedia policies as evidenced at the above mentioned AfD and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samurai Power Rangers|one other currently in discussion]]. I will be notifying the user to extend the courtesey that they have failed to demonstrate during our interactions regarding the articles. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 00:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::Nothing in this concerns you directly. It was a housekeeping issue that you did not need to be notified of. The "misleading" is the "2nd nomination" part of the page title when it is only the first such nomination of the page.—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">竜龙</font>]]) 19:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Can you please point at what specific exemption you believe is valid for this case. The rules for the page say '''you must notify'''. You mentioned my name 2 times in what appears to be an attempt to throw dirt on me regarding the process, therefore you are obligated to notify me so that I am aware of discussions in public administrative forums. Ryulong, you want to put this to bed? Apologize and accept responsibility that you failed to follow the letter of both the page rules and the edit notice and we can move forward. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 21:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::::You are not the subject of this discussion. There was a minor snag when ''someone'' made an AFD and put it at an incorrect page title. That someone just happens to be you.—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">竜龙</font>]]) 21:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

== Proposed ban of [[User:Roman888]] ==

This is a ''de facto'' to ''de jure'' ban proposal for an indefinitely blocked user. {{user|Roman888}} was blocked on 8 March 2010 for violating copyright on the mainspace after multiple warnings. The following activities, many of which were engaged in the months after the block, indicate that a formal indefinite site ban is warranted:
*'''Abusive sockpuppetry''': Roman888 has socked with 31 confirmed accounts and one IP address. There are a further eight suspected sockpuppet accounts. The ongoing [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roman888|SPI]] shows that the sockpuppetry has persisted through almost the whole of the nine months since the block.
*'''Copyright violations'''. [[WP:Contributor copyright investigations/Roman888|This CCI]] demonstrates that over a period of two years (March 2008-March 2010), Roman888 engaged in systemic copyright violations. Just about every text that he/she contributed to a mainspace article was lifted directly from a non-free source. Roman888 was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roman888&oldid=240855396#September_2008 blocked] temporarily for copyright violations in September 2008, yet continued to violate copyright with the account until March 2010. Sadly, the pattern of copyright violations continued with Roman888's sockpuppets. At first, the sockpuppets sought to restore copyvios that had been removed as part of the CCI (eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_history_of_Malaysia&diff=prev&oldid=350325392]). More recently, Roman888's socks have created new content (eg [[Batu Sapi by-election, 2010]], created in October 2010) that again copies material from copyrighted sources.
*'''Harassment of other contributors'''. Roman888 through sockpuppets has harrassed and sought to impersonate:
**the administrator who blocked the account -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMkativerata&action=historysubmit&diff=359435980&oldid=359124131 talk page rant] and {{user|Monkeybuttgirl23}};
**myself -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMkativerata&action=historysubmit&diff=359435980&oldid=359124131 talk page rant], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Roman888/Archive#Evidence_submitted_by_Manny432 attempt to frame me for sockpuppetry], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive126#User:Mkativerata_reported_by_Godfrey76_.28talk.29_.28Result:_no_vio.29 bad faith edit-warring report], and {{user|MforMkativerata}}; and
**other contributors (happy to provide diffs on request but I thought it best to keep the other contributor out of it).
I thought Roman888 had given up some months ago. But regrettably, Roman888 is back and has been back for months. Before xe was blocked, xe edited articles about Malaysian politics (where xe took an unrelenting anti-government editorial line) and also engaged in disputes on articles relating to [[Gordon Ramsay]] (see for example [[Talk:Ramsay's_Kitchen_Nightmares]]). As it turns out, I have been suspicious about some recent IPs from Australian addresses editing articles about Malaysian politics; [[User:Drmargi]] has been similarly suspicious about Australian IP hopping on Gordon Ramsay articles. The recent edits of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.45.23.61 203.45.23.61] -- an IP pushing POV on Malaysian politics and getting into a dispute on a Ramsay TV show -- are irrefutable evidence that Roman888 is back and has been editing from Australian IPs. Amongst other things, he is continuing to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1Malaysia&diff=prev&oldid=410506884 violate copyright] (violated source can be read [http://malaysianindian1.blogspot.com/2010/12/anwar-furnishes-proof-on-apco-demands.html here]). A full site ban is sought from the community to bed down the ability of editors to deal with Roman888's ongoing socking and disruption.--[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 19:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''', having dealt with Roman888 through various socks. We can't take chances with serial copyright infringers. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 19:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. This is an editor who refuses to work within process, both in terms of copyright and in terms of respecting consensus and working toward new consensus. Roman has also attempted to frame me for sockpuppetry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drmargi]. He appears to have relocated to Australia late last year, and is using that as an opportunity to push his agenda once again using a variety of IPs. In addition to the Malaysia articles, Roman is actively IP hopping and disruptively editing on two articles related to Gordon Ramsay and shows no inclination to stop. The rhetoric coming from these IP's is consistent both with what is seen on the various articles related to Malaysia on which he has edited, and with his rhetoric on the two Ramsay talk pages under the Roman888 user name. Most telling: I've referred to him as Roman on the RKN talk page twice recently, and he hasn't bothered to question my use of the name. [[User:Drmargi|Drmargi]] ([[User talk:Drmargi|talk]]) 19:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:: Addendum to my earlier statement: Roman888 has now edited both a Malaysia-related article and the RKN article along with its talk page (still not denying he's Roman888) under a second (new) IP, [[User:121.222.16.89|121.222.16.89]], further strengthening the case that he is IP hopping for the purposes of block evasion and disruption. His "rationale" for not registering is that he doesn't want his personal details available to what he calls the Wiki Nazis, and he continues to insist existing consensus somehow doesn't cover the specific contingency he's using as an excuse to edit war. [[User:Drmargi|Drmargi]] ([[User talk:Drmargi|talk]]) 13:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
*Copyright violator, harasser, and "Monkeybuttgirl23"? '''Ban'''. <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> 23:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This seems a no-brainer given the editor's record and they're effectively banned at the moment with all the WP:DUCK blocks at SPI, so we may as well make it official. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
*Support community ban. We don't need editors who are willing to engage in this behavior, and be persistent about it, too. --[[User:Dylan620|Dylan620]] <sup>([[User talk:Dylan620|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|c]])</sup> 00:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*<small>'''comment''': seeing "xe" sprinkled throughout this makes me want to hit myself in the head with a hammer. Ugh. Are we ''really'' that afraid of gender issues? Especially considering that ''the English language obviously isn't''! Anyway, my apologies for the slightly OT post here. Back to the community banning...<br/>—&nbsp;[[User:Ohms law|<span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR</span>]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">([[User talk:Ohms law|Talk]]&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ohms law|Contribs]])</span> 00:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
*'''Support''' per above. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 01:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' and if there's any way to make an edit filter for that user, that would spare everyone some work. [[User:MLauba|MLauba]] ''<sup>'''('''[[User talk:MLauba|Talk]]''')'''</sup>'' 16:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

