Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
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
|archiveheaderarchive = {{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|counter = 226
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
|algo = old(2d)
}}{{short description|archiveNotices =of interest to administrators}}{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)dHeader}}</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.
----------------------------------------------------------
 
--></noinclude>
 
== [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)]] ==
 
Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize the proposals at the following discussions:
# <s>[[Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2]]</s>
# <s>[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in infoboxes]]</s>
# [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in lists]]
# <s>[[Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 53#RfC: Did recent currency image deletions go beyond the proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy?]]</s> (which was [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 52#RfC: Did recent currency image deletions go beyond the proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy?|archived]] but then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANon-free_content%2FArchive_52&diff=437023194&oldid=436766196 restored] to the main Wikipedia talk:Non-free content page in wait for a proper closure)
# <s>[[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover]]</s>
The first four discussions have recently been [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive#June|archived]] from [[Template:Centralized discussion]]. Thanks, [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 
Discussions 1, 2, and 5 should be relatively straightforward closes, while discussions 3 and 4 will be much more challenging. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 
:Future timestamp to prevent archiving. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 
::Can we please have the two flagicons RFC closed? Some lists are being subjected to the mass removal of flags, despite my request for this not to be done until the RFC is ''closed''. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 
:::We don't need an admin to close rfcs. The discussion on mosicon is over I and believe we have consensus.[[User:Curb Chain|Curb Chain]] ([[User talk:Curb Chain|talk]]) 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::::It is best to have an uninvolved admin assess the consensus in the RfCs so that editors in the future who review those discussions will be able to easily see what the consensus was. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 08:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 
Future timestamp to prevent archiving. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 23:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
:Pst to admins looking for an easy close &ndash; #2 has no opposes. I can't close it as I write ship articles. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 08:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
::Thank you, Ed, for closing [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2]] and [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover]]. The other discussions remain open. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:::Still no closure? [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 20:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*Closed number 2 for you guys. -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ]][[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="red"> (t) ]] <font color="blue">[[Special:EmailUser/DeltaQuad| (e)]]</font></font></font> 18:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
:*Thank you, DQ! [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 00:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 
== New Era Building ==
 
Would an administrator please move [[User:Doncram/New Era Building]] to [[New Era Building]]. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:Do you also have drafts for the other articles in userspace? Barring that, it's a disambiguation that leads to one article. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|Aaron Brenneman]] ([[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|talk]]) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
::I'd like some feedback on what our normal approach is in this situation. When there are two actual articles, it makes sense to use a hatnote, but if one or both are redlinks, hatnotes do not appear to make sense. That's why there was a dab with two redlinks. I'm not all that big a fan of redlinks, but that's not my call to make. If redlinks are allowed for plausible articles, (and an NRHP location qualifies as a plausible article), how should it be handled? I do not think it is reasonable to expect the editor creating the dab to have draft articles in progress. That would be nice, but I don't see it as required. I'm inclined to make the move (as requested [[User_talk:Sphilbrick#deleted_article_request|here]]), but I'd like to see what others think, in case there are rules I'm missing, or a better solution.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#002868;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#ADD8E6;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">T</span>]]</font> 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:::It is disambiguation policy and practice that disambiguation pages differentiate among ''topics'' and can contain redlink items, as long as each one provides a supporting bluelink to an article that shows the same redlink in context. More specifics at [[MOS:DABRL]]. From time to time it seems surprising to an editor, but it is further acceptable for a dab page to consist entirely of such redlinks (with supporting bluelinks), as has been determined in discussions among disambiguation-focussed editors at WikiProject Disambiguation talk. This dab page existed properly in mainspace for a long time. Recently it was deleted once by Sphilbrick, was recreated by me, was moved to current userspace location twice by SarekOfVulcan, and then a new page (which I moved to [[New Era Building (New York City)]]) was created in the mainspace location by Station1. The disambiguation page is needed, appropriate. It now takes an administrator to move it back. I suppose it would further be appropriate to have the previous edit history of the article restored. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:::P.S. I've now asked at Wikiproject talk Disambiguation for comment here. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:::: See, now I'm cranky. When there is history to an action, and that history can reasonably interpreted as contentious, it's a bit uncool to drop a one-line "please do this." It sure makes it ''look'' like you were trying to slip something in under the radar. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|Aaron Brenneman]] ([[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|talk]]) 15:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
::::: I would have thought that making the request on one of the most trafficed noticeboards on WP, rather than using {{tl|Db-move}} (where it would hide along with the rest of the speedy deletion requests), is the antithesis of trying to slip something in under the radar. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::: A non-controversial move of a disambiguation usually gets done in thirty seconds when you put in on this page. The relevant facts weren't given by the requester, and there was '''clearly''' a good reason to give that background, see above and below. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|Aaron Brenneman]] ([[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|talk]]) 15:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::: Yes, my asking here was meant to convey there exists some issue, but I was hoping for simple resolution. It should indeed be non-controversial, and would not be except for SarekOfVulcan's determined and uninformed-in-my-view intervention on the article. I asked here rather than at [[wp:RM]] as some editors here are familiar with SarekOfVulcan's involvement with my editing, which is adding up towards repeated instances of pretty apparent edit-warring mentality (tho 3RR not reached this time). The last time SarekOfVulcan tangled with me here, regarding a page where he reached 4RR, he was blocked 40 hours and i was blocked 3 weeks. I don't want to have to go into all of that. I simply asked and do ask for the dab page to be restored, and hoped that someone informed about previous history would just make a sensible judgment on this situation alone and fix this situation. In effect I was/am asking for a simple override SarekOfVulcan's judgment that it is not a valid dab page, because it is a valid dab page. Is it possible to ask for a simple fix, without going into a big discussion about other stuff? --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Note that userfying the article was {{oldid|User:Doncram/New Era Building|440562056|not what was originally asked for}}.--[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 16:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::That is an misleading statement by SarekOfVulcan, to link to a non-compliant version. As i explained to SarekOfVulcan, i was seeking restoration of the original article, not that version. The original article, as in copy provided by Sphilbrick at his Talk upon my request, included MOSDAB-compliant supporting bluelinks, and also a cross-wiki link to the German wikipedia version of this dab page. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 16:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: It is clear that OP's posting has the effect of ratcheting up the cranky meter, even if not intended. However, I take the point that asking here is not really slipping it under the radar, but the exact opposite. I also suggest that edit summaries using the word "attack" or "pressure" do not help, even if they were valid (and I don't think they are valid in this case). Can we concentrate on settling whether the dab is warranted?--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#002868;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#ADD8E6;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">T</span>]]</font> 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::: No arguments against the dab being presented here, and positive ones having been presented (i.e. that the dab is valid and compliant with all policies) could an administrator please make the move and restore the dab? --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 19:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 