== Codifing what constitues a revert ==


--><noinclude>
Hi, I've noticed there are many instances where whether an edit is a revert or not is very murky, so I have begun to codify what is a revert [[User:Passionless/DIF|here]]. I of course need consensus to introduce the codifing officially so I ask that interested editors join me to fill in the question marks in the examples I have written out. As I will be posting this elsewhere as well, please talk on the [[User talk:Passionless/DIF|talk page]] of the article. Thank you, [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 04:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:Sounds like [[WP:CREEP|rule creep]] to me. <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> 04:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::I don't want to be blocked for breaking the currently very vague rules, maybe I go too far, but if half of what I wrote is clarified in the official rules than I would be happy. [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 04:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Actually, scratch that, none of what I propose is CREEP, it is still quite general. [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 05:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Before worrying too much about the proposal, it would be necessary to see examples of an actual problem (has someone been inappropriately blocked for 3RR?). The ''principle'' is much more important than pre-defined details of exactly what editors can get away with (see [[WP:BURO]]). [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Well I am afraid I can't show some of my blocks for fear of being accused of WP:BATTLE, but [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:passionless reported by User:mbz1 (Result: Warned)|here is an example]] from today where I was warned even though all I did was make three reverts in 17minutes with the only intermediate edits being for grammar. I've been told many times consecutive edits like that count as a single revert. Now that I try to find this codified I get nothing, turns out that was an unofficial rule... [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 06:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Also a closer definition is a lot more important to people like me who deal in areas which are under permanent 1RR. [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 06:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I can't really make head or tails of the page to be honest. But on a general note; most people are able to avoid being warned about inappropriate reverting, pinning down the exact definition of a revert seems to be more akin to wiki-lawyering and completely ignoring the spirit and intent of the 3RR policy. Perhaps the issue is not in defining what a revert is more closely, but with editors regularly being warned for revert violations failing to critically assess their own actions & looking to see how they can avoid such problems in the future. The rules have never seemed vague to me. --'''[[user:ErrantX|Errant]]''' <sup>([[User_talk:ErrantX|chat!]])</sup> 13:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Passionless, I too think your proposal is instruction creep and that it places more importance on what editors can get away with. In terms of the warning you're referring to, there's nothing to dispute about what Gwen Gale has said or did; "the least one could say is that you skirted the edge" as she said on her talk and she warned you rather than blocking you. That is, "you shouldn't be reverting GF content at all in IP topics. Please use the talk page." If you want to be able to continue contributing to these topics, heed the warning; that's how you can avoid such problems in the future. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 16:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


==Open tasks==
::::::: Regrettably, I have to agree with Errant; I can't make much sense out of the tables provided. Moreover, as much as I agree that interpretation of what constitutes a revert is very inconsistent around these parts, I don't think a rubric such as yours is the answer. Anything this cut-and-dried makes no allowance for judgment, and that always has to be a factor in situations such as questionable reverts. That said, I do think the parameters for what is/isn't a revert, and when one it edit warring need a serious re-think generally; I also find the three-and-out notion highly problematic in an environment that allows the freedom of access this project does. Come up with something less proscribed and more along the lines of a problem-solving model, and I could be persuaded to get behind it. [[User:Drmargi|Drmargi]] ([[User talk:Drmargi|talk]]) 16:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
:::::::::@Ncmvocalist, I'm afraid that many editors are either not making positive edits out of fear their edit be constued as a revert or they are making these positive edits and are being brought to ANI/ARB/EW where punishment is as random as the admin you get presiding. So by making the rules more clear in both what an editor can do and can get away with this will help all parties. And if you fear clearer rules will help edit warriors well I don't think so because it is more the behaviour than just the revert count right?
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
:::::::::@Drmargi and ErrantX, I have added text to help explain the ideas gonig on in the tables and I have removed the first table which I think was probably most confusing(especially with a critical typo in it) and yet least important. Also I'm not sure what you mean by "problem-solving model" though if you explain I will try to do that too. And to Errant X, like I said above this whole matter is much much more important to those working on 1RR articles than to those on 3RR articles. [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 18:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
{{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]] ==
::::::::If you follow [[wp:BRD]] and be aware that some editors will use reverts to try and [[wp:BAIT]] you into getting blocked, you should be able to avoid most warnings. Focus on the talk page discussion, and be slow and persistent about editing the article. make an edit, let it be reverted, discuss in talk, wait a day for a response; repeat as needed until you stop being reverted or you get an effective talk page discussion going. trying to define it more than that feels like you're trying to find the edge of the system so you can push on it without going over; that's not the best approach. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 18:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse top|bg=#F0F2F5|Report}}
:::::::::I tried that one time, but it went on for a few days with no progress so I went to 3O, but they didn't show for days and it kept going for a week until I brought it to ARB where both I and the other guy got sanctions put on them, yay. [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 18:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
{{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]])
:In general, if one's actions are sufficiently like reverting that one needs to consult a detailed rulebook to determine if they're reverts or not, then they're almost certainly reverts for the purposes of the 3RR. If one regularly finds oneself making multiple reverts (or 'revert-like' edits) of good-faith, non-vandalism edits on the same article over short spans of time, one's editing probably does warrant scrutiny. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 19:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::BAH, I'm not talking about 3RR but 1RR where making two edits can suddenly turn into a block because some admin says you broke 1RR solely based on their opinions of reverts rather than based on a policy created out of consensus. The clarity right now is about the same as if speed signs on roads said slow, average, and fast instead of actual numbers, and the police would ticket you based on their feelings of what fast is. The lack of detail hurts well meaning editors too. If a group of admins went and filled out the question marks in the tables I created, there would be a large difference between them all. [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 20:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::It should go without saying that editors who are under ArbCom-sanctioned 1RR-per-week editing restrictions should be particularly cautious about their editing. Attempting to nail down precisely how large and complex a revert an editor under such restrictions might be entitled to is rather missing the point of why such restrictions are applied in the first place. Try to find a way to contribute in these areas that ''doesn't'' involve reverting, or work on articles in a less contentious area for a while.
:::Understand that a 1RR-restriction isn't meant to be a licence, quota, or allotment. It's a very strong warning from the community that we're ''this'' close to topic banning (or just banning outright), but we're willing to give an editor enough rope to hang himself. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 21:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::::This is not about me, this is still about wikipedia and the murkiness of this particular policy, and the harm this causes. [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 21:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::The "harm" of having an inexact (although I find it fine) definition of what precisely constitutes a revert is negligible to the spirit of WP:Edit war/WP:3RR - that discussion and consensus at the talkpage is the appropriate method of resolving disputes, and not the disruptive repeated amendments to the article. As has been noted by commentators above, drawing a hard bright line over what is and is not a revert is a recipe for brinkmanship editing and rule wikilawyering. It appears that you do not comprehend the concern of most people; repeated confrontational text amendments between two or more parties is disruptive and needs a generalised technical term to enable dispute resolution processes to be applied to the parties involved. I would close by noting that the definitions used to determine what constitutes a revert are robust enough for several topics of potential disruption to have 1 or 0RR applied to it, and sanctions enacted without much legitimate complaint. It ain't broke, and I don't think what you desire is a fix anyway. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 21:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I wish people who actually work in 1RR areas would join this conversation. And as I have seen noted by others before, 0RR is an absolutely retarted policy as it means any additions which are non-vandalist/BLP can never be removed, and other course veiled insults are not appreciated. [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 22:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::After going through a fast moving page's history that is under 1RR, I see that if the rules where more clear and more enforced several respected editors would be in trouble, so maybe this lack of clarity of 'what is a revert?' does stop 1RR from harming progress on a page as much as it could.
:::::::With that said maybe I should just be asking that the unofficial policy, that sequential reverts (with minor/grammar edits inbetween not counting against it) count as a single revert, be added to the appropriate policy. [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I am not exactly sure who you think you are talking to, but I have done some admin work in 1RR environments - and I am perplexed to what I said that might be an insult; your comments are becoming increasingly confrontational as your points are refuted. As for 0RR, such a restriction does not mean any non-vandalism edit remains "forever". Usually a 0RR restriction is placed on an editor (or group of editors) relating to an article, so reverts may be done by others if required but where it is applied to an article that a revert must first have consensus on the talkpage. It certainly makes editing an article more time consuming, but that is part of the deterrent effect. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 14:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Sorry, I took a look at your talk page/recent contributes and did not see alot of 1RR related topics and the "I don't think what you desire is a fix anyway." is what I took poorly, though I see there is the chance you could have meant something non-bad faith. Anyways, I agree with you that "repeated confrontational text amendments between two or more parties is disruptive", but the way reverts are counted currently leds to cases where "repeated text amendments is disruptive". An example would be how I got warned and almost blocked this week because instead of making one large edit I made three over 17 minutes, with no major edits inbetween the three. If I could get you opinion on Gatoclass and ZScarpia's comments [[User talk:Passionless/DIF|at the discussion]] that would be appreciated. [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 18:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