Doncram has asked me on his talk page to comment here. The chronology is roughly: 1. Sphilbrick deletes, correctly imo, ''New Era Building'', at the time a two entry dab page where both entries are redlinks with a bluelink to a list article with minimal info about each topic (other than pages created by doncram, I believe such dab pages are extremely unusual and have always been subject to speedy deletion). 2. Doncram requests undeletion on Sphilbrick's talk page. 3. Without waiting, doncram creates a new dab page with two redlinks and no bluelinks whatsoever. 4. I request speedy deletion using <nowiki>{{db-disambig}}</nowiki>. 5. SarekOfVulcan userfies rather than deletes. 6. Doncram adds back original bluelinks and moves it back to mainspace. 7. SarekOfVulcan userfies again. 8. I Google "New Era Building" and seeing nothing about the two redlinked buildings, create a short article with several refs about a NYC building. 9. Doncram moves it to [[New Era Building (New York City)]]. 10. I revert and explain at [[User talk:Doncram#Your move of New Era Building]] that this is the only article so far and in any case is [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] and please use [[WP:RM]] for obviously contentious moves. Bottom line: I believe consensus is that there's no need for dab pages with only redlinks as entries because dab pages are not search indices. In any case a dab page should not usurp a title needed by an article. These issues have been discussed with doncram by myself and numerous others over and over. [[User:Station1|Station1]] ([[User talk:Station1|talk]]) 21:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 
--><noinclude>
:Sigh. Over years, I have dealt with wave after wave of editors newly arriving at disambiguation pages and being unaware of policy or not accepting consensus. Consensus on exactly the no-redlinks-being-okay issue has been established previously, Station1's assertion to the contrary, and I refreshed Station1 about that already. Sphilbrick's deletion was wrong because all-redlink dab pages are in fact okay. However, now there is a bluelink article, the new one created by Station1, and there are three items on the dab page, getting by Sphilbrick's preference (not policy) for hatnotes only when just 2 items have the same name. Station1's assertion that the article name is "needed" by the new one is not valid; it obviously can be at [[New Era Building (New York City)]]. Station1, could you please clarify that a) you would now agree that the disambiguation page should exist (albeit i think you think it should exist at [[New Era Building (disambiguation)]]. Sphilbrick could you please clarify that you think the disambiguation page should exist, now that there are 3 anyhow. The only new issue is whether the New York City one should be wp:PRIMARYUSAGE or not a question properly settled in a Requested Move on the disambiguation page, after it is restored. I happen to think the non-nrhp NYC one is not primaryusage as the 2 NRHP-listed ones are definitely notable and as notable it their areas as the New York City one is in its area, and there is no world-wide primaryusage--face it no one has ever heard of any "New Era Building"; Station1 happens to think it does meet primaryusage. That subquestion should not require wp:AN attention, IMO. I suggest that the original request, to move [[User:Doncram/New Era Building]] to [[New Era Building]] be implemented. That would provide the necessary reversal of SarekOfVulcan's incorrect userfying of the valid dab page (important enough for wp:AN, and most properly covered here). Then let Station1 open a Requested Move at the Talk page of that, relating to his new article, created only after all this was already going on, if he wishes. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 21:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
::If wave after wave of editors don't accept your notion of consensus, is it possible it's not the consensus at all? To answer your request for clarification, I've already said at your talk page, I think clearly, that no dab page need exist unless and until three articles exist, at which time [[New Era Building (disambiguation)]] could be created or a hatnote could be used per [[WP:TWODABS]]. [[User:Station1|Station1]] ([[User talk:Station1|talk]]) 22:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:::No, they all have different, conflicting, uninformed views. 99% agree with reasonable treatment, once explained. Now, that is a whopper of an assertion, that you agree a dab page is warranted, but not until the other articles are created, i.e. you defy disambiguation policy that redlink items are okay. That is completely unreasonable. Other editors observing here might say, well why not just create the other 2 articles. I could do that for this one case, but am balancing concerns of many NRHP editors and others who strongly dislike the creation of short stub articles. I myself would not mind having a bot run to create all the 50,000 missing NRHP articles, to end this kind of repetitive discussion with Station1 (informed) and with uninformed other new editors arriving. It is simply unreasonable to acknowledge that "New Era Building" is a valid dab topic, but assert it cannot exist. Just re-create the damn dab by moving it back into place. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 
==Open tasks==
UPDATE: Two uninvolved editors have now created [[New Era Building (Lancaster, Pennsylvania)]] and [[New Era Building (Maquoketa, Iowa)]] (thank you to them). I still think the NY building is probably the [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC|primary topic]] because it has at least five independent reliable published secondary sources (i.e., books) that specifically address the topic (plus The NY Times, New York magazine and a couple less-reliable sources not counted), and I also think it's generally better to get readers directly to an article rather than make them go through a dab page (especially if the other articles are directly linked from a hatnote as they now are in this case), but if most editors here think otherwise, a move now has at least some rationale. [[User:Station1|Station1]] ([[User talk:Station1|talk]]) 02:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
: A disambiguation page appears to be the right way to go here. Even if the structure in NYC is the most notable, there are multiple examples, and hatnotes are less desirable in such cases. See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Disambiguation pages with only two entries|Disambiguation pages with only two entries]]. In addition to the three "New Era Buildings" listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, there are other uses of "New Era Building" that may or may not be sufficiently notable to warrant articles. ''E.g.'', buildings called the "New Era Building" in Chicago (on Blue Island Avenue dating at least to the 1890s), Johannesburg (12 De Villiers St.), and [http://books.google.com/books?id=pWBEAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA102&dq=%22new+era+building%22++francisco+mission&hl=en&ei=WEwqTuiEG_TTiAKrn8CvAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22new%20era%20building%22%20%20francisco%20mission&f=false San Francisco], as well as the [http://books.google.com/books?id=lPtPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA812&dq=%22new+era+building+%26+loan%22&hl=en&ei=YkkqTrqLMKTkiAKwhJiwAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22new%20era%20building%20%26%20loan%22&f=false New Era Building & Loan Association] in Philadelphia and the modular home builder [http://new-era-homes.com/ New Era Building Systems]. A disambiguation page services the 3 existing articles and leaves room to accommodate additional uses. [[User:Cbl62|Cbl62]] ([[User talk:Cbl62|talk]]) 04:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
{{Clear}}
{{Admin tasks}}
</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->
 
== Pages recently put under [[WP:ECP|extended-confirmed protection]] ==
::Yes, thanks Cbl62. Would an administrator please move [[User:Doncram/New Era Building]] to [[New Era Building]]. To do so, please move the new article currently occupying the place to [[New Era Building (New York City)]] (which now redirects to the main topic). Station1 can open a wp:RM to move the dab to "New Era Building (Disambiguation)" if he sincerely believes the New York one meets wp:PRIMARYUSAGE, which I believe it does not. Station1, thank you for commenting promptly above, responding to my request. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse top|bg=#F0F2F5|Report}}
:::Of course I'm not going to open a RM. WP needs less disruption, not more. When this discussion is over, an admin will move things around or leave them as they are, mark this section resolved, and we'll all (hopefully including doncram) gladly move on to more productive endeavors. [[User:Station1|Station1]] ([[User talk:Station1|talk]]) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
{{User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report}}
::::I would like that. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 13:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
{{unindent}} Would an administrator please move [[User:Doncram/New Era Building]] to [[New Era Building]]. To do so, please move the new article currently occupying the place to [[New Era Building (New York City)]] (which now redirects to the main topic). This in effect would override administrator SarekOfVulcan's twice moving the dab page to my userspace, and now it can only be moved back by an administrator. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 11:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
==RfC closure review request at [[:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss]]==
:. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 01:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1715475679}}
::Pretty please. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:::At this point the disambiguation page is ready for mainspace. However, it's clear that moving [[New Era Building]] to [[New Era Building (New York City)]] is not an uncontroversial move, so I'm not willing to do that without a proper RM. I'm willing to move [[User:Doncram/New Era Building]] to [[New Era Building (disambiguation)]] if you're willing to accept that for now and open an RM for any additional changes you want. Thoughts? [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 16:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Sounds like a reasonable solution to me.--[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 16:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::28bytes, thanks for replying. If you put the dab page at the alternative name, then that gives the new NYC article the status quo, incorrectly, in a RM process. IMO, the dab should be put at the New Era Building name, undoing the effect of administrative actions that should not have been taken. I opened this wp:AN to ask for remedy of incorrect administrative actions. Review: The New York City page was only created after this started, upon Station1 noticing disagreement ensuing on the topic and investigating. There was long a dab page. Then first there was a void at the topic name only because administrator Sphilbrick deleted it without notice I believe, and without AFD. Then I put in a replacement dab page while asking Sphilbrick to restore original. Then Station1 commented about topic at my Talk page which SarekOfVulcan noticed, and SarekOfVulcan again deleted the dab, i think twice, by userfying. Then Station1 created NYC page at the main topic name, and moved it back after I once moved it away. It is the move of the New York City one to the general topic name that should be considered a controversial move, relative to the previous status. IMO, the administrative actions that removed the dab page were the mistakes, which should be undone by administrative action.
:::::28bytes, Station1 already indicated that he would tend to abide by an administrator's decision about whether NYC one is primaryusage or not. I suggest if you actually judge it is wp:PRIMARYUSAGE (which you have not stated) then you make the move to the alternative name. If you judge the NYC one is not primary usage, or if you do not want to judge on that, then you should restore the previous status pre any moves, by implementing my request. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 18:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::I think AN is a poor venue for determining whether the New York location is the primary topic. Moving your userspace DAB to mainspace while not disturbing the existing articles – without prejudice against a subsequent move request to settle the primary topic issue – is the best I can offer. If that's not acceptable, that's fine, perhaps another admin will be willing to make the specific moves you are requesting. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 19:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I agree with the first sentence. Would another administrator, then, please move [[User:Doncram/New Era Building]] to [[New Era Building]]. To do so, please move the new article currently occupying the place to [[New Era Building (New York City)]] (which now redirects to the main topic). This would undo the effect of previous administrative actions. Then anyone can propose a normal RM if primaryusage on the new article is asserted. I would hope that administrators as a group would hope a) to do no harm, and b) to undo harm from administrative actions where possible. This is a straightforward request to get back to something like the status quo before. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 13:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:{{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]])
(undent) Isn't this what [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] is for, and don't the regular admins there have more experiance in this than us random blow-ins? Why is this best dealt with here, or am I missing something? - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|Aaron Brenneman]] ([[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|talk]]) 14:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
:@Doncram -- how many editors need to explain a) that the move you want is not uncontroversial; b) that this is not the forum for discussing or a requesting move? [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 14:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 
'''Closer''': {{userlinks|Chetsford}}
::I was asking the "regular admins" to undo the action taken by one of them, to restore a needed, valid dab page. A normal RM could be started, or not, about the controversial potential move of the dab page in favor of a new article started after this began. The new article does not change the fact that the original administrative action was wrong. And that administrative action to move the dab would be the best way to fix the current situation.
 
'''Notified''': {{diff|User talk:Chetsford|1219154073|1218726050}}
::However, I will take it that no administrator wants pass any judgment about the other administrator, and to fix the situation. I'll move the article myself to the alternative name and open a RM. Thanks for nothing really. :) --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 19:00, 29 July 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}}:
* {{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)
 
===Doncram attacksUninvolved===
*<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)
While we're on the subject, can we agree that "start article supporting architect article that is under some attack" is not an appropriate edit summary on a whole bunch of levels? --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 14:27, 22 July 2011 (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)
:The New Era Building situation is yet another where SarekOfVulcan seemed to me to be edit warring, by nature of rapid, undiscussed too-strong edits, with terse edit summaries at best. I requested nicely enough that SarekOfVulcan read up on the subject and fix the situation by moving the dab page back. He did not, so eventually i ask here for others to fix this. It's an example of SarekOfVulcan edit warring, IMHO. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Doncram/New_Era_Building&action=history edit history] and [[User talk:Doncram#New Era Building|discussion, such as it was]]. Countering by trying to raise a new issue seems off-track. Just move the dab page back, please. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 15:06, 22 July 2011 (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)
::'add to article created to support architect article, which is under some "pressure"' is not an improvement. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 15:31, 22 July 2011 (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)
:::In this AN discussion, I ask for simple resolution of one dab page issue. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 16:10, 22 July 2011 (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)
::::That's nice. Stop making insinuations in your edit summaries. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 16:14, 22 July 2011 (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===
:As (what I assume to be) an uninvolved editor, Doncram your commentary in this thread is pushing the borders of civility and tone. I know you've been warned previously about this so take this viewpoint as a friendly suggestion that you take a few minutes and consider your tone. Thanks [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 17:10, 22 July 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)
::Some prefer less, some prefer more clarification of the actual context here. I am somewhat cranky, too. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 21:48, 22 July 2011 (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===
===another dab removed by SarekOfVulcan===
:::::I agree that explicit discussion at Talk pages is far better than carrying on with edit-war style reversions and insinuations or assertions in edit summaries. Such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=440850724 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=440849776 this] and the series of edits by which SarekOfVulcan kept removing the page, and did not properly discuss. Edit summaries just invoked an irrelevant essay [[Wikipedia:Write the article first]], not convincing and not relevant to the development of disambiguation as here. I am again troubled by S's attention, but simultaneous unwillingness to actually discuss things, as in my comments in S's recent re-RFA, which I opposed.