'''Closer''': {{userlinks|Chetsford}}
== Proposal to revoke sanction no longer needed: [[WP:GS#Tony Abbott]] ==


'''Notified''': {{diff|User talk:Chetsford|1219154073|1218726050}}
{{resolved}}<small>1RR restriction lifted. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]])</small>
*{{la|Tony Abbott}}
I saw this while cleaning up [[WP:GS#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community]]. <small>Update: the cleanup has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions&diff=419774751&oldid=419773689 reverted], so the direct link no longer works; discussed [[Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions#Sanctions_display_format|here]])</small> In summer 2010, the article [[Tony Abbott]], about an Australian politician, was made subject to 1RR because of politics-related edit-warring. The sanction was logged at [[WP:GS]] as "indeterminate duration, but likely to be in place until September or October 2010", apparently because of the [[Australian federal election, 2010]] due to be held then. The election has now passed and the article is no longer edit-warred over. I therefore propose to lift the sanction as no longer required. <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> 10:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


'''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}}:
::Why have the users who commented on and enacted this sanction not been notified of this proposal? Perhaps they may note that the article's decrease in activity is due to the semi protection which has been in force since November (scheduled to expire in May)? [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
* {{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===
:::The semiprotection seems to address a different problem, namely, repeated BLP violations by IPs. I didn't notify the users you refer to as this concerns a community decision, rather than any particular user(s), but I'm leaving a note on the article talk page. <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> 11:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*<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===
::::When a total of 5 users have commented in a "community decision", it would (in my opinion) obviously be wise to notify all of them rather than leaving a post on an article talk page which hasn't been used for a month. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 11:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
* 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===
:::::If the reason for the need of the restriction no longer applies, then I'm happy for the article to revert to 3RR. It would appear that the need for semi-protection remains in place. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 05:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}I've had this article watchlisted for years, and it's been pretty calm since late last year, so the 1RR restriction doesn't seem necessary. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 07:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


*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)
:As an ordinary user who has not engaged in content disputes about this article, may I request that any restriction for which there isn't a prima facie case at this time be lifted, and the editing status be returned to normal.
**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 ==
:Regards <span style="color: #23819C; font-family: serif; font-weight: bold;">[[user:Peterstrempel|<font color="#23819C" >Peter Strempel</font>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[user_talk:Peterstrempel|<font color="#23819C">Talk</font>]]</span> 13:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


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)
::I've removed the restriction from the edit notice, will sort out GS next. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 15:39, 21 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)
== Pending changes RFC ==
::{{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)
:::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)
::::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 know, everyone is sick of it. We're almost done. Phase three, the review/recommend phase is now up. It is a questionnaire you can fill out with any reply you want, without having to argue or read fifty thousand words before participating. We ''really'' want users who haven't yet participated to join in in this phase, along with everyone who participated in the first two phases. The more responses we get, the clearer consensus will (hopefully) be. It will only take a few minutes of your time so fill one out whenever you have a moment. Thanks!
::: {{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 ==
There is also a small but vocal group who want PC temporarily removed, not shut off just removed from all articles, during this phase. The Foundation has ok'd this move. I'm a bit too involved to feel comfortable evaluating consensus on this issue, if anyone wants to consider this and reply either here or on the talk page of the RFC that would be great. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:31, 20 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)
:It is not a "small but vocal" group. Almost half of participants appear to agree that PC should be turned off - to finish the "trial".


: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)
:I object to this imposed phase 3 - I've tried to explain why, several times - but I'll state it here, for those who have not thus far been involved:


:Has anyone thought of making the following change to [[Wikipedia:CheckUser]] to see whether it works.
:Phase 3, question 1 is, "Do you believe Wikipedia should continue to use Pending Changes in some form, or should it be turned off entirely?"
: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)."
:This is implying no choice other than NO PC EVER, or SOME KIND OF PC. I do not accept that those are the only options.
:[[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 02:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::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)
:a) I believe that we should "continue to use Pending Changes in some form" - probably some trial, decided through consensus, to actually work out in a measurable way exactly what works and what does not.
:::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)
::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)
:b) I believe we should turn it off. I don't think we can meaningfully establish consensus for policies on usage, scope, and all the rest while it continues to be used without consensus.
:::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)
:a) and b) are not mutually exclusive.
: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]]==
:I am not the only person who thinks this.
:{{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]])
:Over the past few days, since Beeblebrox announced this "phase 3" plan, it has been discussed on the talk page of the RfC. The overwhelming majority of people discussing it have serious concerns about phase 3.


'''Closer''': {{userlinks|Chetsford}}
:The entire phraseology of this "phase 3" is leading users into supporting some form of current, immediate continuance of PC - again, as a "fait accompli". It leaves no scope for discussion and compromise.


'''Notified''': [[User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion]]
:I am extremely frustrated and disappointed. <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> 19:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


'''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.
::Commenting only on the removal of PC: I started doing this back in September just after the trial ended (I removed PC from nearly 100 articles), only to be "reported" to Jimbo: [[User_talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 64#Removing pending]]. I would be happy to help with this task again, but only if I knew that this move truly had support and that other editors would not pounce on me for doing so (and I don't think I'm the only admin who holds this view). [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 19:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I support the removal. Some probably will pounce on you, but all they have are non-consensus polls from long ago that proposed interim usage periods that are now over. —[[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]]&nbsp;([[User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]]) 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::::so do I. The necessary data is now available for analysis, and the continuation of this system of a small number of articles is confusing and unnecessary. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 02:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::DGG & DaBomb, the Foundation has approved this, you both agree with it, and it is derailing the RFC. I suggest you go ahead and do it so we can end this distraction that is stalling forward progress. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 18:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Chzz, on the other hand, you are way off. There is absolutely room for discussion and compromise. There is no "fait accompli" being pushed by me. This is the sixth time by my count that I have suggested that those who feel having PC on is an impediment to further discussion go ahead and remove it. Why is it not happening? And the idea that users are pressured into accepting PC is obviously untrue since the first question(the one you object to so much) asks them if they would like to see it removed entirely. I am also extremely frustrated and disappointed that these circular contradictory arguments and straw men have been used to derail what was a very promising process. For some reason you believe that users submitting their own proposals without fighting in an free-for-all discussion is a bad idea that will be impossible to draw any conclusions from. It will be hard, but as you told me some time ago most things worth doing are hard.[[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
====Call for a volunteer====
We are at an apparent deadlock on how to proceed. Or more accurately there are several proposals that are exclusive of one another being floated on the talk page. What we need here more than anything is a referee. Not to decide the future of PC but to decide the future of the RFC itself. Is there an admin bold enough to step in and help us resolve this? [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


===Uninvolved (COVID19)===
:<s>Just to clarify: does it have to be an admin? <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> 18:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)</s> Don't worry about that; it's not worth bothering about that point, here. Sorry. <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> 18:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
This close was within the threshold of reasonable. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Update''' It looks like we are quite close to a compromise and there has not been further edit warring so the failure of the cavalry to show up wasn't so bad after all and this thread can probably be closed as we shouldn't be discussing this in so many places at once. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:41, 21 March 2011 (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)
== [[Sega 6-Pak]] ==
: 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)
Earlier this month [[Sega 6-Pak]] popped up on my watch list. It was recreated after one or more deletions in the past years. As far as I remember at least one of the older versions was better than this new one. Could someone please follow all that older versions under its various names and bring them back at one location ''or'' see wether this new article should be deleted for the same reasons? --[[User:32X|32X]] ([[User talk:32X|talk]]) 20:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''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)
*This is a mess. It looks like the article existed at both [[6 pak]] and [[Sega Genesis 6-PAK]], and was deleted [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6 pak|here]], although the only consensus was for redirection, not deletion. It looks like we'd need to restore the deleted history at the redirect and do a history merge to preserve attribution, but I'm rusty on history merges. Someone with history merge talents want to restore 6 pak's history and use it to restore this article to the better deleted version? [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
** The easiest solution: Move the existing article to the name of the deleted one (without creating a redirect), restore the deleted versions, continue these steps, and finally move the article back to its original name. --[[User:32X|32X]] ([[User talk:32X|talk]]) 23:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
**I don't see the need for a hist-merge. [[Sega 6-Pak]] is a clear G4 (the AfD'd version was ''far'' better) and doesn't seem to have had any information ripped from old versions, regardless. So, I've gone with the second option. Cheers. <font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font>[[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 00:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


===Involved (COVID19)===
== Proposed ban of [[User:Rosanacurso]] ==
*'''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:
:*'''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.
:*'''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.)
:*'''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.
:*'''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.
: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)
::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)
*'''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)


===Discussion===
I'd like to propose a ban of [[User:Rosanacurso]] so we can quickly revert his edits. He has been [[wardriving]] (please refer to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rosanacurso]] and has 50+ blocked/tagged sockpuppets (who knows how many other unblocked and/or non-tagged socks). His socks primarily edit food and drink articles. Thoughts? --[[User:ADH10|<span style="color:teal">Addi</span>]][[User:ADH10/T|<span style="color:teal">hockey</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Addihockey10|<span style="color:teal">10</span>]] <sup>[[Special:Emailuser/ADH10|e-mail]]</sup> 18:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
*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)
*I find this superfluous as the editor hasn't really made any significant contributions (most of their edits are to the sandbox) but I'll '''support'''. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 18:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
*Resurrected from the ANI archives due to premature archival. --[[User:Dylan620|Dylan620]] <sup>([[User talk:Dylan620|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|c]])</sup> 01:35, 21 March 2011 (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)


== Marketing-related draft essays ==
== Need uninvolved admin to close contentious RfC ==


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:
{{resolved|RfC closed. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 13:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)}}
*[[Draft:Sales Blunder]]
I am requesting an uninvolved admin to close the RfC at the [[Family Research Council]] page related to whether the lead should mention the controversy about the hate-group listing by the SPLC. It was originally [[Talk:Family Research Council/Archive 2#SLPC.27s reasoning for hate group designation in lede|added after a long discussion]] before it [[Talk:Family Research Council/Archive 3|was removed after a vote counting discussion]]. For that reason, I opened a [[Talk:Family Research Council#Should the lead cover the controversy over SPLC.27s designation of the FRC as a hate group?|RfC on the question]]. A major issue I see with the discussion I see is that various people, at both sides provided arguments that have nothing to do with the question at hand, but everything with their personal dislike for the facts (this happened at either side of the discussion), and I think the Admin closing should be well capable of sifting the non-policy arguments from the policy arguments. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 11:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
*[[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)
:I'll take a look. (By the way, since this isn't an "incident", but just a request for admin assistance, this board is probably the more appropriate one to use.) --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 12:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
::Thank you. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 12:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


== Ban appeal of [[User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] ==
== Astrology bannings ==
{{atop|result=I'm closing this as procedurally invalid-- Checkuser indicates this is not Billy appealing and that his account has been compromised. This tracks with what happened [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABHathorn to his account on Conservapedia] at the beginning of this year, and the appeal [https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/BHathorn2 is contradicted by the editing of Billy's new account on Conservapedia]. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 22:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)}}
The following is the appeal of Billy Hathorn, who is seeking removal of their community ban. I bring this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 18:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


I have been completely inactive on Wikipedia for 9 years now, only uploading pictures of mine on Wikimedia Commons, following a ban by members of this community for copyright violations. Since this event, I have spent time thinking about how to improve myself as a person and how to fix my behavior. My actions came at a time of which, while being my own fault, were encouraged by those around me in the space of conservatives. I was wrong in my belief to trust such a group of people, and my view in part of copyright was as a result of practices on another website, Conservapedia, of which I have been actively editing on until recently. This does not mean that I take no responsibility for my actions, however, as I completely understand that what I did was wrong and not good of any editor to do.
People may want to look over this. Briefly, there has been a big astroturfing rent-a-mob campaign dedicated to disrupting the [[Astrology]] article, detailed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Astrology#Did_somebody_say_.22offsite_coordination.22.3F here], resulting in a whole bunch of [[WP:SPA|single-purpose accounts]] arriving to edit-war, some of them new, some of them not. These are {{user|Aquirata}}, {{user|Petersburg}}, {{user|Costmary}}, {{user|Erekint}}, {{user|Apagogeron}}, and {{user|Gary PH}} (this particular account participated in the last edit-war before this one, which I picked up on after seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Astrology.2C_fringe_POV_pushing.2C_meat-puppetry_and_general_disruption this] ANI report).


Recently, Conservapedia has banned my account without explanation. This came after I sent an email to one of the site's administrator's questioning their approach to LGBTQ issues. They now say I vandalized the site, but I did not. I use a unique password for Conservapedia, so I can only assume that this allegation is retaliation for my polite questioning of the site's prevailing doctrine, either lying about me or falsifying revisions, I do not know because I cannot see the edits they claim I made and I am not an expert on how WikiMediaWiki works. Such obvious corruption from someone claiming to know all the answers and toxicity from the leader of that same website who are now completely ignoring me for attempting to get in to my account has led to me reconsidering my role as a Republican and my beliefs that I gained from years on Conservapedia... I will no longer cater to those such as Andrew Schlafly and other site administrators who have enrolled me in a conspiracy to discredit my work due to my attempt of questioning of their beliefs.
I am banning all the accounts linked above from [[Astrology]], its talkpage, and any pages that relate to [[Astrology]], broadly construed, per [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience]].