 
*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)
:::::Reviewing SarekOfVulcan's contributions now, I further see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Downtown_Main_Street_Historic_District&diff=prev&oldid=440567216 this edit], in which SarekOfVulcan removes another disambiguation page by redirecting it. The edit summary suggests that he now believes that a dab page having just one main bluelink should be removed, until a second one is created. That is contrary to policy and practice and even further contrary to reason than deleting dab pages that have valid topics but no main bluelink. I will restore that disambiguation page once now. I imagine SarekOfVulcan or another editor will now choose to redirect it. Please do discuss here. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 23:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
**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 ==
::::::In reviewing the '''Downtown Main Street Historic District''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Downtown_Main_Street_Historic_District&action=history history] it is interesting to note that you created it Feb 23, 2010. It was redirected 2 days later. It stayed that way until July 20, 2011 when you reverted as "incorrectly redirected". And then the back and forth today.
::::::Bluntly: As per [[WP:TWODABS]] ad dab page is not needed. Station1 and SarekOfVulcan were correct to redirect it. [[WP:POINT|Pointed]] reversals of that are not needed. [[MOS:DABRL]] is sound, but only ''if'' a dab page is needed. A single potential "other" article does not a dab page need. Nor a hatnote at this point.
::::::- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 22:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Not so. Removal of a dab page is not called for. The dab page, and others like it, have served purpose of helping clear name conflicts in NRHP list-articles which used to separately point to the dab topic. Putting the first-to-be-created article at the general name, rather than at the more specific, proper, final name including (City, State) disambiguation, often causes error and more future work resolving conflict between the future article creators and the first article creator who will tend to have ownership and in effect assert primaryusage. When only one of two known-to-be-valid and pretty-clearly-neither-primaryusage topics have an article already, it is not possible to set up hatnotes (I am sure that if you set up a hatnote from the one existing article to a redlink, that many editors would object and remove it). What is possible and makes sense is to create the dab, which is not disallowed by any policy and which obviously serves the need. This has been done for many hundreds of cases, and there is no problem with it. It would defy logic in developing the wikipedia to prohibit just creating the known-to-be-needed dab, which serves readers and editors right away who could be looking for either item and want to know whether or not articles exist, and if not, would like to see the redlink suggesting the topic is valid for them to go ahead and start the article. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 18:09, 24 July 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)
:::::::Oh, it is also worth noting that '''TWODABS''' as written points to the hatnote currently on '''New Era Building''' as sufficient unless consensus shows that none of the 3 building is the "primary" topic. - [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 22:13, 23 July 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)
::::::::I believe that none of the 3 buildings is the primary topic, but "TWODABS" does not state the disambiguation page should not exist, it just at best suggests the dab page might not be absolutely necessary, if all of two or three articles exist and one is primary. Since there are likely further entries to be added in the future, and since cluttering all three current New Era Building pages with hatnotes pointing to the other seems excessive, the best thing editorially is to have the dab page. It is not prohibited, and it is best. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
::{{U|The Banner}}, that response would have been so much better if you'd but the first sentence and a half. You're probably right in suggesting (?) (the diff above must be off) that competence supersedes civility, but that doesn't mean that a lack of civility isn't problematic. I don't think the comments here rise to a blockable level or I wouldn't be commenting, I'd just block, but I wish you'd think twice before pushing "Publish changes". [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 00:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::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 ===
::::::::MOS on "Disambiguation pages with only two entries" is slightly more explicit. To quote [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Disambiguation pages with only two entries|Disambiguation pages with only two entries]]: "Some disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary topic. In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless. The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic. The {{tl|for}} and {{tl|redirect}} templates are useful. If neither of the two meanings is primary, then a normal disambiguation page is used at the base name."
::: {{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 ==
::::::::And, obviously if only one of two valid topics has an article, hatnotes won't work, so the dab page is in fact strictly necessary. Knock on wood, there has been no change on the restored dab page [[Downtown Main Street Historic District]], so i am thinking this part of the discussion is resolved well enough. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 18:16, 24 July 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)
:::::::::First, I did not state TWODABS states a dab page should not exist, just that a hatnote is sufficient.
:::::::::Second, yes, ''if'' there are likely to be more articles using the same name then a dab page becomes plausible. But that is an ''if'', as in guessing about future content.
:::::::::Next, you are arguing to put the cart in front of the horse. TWODABS should be looked at ''first''. then, ''if'' a dab page is needed, the MoS on dab pages comes into play.
:::::::::Arguing that the dab page is "harmless" in such cases rings hollow - an unneeded page is an unneeded page. If you prefer it can be posted to AfD and redirected consensus, but that smack of being obstructive rather than constructive. That is unless you care to produce the article for the redlink.
:::::::::Last, I wouldn't call '''Downtown Main Street Historic District''' resolved at this point, not by a long chalk. The existence of the page is questionable, at best and this is a discussion in an attempt to avoid escalating an edit war that could look like a bad case of [[WP:OWN]].
:::::::::- [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] ([[User talk:J Greb|talk]]) 21:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:3 others, including 2 admins, have expressed concerns that the first account Historian2325 is a SPA, by the way. [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 01:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Okay, better to discuss than edit war I agree. J Greb, FYI, I adapt following passage from a previous discussion, to explain more context about why there are many NRHP dab pages that have redlinks. It basically has to do with conflict between some NRHP editors vs. some disambiguation-focused editors; i have tried to mediate between. Some NRHP editors criticize short articles and don't want stubs created; some dab-focused editors try to remove all redlinks or prevent dab pages from existing. This is all about clearly wikipedia-notable topics of NRHP-listed places, for which articles will be created eventually (in fact they could all be created within a few weeks by running a bot to create them). Anyhow here is an adapted passage from previous explanation here (in "small"):
<small>Upon encountering a mostly-redlink or all-redlink dab page, many editors have first reaction that disambiguation is to distinguish among existing articles only. So all redlink entries should be deleted? In the past many have started ahead deleting them. Many have started deleting any dab page that has all redlinks (whether or not there are supporting bluelinks establishing context and notability of the topic). Many have started to redirect dab pages that have just one bluelink. There are, over time, dozens of persons, some quite determined, who start to tear down disambiguation that I have set up. It takes time to convince the new arrivals that in fact the dab pages comply with policy (and it also takes a lot of time to get the Disambiguation policy updated for some matters). The Disambiguation policy is about topics, and Wikipedia-notable topics need disambiguation. Given a system of 85,000 NRHP-listed places in lists, with many sharing the same name, it is necessary to resolve article name conflicts so editors can proceed, and so that readers can discover whether a local NRHP they are looking for has an article or not. See [[User:Doncram/NRHP disambiguation]] for some reading, not recently updated. One pivotal past discussion with dab-focused editors was [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 13#what is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation?|what is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation?]] in 2008.