Due to this incident with Conservapedia, I have denounced my conservative views in favor of a more liberal stance on society. After evaluating some of the things that I have been harsh on others for, I have found solace in the furry community, one of which welcomed me with open arms. Such practices have also led me into the act of cross-dressing, which I have been recently experimenting with. I find my new better self to be better than my previous toxic self that did not think straight, and I think I have made major improvements.I have taken great pains in fixing my behavior towards others and I hope to repair some of my broken relationships with other editors that I may have hurt. I am hoping that I can show this with the help of the community.
People may also want to keep an eye on {{user|Robertcurrey}}, a professional astrologist, who, while he may not be a devoted SPA, has a definite conflict of interest in this matter which may also prove ultimately incompatible with continued editing of the article. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 16:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


I understand that Copyright infringement is the use or production of copyright-protected material without the permission of the copyright holder. Copyright infringement means that the rights afforded to the copyright holder, such as the exclusive use of a work for a set period of time, are being breached by a third party. Music and movies are two of the most well-known forms of entertainment that suffer from significant amounts of copyright infringement. Infringement cases may lead to contingent liabilities, which are amounts set aside in case of a possible lawsuit.
:: Is there any particular reason why Robertcurrey isn't included in that list? If you read the blog post ([http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E8Gnv4sMAhEJ:theworldedge.blogspot.com/+%22I%27m+beginning+to+wonder+(again)+if+Wikipedia+is+where+we+should+be+putting+our+efforts%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk mentioned below]), it makes comments to an "RC" who participates in the blog postings....just saying, since without proof it's him, it's just his behavior here we can use. He happens to be one of the pushiest of all of the ones you mention above, although Aquirata is the nastiest. So, why isn't RC included? -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 04:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


To simplify efforts to find the copyright violations I perpetrated, I hereby revoke the license to use anything I have written on or uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons to-date. Now these pages can be deleted in their entirely without fear of violating my right to have my edits displayed. I promise if I am unbanned to no longer commit copyright violations of this or any nature and I am content with any restrictions that may be applied on me. If unblocked, I don't have a full goal for editing however I will likely go to writing articles again, as well as working on improving other articles but I will do so without violating copyright policies or violating any other policies.Thank you.[[User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] ([[User talk:Billy Hathorn#top|talk]]) 21:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 18:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
*All now notified and logged. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 16:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


:In the first line seems contradictory - his user page shows him as being a potential sockmaster, with the last entry for the investigation being in 2021 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Billy_Hathorn] - yet I don't that being commented on here. It also is in contrast to him being 'completely inactive on Wikipedia for nine years'. [[User:Fantastic Mr. Fox|Fantastic Mr. Fox]] ([[User talk:Fantastic Mr. Fox|talk]]) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Moreschi, could you please explain on what grounds you took this action against me? I am a long-standing neutral editor with a spotless record, interested in a wide range of subjects. [[User:Petersburg|Petersburg]] ([[User talk:Petersburg|talk]]) 21:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
::'''Oppose''' per my statement and Extraordinary Writ. [[User:Fantastic Mr. Fox|Fantastic Mr. Fox]] ([[User talk:Fantastic Mr. Fox|talk]]) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
*{{tq|Copyright infringement is the use or production of copyright-protected material without the permission of the copyright holder. Copyright infringement means that the rights afforded to the copyright holder, such as the exclusive use of a work for a set period of time, are being breached by a third party. Music and movies are two of the most well-known forms of entertainment that suffer from significant amounts of copyright infringement. Infringement cases may lead to contingent liabilities, which are amounts set aside in case of a possible lawsuit.}} is quite literally a ''copyright violation'', taken word-for-word from [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/copyright-infringement.asp]. Ordinarily that might be amusing, but in the context of someone whose copyright violations created [[Special:PermaLink/1118802333|a truly tremendous amount of work for other editors]], it's not funny in the least. '''Strong oppose'''. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Extraordinary Writ.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 19:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
* I was writing a comment only to find my points have already been covered by Fantastic Mr. Fox and Extraordinary Writ, '''Oppose'''. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 19:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Statement shows a weak grasp of copyright, to say the least. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per Writ and Mr. Fox. [[User:Queen of Hearts|<span style="color:#8B4513;font-variant:small-caps;">Queen of &#x2661;</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:Queen of Hearts|<span style="color:#8B4513;font-variant:small-caps;">Speak</span>]] 20:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I don't think I ever heard of this person before just now. I honestly don't believe their narrative that they went from a full-on right winger to a crossdressing furry, but that doesn't really matter because it has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for the ban. That they used copyrighted material in their appeal of a ban for copyright violations and completely failed to address what appears to be CU-confirmed socking is a total dealbreraker. This looks more like trolling than a legitimate unban appeal [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 20:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I have heard of this person before, in connection with CCI. The number of hours expended by volunteers cleaning up just this CCI alone is enormous. The statement does not persuade me that inviting this editor back would be a good idea.[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#000E2F;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">S Philbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 20:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Too many hours over several years were spent by myself and many others in addressing the numerous copyvio and POV issues created by Billy Hathorn to ever trust their account again. The continuing problems raised here by Mr. Fox and Extraordinary Writ (as well as the uneasy sense That this unban request is just more trolling) solidify my opposition. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000">cactus</span><span style="color:#CC5500">writer </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CactusWriter|(talk)]]</sup></span> 21:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
* '''Strong oppose'''. This user first repeatedly, insistently, violated our copyright policy and then, when blocked, resorted to sockpuppetry to continue doing the same, culminating in one of the largest [[WP:CCI|CCI]]s in the history of this project – please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=691379709#Unblock_of_Billy_Hathorn_in_2013 this ANI discussion] (which I initiated). If any consensus for an unblock were to develop (which so far does not seem likely), it should be with a pre-condition that before the account can be unblocked, '''all''' sock accounts be listed by the user and '''all''' copyvio edits made by those accounts be clearly identified on his user talk-page. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 21:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
* The first two sentences of the last paragraph ({{tq|To simplify efforts to find the copyright violations I perpetrated, I hereby revoke the license to use anything I have written on or uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons to-date. Now these pages can be deleted in their entirely without fear of violating my right to have my edits displayed.}}) betray a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright and how Wikipedia works. You ''cannot'' revoke the license you granted to your contributions when you made them; the terms displayed each and every time you make an edit says: {{tq|By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you '''irrevocably''' agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL.}} (emphasis mine). And even if you could, that would have absolutely nothing to do with simplifying efforts to find copyright violations, for a few reasons. If they were copyright violations, then ''you did not have the right'' to release them under any kind of license, so any "revocation" of licenses you did not have the ability to grant would be meaningless. Furthermore, you ''do not have'' any "right to have [your] edits displayed", so there was never any fear of violating that non-existent right. The difficulty with cleaning up copyright infringements involves the grunt work of combing through a user's edits and actually identifying what is a copyright infringement and what isn't, not violating any of the user in question's rights. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 22:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== IP now in Algeria ==
::::If you are interested in a wide range of subjects then please do edit in those other areas. There is nothing preventing you from doing so. I think the concern is that for the last 3-4 years you have a couple of dozen sporadic edits, then in the last week you have equally many, all focussed on this astrology issue. Cheers.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 21:41, 21 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.
:::::Which Wikipedia policy, guideline or rule will indicate that an editor needs to be banned for taking an interest in one topic? [[User:Petersburg|Petersburg]] ([[User talk:Petersburg|talk]]) 23:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


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.
::::::You misunderstood my point. You claim to be a "long-standing neutral editor ...", but the reality is that you were almost totally inactive on the project until you showed up to join a cavalcade of SPAs many of whom were probably enticed to come here from those offsite blog posts. It makes sense that you would be treated as one of them. Cheers.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 01:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


:::::::And you misunderstand my point. No, it doesn't make sense from a neutral perspective. No, it doesn't make sense in light of Wikipedia policies, rules and guidelines. No, it doesn't make sense given my history of posts and edits. Why is it you who is answering my posts, by the way? [[User:Petersburg|Petersburg]] ([[User talk:Petersburg|talk]]) 09:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
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)