 
:Has anyone thought of making the following change to [[Wikipedia:CheckUser]] to see whether it works.
Dealing with the Disambiguation editors in 2008, negotiating for the NRHP editors, the best I could do was to get consensus that a dab page could exist if at least one article existed. So, I created a stub article each time necessary, probably a few hundred. It had to be done. I worked at getting the policy changed, because NRHP editors like Elkman and Dudemanfellabra really disliked the stub articles, but it took a year or two or more to do so. Meanwhile I gave courtesy notice to Elkman if I created a stub in Minnesota and I gave courtesy notice to [[User:Niagara]] if I created a stub in Pennsylvania, as they preferred to be notified and would improve them. Finally sometime I completed out the creation of all dab pages needed for 2 or more NRHP places of the same name; there are '''{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles}}''' articles with one or more NRHP entries in [[:Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles]] now.
:OLD - "The CheckUser tool is used by a small group of trusted Wikipedia users (called checkusers)."
</small>
:NEW - "The CheckUser tool is used by a very large group of trusted Wikipedia users (called checkusers)."
::::::::::Hope this helps some. Would it help to get some NRHP editors to testify that they don't like short stub articles created? What else might help you see that the present dab is helpful, stable, best. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:[[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 02:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::Re: the "conflict" between the NRHP editors who "criticize short articles and don't want stubs created" and the dab-focused editors who "try to remove all redlinks or prevent dab pages from existing." A very practical solution to this supposed conflict has been suggested before... but I will suggest it again now: Work on both articles and related dab pages in ''User space'' until they can satisfy both parties. You can still notify other editors from the project so they can help you out. Wait until the ambiguous group (or at least most it) are more than a "short stub-of-a-stub"... then copy them over into Article space, along with the relevant dab page. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 02:03, 27 July 2011 (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)
:::In theory a 'nice' suggestion, but in reality contra-productive. Red-links are there to point to articles that ''should'' exist. It does not matter if that is in an article or on a dabpage (even a hatnote). All too often looking at actors playing in films of my era (at least the era I like watching) I find links pointing to totally wrong entries. If you find a redlink dab at the target pages you at least can point the link in question to its correct target. Funny, there are even pages that sort such redlinks my the number of incoming links - to identfy important subjects. [[User:Agathoclea|Agathoclea]] ([[User talk:Agathoclea|talk]]) 17:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:::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)
::::Thanks Agathoclea. To Blueboar, about dabs your suggestion "develop dabs in Userspace" was one made by one or two others previously, back in Fall 2009 or 2010 i dunno which, when the system of dabs covering non-unique NRHP-listed placenames was being completed. That system was completed out then: all the missing dabs were then created, with approving consensus of those who were involved then. There was explicit discussion then about the principles covered in wp:TWODABS, and there was general agreement the system of dabs should be completed out. For a while there were a couple hundred dab pages in draft form included in a cleanup category. You could have argued then that the draft dab pages should have been in userspace until cleaned up. But all the new dabs were promptly brought up to MOSDAB standards, i.e. to have a properly compliant supporting bluelink for every redlink item, so it is moot. The system of dabs has been serving extremely well, if I do say so myself. It has allowed[[User:dispenser]]'s [http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Dablinks Dablinks] tool to be applied to all or most of the NRHP list-articles, so now there are very few remaining links to ambiguous topics from the NRHP list system. It allows me and others who create new articles on architects and builders, to quickly fix up lists of their works. And so on.
::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)
::::What this subsection is about, is that I recently discovered the redirection/removal of the Downtown dab, a rare exception to the general completion of needed dabs, and I restored it. SarekOfVulcan removed it by redirecting it again, and i restored it and opened this discussion here. SarekOfVulcan has not further asserted the dab should not exist. We're all done in this subsection, IMO, but i am willing to explain this further if there are further questions. The only remaining thing needed is, in above first section, for an admin to restore the deleted New Era Building dab. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::ThereRight, isbut nowouldn't consensusthe thatendorsement dabof pages2 thatadmins disambiguatebe fewera thansuitable twosubstitute articlesfor shouldclerk exist.endorsement? [[User:Station1Southasianhistorian8|Station1Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Station1Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 1906:5820, 272 JulyMay 20112024 (UTC)
::::Do the spi rules say that? I think it's supposed to be clerks. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 06:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::: I disagree, based on previous explicit discussion at WikiProject Disambiguation's Talk page. I invited you to open a new discussion there if you wish to challenge the previous consensus; it is not a matter for wp:AN to change that. However, there do exist hundreds or thousands of current dab pages having only one or even zero primary bluelinks, while disambiguating among multiple valid wikipedia article ''topics'' that each have proper support (i.e. each primary redlink having a proper supporting bluelink). --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:I would suggest removing the IP addresses as a checkuser will not link IP addresses to accounts plus most have been inactive for sometime, between one and six months, and no action is likely to be taken because any disruption by these IPs is neither recent nor ongoing. [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 07:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
If this is a TWODABS situation, why not make a hatnote on the existing page to point to the list of NRHP places by county that lists the second page? I thought we had those lists for every county that has NRHP places. [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:tan">'''''bd2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 20:14, 27 July 2011 (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)
:I think you are referring to supporting bluelinks in a dab page. For NRHP items in a dab page where the main item is a redlink, yes it is appropriate to include a supporting bluelink to the corresponding NRHP county or city list that shows the same item in context. That is practice, that is done systematically. Thanks for commenting. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 14:41, 28 July 2011 (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]]==
== [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should users be allowed to remove current block notices?|Should users be allowed to remove current block notices?]] and [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require all new articles to contain at least one source|Require all new articles to contain at least one source]] ==
:{{RfC closure review links|COVID-19 pandemic|rfc_close_page=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14}} ([[User talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close|Discussion with closer]])
 
'''Closer''': {{userlinks|Chetsford}}
Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should users be allowed to remove current block notices?]] and [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require all new articles to contain at least one source]]? Thanks, [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 17:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
: Spent a lot of time reading, but closed the first ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]&nbsp;'''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 17:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::Thank you for closing the first discussion, which was a difficult debate. Also, thank you, HJ Mitchell, for reviewing the discussion. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 17:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 
'''Notified''': [[User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion]]
:Here's a thought: '''quit it'''! Why in the world you guys want to stifle discussion I don't know, but I wish that you'd just leave these things alone. Very, ''very'' few discussions on the Village Pump require "closing". Why (at least two of) you think they do is beyond me. If you're not interested in participating in the discussion than do something else.<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> 19:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::Your condescension on this board, from the comment here to the comment to Gwen Gale below, is unhelpful.<p>I ask admins to close RfCs listed at [[Template:Centralized discussion]] so that the participants will understand the consensuses in their discussions. Some of the closes result in guideline or policy changes. Some result in no consensus being achieved. The closes are necessary to ensure that the proposals and discussions are not wasted because no one has assessed the consensus.<p>I generally ask for an RfC closure after at least 30 days of discussion or if discussion has stalled and the RfC has been archived from Template:Centralized discussion. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 20:40, 25 July 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.
:::Sure, sure. Nothing about either of these discussions that you've linked to here requires "closure". Removal from CENT is fine, but attempting to shut down further discussion on the issues is wrongheaded, and slightly disruptive, in my opinion. I find it troubling that you seem to believe it necessary to force "participants [to] understand the consensuses". You clearly fail to understand the concept of consensus, based on this comment. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We're not a court, nor are we legislators. If you feel stung by my comments, I suggest that it is probably due to the fact that you're slightly out of touch with the culture here (not that I'm an expert myself, but at least I don't run around trying to force others to accept my views with a rational that it is "consensus").<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> 21:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::::I disagree with your assessment but will disengage from further discussion with you.Thanks! [[User:CunardJtbobwaysf|CunardJtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:CunardJtbobwaysf|talk]]) 2105:0758, 253 JulyMay 20112024 (UTC)
::::Whilst WP is not, among very many other things, a democracy or a court or a debating society it may well be borne in mind that you are the only editor who is complaining about (a) discussion(s) being closed with a overview of the apparent consensus at that time. [[WP:NOTSOAP|One thing WP is not, is a soapbox.]] If it seems that most people have accepted the outcome, then please accept it for the time being and perhaps raise the issue(s) at some later date. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 21:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::If you're looking for other people to speak up, I'll do so. I have serious reservations about this close. Upon reading the discussion, it seems clear to me that there is either no consensus, or consensus in the other direction. To claim a consensus exists for this result, and to use it to change a guideline, seems unfair. I would not have closed it myself, because I have an opinion, and because I'm not sure a definitive closure was needed. If I thought it was just a matter of consensus being against me, I'd suck it up and move on, but I really don't think it was. I also note that others have objected to the close on BMW's talk page, and there's been some edit warring on the policy page in the last couple of days, also indicating it isn't just Ohm's Law stirring up trouble. I also find it irksome that HJM's {{tl|closing}} template was over-ridden. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 21:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::He'd probably begun closing before I put the template there, but I had intended to close it with the opposite result. I've made my issues with the close known on BW's talk page. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 21:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::FYI, I reverted the change to [[Wikipedia:User pages]] (twice now) and started a section on the talk page at [[Wikipedia talk:User pages#Removal of current block notices]]. Since I've already been accused of soapboxing here I'll withdraw from any further editing of the policy page, but I'd hope that several of you who are interested in this (many of you who are administrators) will be willing to abide to our expectations with respect to edit warring and discuss this on the talk page.<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> 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
If anything it would be a no-consensus close, definitely not a consensus to allow. And since the discussion was to remove where it said to not allow the removal of the block notices that would default to pretty much the same decision that he closed to so is there really a need to argue about it? -[[User:Djsasso|DJSasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 22:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:It's interesting to note that about two thirds of administrators (the people who will have to clean up when somebody starts an edit war by having the nerve to remove a message for them form their own talk page) were in favour of allowing users to remove block notices. Once you eliminate the people who clearly don't know what the purpose of a block notice is, the consensus is clealry in agreement with those admins. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 23:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::But that isn't a valid way to close a discussion ranking admin and non-admin. Ohms law made a good suggestion in the discussion he links to that maybe we should word it in a way that says there are some instances that it is appropriate to make them stay. Instead of a blanket yes or no situation. -[[User:Djsasso|DJSasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::It's perfectly valid. I'm the last person who would ever suggest that admins have some kind of special status, but it makes sense to give greater weight to the opinions of the people this is going to affect. This will affect blocked users (who don't have the right or the ability to edit) and admins, so giving extra weight to admins makes sense here. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 23:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Or, as consensus shows at another similar discussion at VPP, we don't say anything and treat things on a case-by-case basis. '''[[User:Eagles247|<font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:Eagles247|<font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7</font>]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Eagles247|<font color="003B48" size="1px">(C)</font>]] 23:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::::I tend to agree with the "say nothing" approach, but there seems to be sufficient interest, which is apparently motivated by a desire to define and understand this aspect of our "culture" here, to justify saying ''something''. I'd hope that said something is more along the lines of "it depends on the situation" than saying either "don't ever do this" or "it's always allowed", but that's what talk pages are for.<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> 23:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Whether or not it is better to say something, the RfC does not appear to have produced a consensus on ''what'' to say. I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABwilkins&action=historysubmit&diff=441436108&oldid=441418850 posted] on BWilkins' talk page to encourage them to change the close to "no consensus" and restore the language of the section to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_pages&oldid=429454811#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings this version] that was in place prior to the changes that triggered the RfC. The old language does not address block notices specifically, which is probably how it should stay until consensus is forged for some other wording. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 23:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::You do realize that version does actually mention block notices by saying "sanctions currently in effect" which are clearly blocks. -[[User:Djsasso|DJSasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 00:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::You might ''infer'' that, but it doesn't ''say'' 'block notices', which was the reasoning behind [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUser_pages&action=historysubmit&diff=435751830&oldid=435465118 this edit] that helped trigger the RfC. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 00:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I don't see a consensus there. As an aside, I don't think blocked users should have to carry that badge in their talk space if they don't want to, a block note comes up when one looks at a blocked user's contribs either way. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 23:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 
===Uninvolved (COVID19)===
:::HJ Mitchell, no; it is that sort of reasoning and mentality (of trying to give extra weight to admins) which led to some of the foolishness at AE, ANI, etc. which led to two arbitrations within this year alone. <small>In fact, in a way, editors are often in a better position to see how easily some admins can miss things, when things are being done as intended and when those things are going too far, and how desysops have so far worked in practice when things aren't up to scratch.</small> Tools are given by the Community and the rules governing those tools are also set by the Community - extra weight is not (and will not be) given to admins opinions, and for as long as my watch is ticking, that will not change.