:{{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)
:: As one of those named in this action, can I ask if there is any recourse for appeal or arbitration? Please take the trouble to read my posts to see that I have not pushed a POV - in fact that appears to be the real problem (to those who want to see the sceptical innacuracies go unattended). I am not interested in the pseudoscience issues and have constantly striven to move the discussion beyond that. The suggestion that I am part of an organised plan is offensive - I have no idea who most of those other users are and no one has influenced my posting behaviour in any way. I thought it demonstrated Petersburg's neutrality when s/he supported the call for arbitration, since it is crystal clear that s/he is not pushing an astrology agenda. It seems that anyone who does not obviously use the page as a debunking exercise to undermine the subject rather than explain it is now under censorship or suspicion. I know of Robertcurrey but have not been involved in any of his discussions - its amusing that he has to be watched too. Is it his knowledge of the topic of the page which gives cause for concern? This is shameful for Wikipedia - it appears that anyone who is knowledgeable on the topic and can see the innacuracies that need attention is going to be censored now, for fear that the consensus of opinion that has been reached through discussion is allowed to impact on the content of the page.
:: No doubt now you will get a stream of applause from those who didn't want to discuss it anyway - even though it was the administrator's recommendation to negotiate consensus, following my earlier request that the disruptive actions of a skeptical editor be monitored for intentional vandalism of approved content correction (see first editing break after "ironically not the stars"). There has been an agenda here to avoid discussion or neutrality, and to refuse the call for arbitration from those who would hopefully not be biased against appropriate content [[User:Costmary|Costmary]] ([[User talk:Costmary|talk]]) 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


== [[Ecotechnics]] and [[Ecotechnology]] ==
::(ec) Thanks. Brilliant. The circus has been going on for long enough. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


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)
*Costmary - if you fail to get the consensus of uninvolved sysops here to overturn my decision, the final court of appeal, so to speak, is [[WP:RFAR]]. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 17:38, 21 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)
*I hate to be the obnoxious [[WP:BURO|bureaucrat]] here, but I do want to point out that a number of these editors had not even edited since I informed them of the pseudoscience arbitration. As such, I'm not sure how valid implementing any sanction is... '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 17:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
**See [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E8Gnv4sMAhEJ:theworldedge.blogspot.com/+%22I'm+beginning+to+wonder+(again)+if+Wikipedia+is+where+we+should+be+putting+our+efforts%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk], which is where this is all coming from (linking to google cache because the original blogposts and replies have since been deleted). These people know the system, and the arbitration case, very well, and are quite carefully trying to game it in a suspiciously successful manner (I wonder what a checkuser would turn up, incidentally). Plus, the pseudoscience arbitration case is actually linked to, in big bold letters, in the header of [[Talk:Astrology]]. I don't think a pointless round of formal warnings will get us anywhere. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 17:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
***Fair enough. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 18:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
*The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astrology&action=history page history] makes for interesting viewing as well...all the accounts revert in sequence, nobody breaks 3RR...hmmm. There might actually be closer coordination going on here than meets the eye, but I suppose we'll never know, beyond what the cache of the blog tells us. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


== Please undelete incorrectly speedily deleted article (now at AfD): [[Kalloor]] ==
* Thank you for that information on the appeal process Moreschi. Since your ban immediately followed NW warning that he would ban me if I continued my comments - can either of you indicate where I have supposedly pushed a pro-astrology view? The intention behind my contribution has been to correct inaccuracy and misrepresentaive distortion by offering typically encyclopedic information supported by up-to-date, respected, academic secondary sources. I have argued that the page should be neutral and seek to define the subject appropriately *and also* include appropriate discussion on the valid criticisms - and I have personally offered references to support the use of the statement that astrology is regarded as a pseudoscience, even though I believe the exaggerated promotion of that point in the lede is bound to cause continued dissent. I have also asked others who object to the skeptical stance to compromise in order to help the move towards consensus develop. So at what point do you consider my efforts to have been part of an "astroturfing rent-a-mob campaign dedicated to disrupting the Astrology article"? What suggestion have I made that has not been a sensible one, clearly motivated by ther desire to improve the quality of the article?[[User:Costmary|Costmary]] ([[User talk:Costmary|talk]]) 18:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
{{resolved}}
*Frankly, I think people can judge [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astrology&diff=prev&oldid=419959643 this] for themselves. As a minor gripe - apart from the obvious - "Eastern nations"? Really? All of them? Are you sure you don't mean [[Hindu astrology]]? Because [[Medieval Islamic astrology]] tells quite a different story. That particular edit was - at least in part - low quality, anti-consensual, and disruptive. It also quite heavily pushed a particular point of view, removing as it did all explicit mention of astrology-as-pseudoscience from the lede, leaving some token weaselling behind [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 19:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
:::You seem to have stomped into action without checking the history of the discussion, or being involved in it. The example edit you gave (“I think people can judge this for themselves”) was the result of a long consultation process which had definitely gained general consensus that it offered improved text – much of this discussion has now been hidden from view by WLU’s personal decision to categorise all that discussion as “a waste of time”. Even now, remaining editors are calling for most of those suggestions to be retained (though not without some alterations which destroy the accuracy of the quotations). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Astrology#Can_we_save_some_of_the_pro-astrology_contributions.3F
: Done. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 02:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::As for your “minor gripe” (which could have been accommodated in the discussion if you had involved yourself in it before banning most of the active participants) - that was not my suggestion but was subjected to lengthy debate. For my view see my opening remark under the now hidden “[[Talk:Astrology#Proposed_Introduction:_Collaborative_v.4|Proposed Introduction: Collaborative v.4]]” where I express the opinion that it should be included “''because this makes an important point about astrology’s global standing too. But again, this should be done without making too much out of it, or trying to present that as a dominant viewpoint either; or leaving the impression that this answers or removes the need for scientific criticism''.” (04:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I repeatedly asked for constructive criticism and proposed alternatives, and the only editor to rubbish the whole proposal (and all the previous discussion) was WLU (who then hid all the previous discussion). I don’t see how it is low quality being a matter of globally reported fact – scientific journals have included coverage of this in neutral terms, and if anyone had queried the quality of the text or references I could have cited these and would have followed consensus. However, there was no constructive criticism of that point proposed.
::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)
:::As for the supposed removal of “mention of astrology-as-pseudoscience from the lede” – check my (now hidden) post today of 11:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Astrology#Proposal where I explained the non-controversial element of the edit that I then made, whilst stating:
:::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)
:::::At this point we have a choice between adding an extra comment which says something like “''Astrology is now defined as a pseudoscience for reasons such as being unprogressive, lacking falsifiability and being unconcerned with the need to evaluate its theory in relation to other modern sciences''.[1] Or we can link this through to the existing comment which currently states “''Eventually, astronomy distinguished itself as the empirical study of astronomical objects and phenomena. In 2006 the U.S. National Science Board published a statement identifying astrology, along with ten other practices or beliefs, as "pseudoscientific''".[7]
:::: 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]] ==
:::How is “''Astrology is now defined as a pseudoscience for reasons such as being unprogressive, lacking falsifiability and being unconcerned with the need to evaluate its theory in relation to other modern sciences (citation)”'' “token weaselling”? The page does not need '''two''' separate discussions of the pseudoscience issue ''within the lede'', and the discussion was dealing with this when you censored it.
{{atop|Block has been adequately reviewed. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 17:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)}}
::: Unfortunately the page on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Islamic_astrology Medieval Islamic astrology] contains many significant flaws. The suggestion that “''Muslim astrologers defined a new form of astrology called electional astrology''” makes the page look ridiculous – electional astrology is demonstrably an important branch of practice in the ancient Babylonian and Hellenistic period (cross ref with the history sources on the ‘electional astrology' page). It is equally ridiculous to suggest that “''The Muslims also developed a system called Arabic parts by which the difference between the ascendant and each planet of the zodiac was calculated. This new position then became a 'part' of some kind''”. It is firmly established that the so-called ‘Arabic Parts’ are a misnomer, being an important, integral part of Hellenistic astrology practice. The example of how the part is interpreted is also incorrect and does not reflect historical practice. Alos, most of those listed as “refuting” astrology were actually famous astrological practitioners who published renown instructional textbooks on the subject, and there is a confusing mess of information at the end where the view of modern Muslim scholars are not differentiated clearly from those of historical philosophers.
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)
:::The whole of the astrology section is in need of improvement and better quality up-to-date references, but how is that going to happen when anyone with real understanding of the subject is banned for suspicion of having an agenda to push a pro-astrology POV? [[User:Costmary|Costmary]] ([[User talk:Costmary|talk]]) 00:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''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)
*'''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)
*'''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 ==
I guess Wikipedia's coverage of astrology is just gonna suck for a while. Ah, well. Good bans, I think. <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> 02:46, 22 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]]
Concur, good decision. I have zero faith that accounts recruited and coordinated off-site via a pro-astrology blog are here because they wish to see neutral, unbiased content on Wikipedia. The protestations of those accounts that have responded above are unconvincing. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 09:58, 22 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]].
== New Pages and New Users ==