This close was within the threshold of reasonable. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
* I don't recall ever editing that article so I think I'm uninvolved. Will strike if mistaken. The closure looks entirely reasonable to me. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 
What does it even mean to "strike down" a consensus? In this case, that consensus is a documented statement that the lab leak theory shouldn't be mentioned. Does "striking it down" mean removing the consensus statement because it's used to preempt discussion/proposals? Or does it mean finding consensus to talk about the lab leak in the article? If the former, given the way documented past consensus serves to limit present discussion (for good reason, in many cases), I'd think we'd need affirmative consensus to retain it, and not just default to it with no consensus. If the latter, it's worded oddly and it's hard to see that RfC as yielding a clear result. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::If there is disagreement over whether it should be allowed or not, more thought is needed. There can be some compromise between the concept that users have maximum freedom in their userspace, while addressing the concerns about how single-purpose-disruptive-users are treating the gap in policy (and how editors needed to adopt special measures to force admins to do something). DJSasso has echoed (above) a good suggestion which is capable of putting the issue to rest by considering both perspectives; hopefully that sort of thing can bring some resolution. Some users have refused to look for a middle ground, or to acknowledge the alternative proposals which have been raised, and I think it's a shame that those users are potentially going to force more escalation in lieu of resolution. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 10:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
: For what it's worth, my reading of the discussion would be that it's attempting the former. —[[User:Sirdog|<span style="color:#056300">'''Sirdog'''</span> ]]([[User talk:Sirdog|talk]]) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 
I'd say any other editor in good standing reviewing that discussion could reasonably find the same result. I am unconvinced by the challenger that the close is fundamentally flawed. —[[User:Sirdog|<span style="color:#056300">'''Sirdog'''</span> ]]([[User talk:Sirdog|talk]]) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
*Personally, active block notices + unblock requests related to active blocks, as well as warnings given within the past X hours (say, 72?) should stay. - [[User:Penwhale|Penwhale]] &#124; <sup>[[User_talk:Penwhale|dance in the air]] and [[Special:Contributions/Penwhale|follow his steps]]</sup> 18:04, 26 July 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)
*:The "warnings given within the past X hours" bit is new. Would you mind posting that thought (with a bit more of a rational, hopefully) at: [[Wikipedia talk:User pages#Removal of current block notices]]?<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> 15:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 
===Involved (COVID19)===
* Recalling previous discussions on the matter of removing any notices -- for blocks, warnings, etc. -- over the last :::mummble::: years, ISTR that the consensus was something along the lines of "people shouldn't do it, but making them not do it leads to more WikiDrama than it's worth." Yes, these notices should stay permanently on some people's user pages, but anyone who is persistent enough & sufficiently civil enough can talk their way to getting rid of them. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 23:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''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)
::::I do not concur with your assessment. Majority opinion, professional opinions, WP consensus within the article, general consensus on the RfC, and a host of other options all show clearly that this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded. This is ''exactly'' the kind of reason we have and should use [[WP:IAR]]. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{Xt|"this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded"}} - I agree with this<br/>{{xt|"This is ''exactly'' the kind of reason we have and should use [[WP:IAR]]."}} - I disagree with this. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 17:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment by SmolBrane:''' In the close, you(Chetsford) stated that “First, several editors in the oppose camp note that consensus can't occur implicitly in this case (the opposite of what we usually observe in WP:EDITCON), since #14 established a clear consensus and the mere presence of content against consensus that may have gone unnoticed doesn't overturn it.”
:The presence of content against the formal RfC consensus '''for six months''' on a high traffic article (8k views per day!) SHOULD overturn the two year old RfC. That's the whole point of implicit consensus—not to mention that '''this was the long-standing stable state of the article'''. TarnishedPath made the same error “Arguing that the content has been in the article for a while is putting the cart before the horse.” Why would we undo a six-month old undisputed edit here? We should not presume that the bold edit went 'unnoticed'--this is not a valid exception w/r/t [[WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS]]. Implicit consensus has a great deal of weight on a contentious article with 2,200 watchers. The RfC establishing consensus #14 from '''May 2020''' is very old in COVID-terms, and this RfC only had three keep !votes, which means only three individuals wanted to revise the article to a retroactive state—a situation that should require more opposers to stray from the current stable and long-standing state.
:Aquillion made a similar error “Sometimes things fall through the cracks even on high-traffic articles”. Bold edits are not “falling through the cracks”, This is again a lack of understanding of policy, and the collaborative nature of the project. Those !votes(Aquillion and TarnishedPath) likely should have been discarded.
:Both Crossroads and IOHANNVSVERVS made strong arguments in favor of striking, based on new sourcing and [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] respectively. Ortizesp and Lights and Freedom also made strong cases in relation to coverage by sources.
:The closer evidently erred “since no actual examples of RS were presented by those making this argument”. As Jtbobwaysf points out, there were three inline citations supporting the sentence about the lab leak. The closer did not correctly assess the policy-based arguments made by the supporters, nor the RSes involved. The current stable state of the article should have had more deference by the closer in light of the comments that were provided. The closer also commented about WP:MEDRS which was mentioned in the May 2020 RfC, '''not this one''', so that stipulation was inappropriate. [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk:SmolBrane|talk]]) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
::The "stable state" argument is laughable and HORRIBLE circular logic. The article is stable, therefore we shouldn't change our restrictions. But the reason it cannot be updated is BECAUSE of the restrictions. No restrictions like these should be enacted ''and'' held in place when they are demonstrably not in alignment with our [[WP:PILLAR|five pillars]], specifically, NPOV (and with that RS) + no firm rules. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 20:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree with your last sentence and I think you misunderstand my position; the lab leak theory was mentioned and linked to for six months prior to this RfC, despite the consensus 14 not being formally overturned. [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk:SmolBrane|talk]]) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was concurring with you :-) [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 
===Discussion===
*You know, the best solution would be to turn the block log into a pseudo-talk page. In other words, make the block log a regular page, with controlled edit access (fully protected by default?)... then administrators could add notes, and adjust the record of blocks and unblocks. It'd be cool to build in a "request unblock" thing that the user who's page it is could use at any time, of course (or that could just stay on the talk page as is, but whatever). If that were implemented then it could be used for all sorts of other notes as well (checkuser stuff springs immediately to mind). We'd have to develop some community standards for it's use of course, but getting the technical ability done is the first step.<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> 01:30, 29 July 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)
**Find a sympathetic dev to get that written up, but for now, let's all stop arguing over something so petty as a block notice and get back to building an encyclopedia, shall we? <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> 01:42, 29 July 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)
***I didn't think we were arguing. And, the dev would be me (if I can ever manage to find the time...), but there are also plenty of administrators here who know PHP and could work on it. I just wanted to put the idea out there, in a place where it was topical. No need to get snippy about it.<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> 01:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
:In the spirit of transparency and allowing the rest of the Community to put in their input please can we bring the discussion back to the original talk page. Plus, if for whatever reason it does ever need to be closed, I suggest an editor who doesnt have a COI by virtue of being one that goes to an inordinate number of blocks and seems to say "no" to 99% of all reviews.[[User:Camelbinky|Camelbinky]] ([[User talk:Camelbinky|talk]]) 04:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 
Ignoring the massive discussion, the facts are abundantly clear. I went [[WP:BEBOLD]] and invoked [[WP:IAR]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Current_consensus&diff=prev&oldid=1222902214]. [[WP:BRD]] if you feel I'm in error. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
== Proposed community ban of [[User:Drnhawkins]] ==
 
:I went ahead and reverted your [[WP:SUPERVOTE]] that goes against the RFC result, and the emerging consensus here. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
{{resolved|Community ban proposal opposed, case proceeded to [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drnhawkins|user conduct request for comment]]. [[User:Heymid|<span style="color:green;">Hey</span>]][[User talk:Heymid|<span style="color:red;">'''''Mid'''''</span>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Heymid|contribs]]) 15:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)}}
::Well, I wasn't the closer, so it wasn't a [[WP:SUPERVOTE]]. As for the rest, I do not see the same consensus. People here appear to be much more concerned about debating process rather than doing the correct thing by deprecating a "rule" that is clearly not being followed and a clear consensus on both Wikipedia and IRL. The idea that we should stick to restrictions imposed a few months after COVID hit vs what we know now four years later is absurd. [[WP:IAR]] could easily fix this and so could anyone with half a brain that isn't fixated on procedural hurdles.