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].
I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.


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)
What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.
== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac]] closed ==


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]].
I know this isn't necessarily standard fare for administrators, but you're all in a unique position to help out with the added userrights you posess. If you're interested, read [[Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages]], sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Regards, [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 21:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
== Dallas Davidson ==
: 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 ==
Can I get some more eyes on [[Dallas Davidson]]? There is no excuse whatsover for a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dallas_Davidson&diff=412739027&oldid=412738792 a blatantly obvious copyvio/COI edit] going unnoticed for SIX FREAKING WEEKS. The article has had problems with COI editors since I first made it almost two years ago. <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, [[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|his otters]] and a clue-bat • <sup>([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|Otters want attention]])</sup> 02:50, 22 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)
== [[State University of Semarang|Semarang State University]] "Papat Limpad" competition ==


: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)
For NPP and CSD admins, you may have noticed a slew of student accounts being created. There appears to be a competition host by [[State University of Semarang|Semarang State University]] with apparently celebrity endorsement by [[Christian Sugiono]]. So if you see a bunch of user pages created by edits with a prefix of "JV" all creating pretty much the same user page (''Hello, My name ...,I am participant for "Papat Limpad" competition from Semarang State University Faculty of Language and Art''), this is what it is all about. I left a message at [[Wikipedia talk:School and university projects#Semarang State University "Papat Limpad" competition]] to see if somebody is willing to contact the organizer and possibly coordinate something. -- [[User:Gogo Dodo|Gogo Dodo]] ([[User talk:Gogo Dodo|talk]]) 05:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


== Probable vandalism ==
== Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study ==


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inah_Canabarro_Lucas
Hello all!<br />
<br />
We bring together the forces of the [[Berkman Center for Internet & Society]] at [[Harvard University]] and [[Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris|Sciences Po Paris]] to conduct a large-scale research project on the [[m:Dynamics of Online Interactions and Behavior|microfoundations and dynamics of online interactions and behavior]]. To this end, we invite internet users with many different profiles to fill out a survey on [[LimeSurvey]] which combines decision making involving money with substantive questions about attitudes and practices. As a part of our research agenda, we would like to achieve the highest answer rate possible among Wikipedia contributors. <br />
<br />
For this purpose, we presented our research goals and methods to the WMF which agreed to support our project and help diffusing our call to participate among Wikipedians (to make sure, please check out the [[m:Research/Research_Projects|list of research projects which have the Foundation’s recognition]] or contact [[User:Steven Walling|Steven Walling]]). We planned to invite Wikipedians to participate in this broad study by posting individual invitations on the users’ talk pages through an automated procedure. <br />
So this message is both to let the community of admins know about what we intend to do (as our aim is surely neither to bother people nor to disrupt the editing process of Wikipedia!) and to ask for some clarifications and advices about some particular aspects of our invitation protocol, namely: <br />
<br />
#Is there a risk that our account could be blocked while we are in the process of sending our invitations to participate and, if yes, how could we avoid that?
#Is there a risk that the external link to the study that we will include in our invitation messages could be blocked and, if yes, how could we avoid that? <br />
<br />
At the end of the study, research outputs will be made available under an open access license and we intend to share them at a [[Wikimania]] conference. If they wish to do so, participants from Wikipedia have the possibility to donate their final earnings from the study to the [[wmf:Home|Wikimedia Foundation]]. <br />
We remain at your entire disposal for any further question or precision about this research project (if you like, please consider that you can also reach us by e-mail at: berkman_harvard@sciences-po.fr). <br />
<br />
Looking forward to hearing from you, <br />
Many thanks, <br />
<br />
The Harvard / Sciences Po research team. [[User:SalimJah|SalimJah ]] ([[User talk:SalimJah|talk]]) 09:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
:Hi SalimJah, I'm from the [[WP:BAG|Wikipedia Bot Approvals Group]]. The correct place to get approval for mass message delivery using an automated process is [[WP:BRFA]]. Alternatively, you can look at getting a bot which already has broad approval for message delivery, such as [[User:MessageDeliveryBot]], to do the job for you. Getting an approval like this reduces the risk of the bot or link getting blocked, if you use a bot without approval it will be blocked as soon as possible, for violating the [[WP:BOTPOL|bot policy]]. However, users often object to mass messaging which they have not specifically opted in for, as many consider it spam. An alternative would be to use a watchlist notice, or one of the other three site notices explained at the top of [[MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details|this page]]. Using this method would completely remove the risk of the link being blacklisted or the bot being blocked, as it would not be editing repeatedly. Hope that helps, feel free to contact me or any other BAG ember if you have further questions. - [[User:Kingpin13|Kingpin]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kingpin13|13]]</sup> ([[User talk:Kingpin13|talk]]) 09:26, 22 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)
::(edit conflict) Can you please provide more details about how you will be contacting people? (ie, the exact text of the message and which groups of editors you will be sending it to). As this is a WMF-endorsed study I don't see any generic problems, but you obviously need to make sure that your approach is appropriate (and posting this message here is a great way to start things off). One problem I see with your current approach is that posting access codes in publicly-viewable user talk pages will mean that these codes a) won't be private and b) are very likely to be used by people other than the intended editor in some cases. This will obviously impact on the quality of your data and may cause some privacy problems. Regards, [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 09:31, 22 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)

Latest revision as of 15:53, 8 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 0 40
    TfD 0 0 2 0 2
    MfD 0 0 3 0 3
    FfD 0 0 3 0 3
    RfD 0 0 52 0 52
    AfD 0 0 9 0 9


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (76 out of 7724 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    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:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived/Archive 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 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/Dmcdevit 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: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/Dbiv 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
    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 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/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:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed decision 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: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: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 January 2006/Vote/Filiocht 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 January 2006/Vote/Merovingian 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 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/Rlevse 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: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 2007/Vote/Wizardman 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
    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 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/Privatemusings 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 talk:Flagged revisions/Trial/Votes 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 2008/Vote/Wizardman 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/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/Kmweber 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/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/Dream Focus 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
    User talk:AgentKaren 2024-05-05 23:52 2024-05-08 23:52 move Editor moving user pages to try to change their username Liz
    User:AgentKaren 2024-05-05 23:52 2024-05-08 23:52 move Editor moving user pages to try to change their username Liz
    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
    Ruben Vardanyan (politician) 2024-05-04 22:43 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/AA Daniel Case
    List of pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in 2024 2024-05-04 22:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Fertile Crescent 2024-05-04 21:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Al-Aqsa 2024-05-04 21:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Kundali Bhagya 2024-05-04 21:07 2025-05-04 21:07 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case
    Drake (musician) 2024-05-04 05:55 2024-05-11 05:55 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Moneytrees

    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]
    • 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]

    Discussion[edit]

    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]

    Ban appeal of Billy Hathorn[edit]

    I'm closing this as procedurally invalid-- Checkuser indicates this is not Billy appealing and that his account has been compromised. This tracks with what happened to his account on Conservapedia at the beginning of this year, and the appeal is contradicted by the editing of Billy's new account on Conservapedia. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The following is the appeal of Billy Hathorn, who is seeking removal of their community ban. I bring this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been completely inactive on Wikipedia for 9 years now, only uploading pictures of mine on Wikimedia Commons, following a ban by members of this community for copyright violations. Since this event, I have spent time thinking about how to improve myself as a person and how to fix my behavior. My actions came at a time of which, while being my own fault, were encouraged by those around me in the space of conservatives. I was wrong in my belief to trust such a group of people, and my view in part of copyright was as a result of practices on another website, Conservapedia, of which I have been actively editing on until recently. This does not mean that I take no responsibility for my actions, however, as I completely understand that what I did was wrong and not good of any editor to do.

    Recently, Conservapedia has banned my account without explanation. This came after I sent an email to one of the site's administrator's questioning their approach to LGBTQ issues. They now say I vandalized the site, but I did not. I use a unique password for Conservapedia, so I can only assume that this allegation is retaliation for my polite questioning of the site's prevailing doctrine, either lying about me or falsifying revisions, I do not know because I cannot see the edits they claim I made and I am not an expert on how WikiMediaWiki works. Such obvious corruption from someone claiming to know all the answers and toxicity from the leader of that same website who are now completely ignoring me for attempting to get in to my account has led to me reconsidering my role as a Republican and my beliefs that I gained from years on Conservapedia... I will no longer cater to those such as Andrew Schlafly and other site administrators who have enrolled me in a conspiracy to discredit my work due to my attempt of questioning of their beliefs.

    Due to this incident with Conservapedia, I have denounced my conservative views in favor of a more liberal stance on society. After evaluating some of the things that I have been harsh on others for, I have found solace in the furry community, one of which welcomed me with open arms. Such practices have also led me into the act of cross-dressing, which I have been recently experimenting with. I find my new better self to be better than my previous toxic self that did not think straight, and I think I have made major improvements.I have taken great pains in fixing my behavior towards others and I hope to repair some of my broken relationships with other editors that I may have hurt. I am hoping that I can show this with the help of the community.

    I understand that Copyright infringement is the use or production of copyright-protected material without the permission of the copyright holder. Copyright infringement means that the rights afforded to the copyright holder, such as the exclusive use of a work for a set period of time, are being breached by a third party. Music and movies are two of the most well-known forms of entertainment that suffer from significant amounts of copyright infringement. Infringement cases may lead to contingent liabilities, which are amounts set aside in case of a possible lawsuit.

    To simplify efforts to find the copyright violations I perpetrated, I hereby revoke the license to use anything I have written on or uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons to-date. Now these pages can be deleted in their entirely without fear of violating my right to have my edits displayed. I promise if I am unbanned to no longer commit copyright violations of this or any nature and I am content with any restrictions that may be applied on me. If unblocked, I don't have a full goal for editing however I will likely go to writing articles again, as well as working on improving other articles but I will do so without violating copyright policies or violating any other policies.Thank you.Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 331dot (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In the first line seems contradictory - his user page shows him as being a potential sockmaster, with the last entry for the investigation being in 2021 [10] - yet I don't that being commented on here. It also is in contrast to him being 'completely inactive on Wikipedia for nine years'. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per my statement and Extraordinary Writ. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyright infringement is the use or production of copyright-protected material without the permission of the copyright holder. Copyright infringement means that the rights afforded to the copyright holder, such as the exclusive use of a work for a set period of time, are being breached by a third party. Music and movies are two of the most well-known forms of entertainment that suffer from significant amounts of copyright infringement. Infringement cases may lead to contingent liabilities, which are amounts set aside in case of a possible lawsuit. is quite literally a copyright violation, taken word-for-word from [11]. Ordinarily that might be amusing, but in the context of someone whose copyright violations created a truly tremendous amount of work for other editors, it's not funny in the least. Strong oppose. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Extraordinary Writ.—Alalch E. 19:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was writing a comment only to find my points have already been covered by Fantastic Mr. Fox and Extraordinary Writ, Oppose. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Statement shows a weak grasp of copyright, to say the least. Mackensen (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Writ and Mr. Fox. Queen of ♡ | Speak 20:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't think I ever heard of this person before just now. I honestly don't believe their narrative that they went from a full-on right winger to a crossdressing furry, but that doesn't really matter because it has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for the ban. That they used copyrighted material in their appeal of a ban for copyright violations and completely failed to address what appears to be CU-confirmed socking is a total dealbreraker. This looks more like trolling than a legitimate unban appeal Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I have heard of this person before, in connection with CCI. The number of hours expended by volunteers cleaning up just this CCI alone is enormous. The statement does not persuade me that inviting this editor back would be a good idea.S Philbrick(Talk) 20:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Too many hours over several years were spent by myself and many others in addressing the numerous copyvio and POV issues created by Billy Hathorn to ever trust their account again. The continuing problems raised here by Mr. Fox and Extraordinary Writ (as well as the uneasy sense That this unban request is just more trolling) solidify my opposition. — cactuswriter (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. This user first repeatedly, insistently, violated our copyright policy and then, when blocked, resorted to sockpuppetry to continue doing the same, culminating in one of the largest CCIs in the history of this project – please see this ANI discussion (which I initiated). If any consensus for an unblock were to develop (which so far does not seem likely), it should be with a pre-condition that before the account can be unblocked, all sock accounts be listed by the user and all copyvio edits made by those accounts be clearly identified on his user talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first two sentences of the last paragraph (To simplify efforts to find the copyright violations I perpetrated, I hereby revoke the license to use anything I have written on or uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons to-date. Now these pages can be deleted in their entirely without fear of violating my right to have my edits displayed.) betray a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright and how Wikipedia works. You cannot revoke the license you granted to your contributions when you made them; the terms displayed each and every time you make an edit says: By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. (emphasis mine). And even if you could, that would have absolutely nothing to do with simplifying efforts to find copyright violations, for a few reasons. If they were copyright violations, then you did not have the right to release them under any kind of license, so any "revocation" of licenses you did not have the ability to grant would be meaningless. Furthermore, you do not have any "right to have [your] edits displayed", so there was never any fear of violating that non-existent right. The difficulty with cleaning up copyright infringements involves the grunt work of combing through a user's edits and actually identifying what is a copyright infringement and what isn't, not violating any of the user in question's rights. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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 [12] while adds their own [13]. The editor seems like they want to promote Telugu i. e. they add Telugu to non-Telugu actors films [14] and remove non-Telugu films from Telugu actors [15] [16]. 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[17] was a direct copy of the link mentioned.[18] However the current article has been substantially changed, with only a small amount of copied material remaining.[19] -- 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 [20].

    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]

    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=1222893144"