::All that said, I was bold. It was reverted (I hold no ill will against anyone for such an action). Time to discuss. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 18:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 
== Marketing-related draft essays ==
*I would like to propose a community ban of {{user|Drnhawkins}}. I and other editors have been trying to persuade this editor to follow our policies on reliable sources and no original research for over two years - see his talk page and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep]] for the discussions of 2009. He is now creating a series of drafts in user space, [[User:Drnhawkins//Archives/Where do Moses and the Israelites fit into Egyptian History?]], [[User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt]] and [[User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt]] (the article that went to AfD was deleted and is now in his userspace where he is working on it). These are clearly original research and he clearly does not understand or accept our policies on this as is shown by his comments at the MfDs that are taking place on these articles at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt]] and [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt]]. This morning he also added a file he created to several articles with links to his draft articles. His comments speak for themselves, so I won't elaborate further here but will notify him now. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 12:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:*'''Support ban''' - I hate to see it come to this, but I agree that the time has come. I have been one of the editors who have over and over discussed the concepts of [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:RS]] with Drnhawkins. The amount of [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] is incredible. As Dougweller says, things have escalated recently, and patience has run out. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">[[User:LadyofShalott|<font color="#ee3399">Lady</font>]]<font color="#0095c6">of</font>[[User_Talk:LadyofShalott|<font color="#442288">Shalott</font>]]</font> 13:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose''' I'm seeing discussion, but no formal attempts at lesser enforcement. No blocks, and more to the point [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drnhawkins]] is a red link. I'd suggest that an attempt at wider discussion at RFC/U should be attempted before we jump straight to site ban.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
**Have you read his comments at the AfD and MfD pages? If so, why do you think an RfC/U would be effective, or do you suggest it for some other reason? [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 13:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::An RFC/U allows an individual to see that it's not just individual editors that have issue with their edits, that the general community agrees that they're not meeting WP policy. It also puts them on formal notice that they must bring themselves into compliance or sanctions will follow. I believe some formal DR is appropriate in a situation like this. If they then still chose to act counter to policy then further steps can be taken knowing that we've made that formal attempt to educate the user.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 14:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::::If I've counted right, 7 editors have !voted to delete on the current MfDs and he still argues that he is right and Wikipedia is wrong. I understand your point, but this seems to only prolong the agony and waste more time. AfDs and MfDs should also be educational in my opinion, and the issues are clearly put forward and his response is likewise clear. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 14:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Full community bans are serious enough that they should not be handed out too quickly or when other options are available. If after formal DR he still fails to learn, would a topic ban serve the puropse, allowing him to perhaps come to learn policy if he so chose? Maybe yes, maybe no, but that's the sort of thing that could be discussed outside of an MFD, inside the DR process before we lay down the wiki death penalty. This isn't a vandal, this isn't an abusive sockpupeteer, this isn't someone making threats of violence, this is someone who after a pair of MFD's in 2 weeks of editing after a 2 year break hasn't accepted WP:OR. We can take the time to do this right IMHO.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 14:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::You meant ''should not be'', I take it... - [[User:Penwhale|Penwhale]] &#124; <sup>[[User_talk:Penwhale|dance in the air]] and [[Special:Contributions/Penwhale|follow his steps]]</sup> 18:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I did miss a 'not' in there. Thanks, I've added it in so that first sentence makes sense.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose''' per Cube Lurker. It is unacceptable that bans be enacted by ad-hoc mobs on a noticeboard before even a whiff of [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] is in the air. [[user:causa sui|causa sui]] ([[user talk:causa sui|talk]]) 17:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''''I support the position of [[User:Cube lurker]]. I've read enough to sympathize with those who must be frustrated trying to converse with [[User:Drnhawkins]]. However, I see no blocks, no examples of discussion at ANI, no Rfcs, and one warning, issued over two years ago. We have a process for escalation of disputes, While there might be some examples where process should be ignored, I see no reason that this should be one of the exceptions. Has the community ever imposed a ban on someone with a clean block log, no ArbCom involvement and no warnings in over two years?<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#002868;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#ADD8E6;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">T</span>]]</font> 17:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' on grounds that there are other dispute resolution methods still available. - [[User:Penwhale|Penwhale]] &#124; <sup>[[User_talk:Penwhale|dance in the air]] and [[Special:Contributions/Penwhale|follow his steps]]</sup> 18:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. The next step would appear to be [[WP:Mediation]]. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 23:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:*I'd certainly be open to mediation. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">[[User:LadyofShalott|<font color="#ee3399">Lady</font>]]<font color="#0095c6">of</font>[[User_Talk:LadyofShalott|<font color="#442288">Shalott</font>]]</font> 02:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 
As of late we've been seeing a glut of drafts at [[WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk]] which, on a read, appear to be essays about some aspect of the sales process. A (very likely incomplete) list is:
===Withdrawn===
*[[Draft:Sales Blunder]]
OK, I'll withdraw the request. I would however like help from those who opposed it wording the RfC/U as it is the editor's difficulty in understanding our policies and guidelines which drew me here, and asking him to abide by something he doesn't understand is not likely to work. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 18:20, 26 July 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)
:Now created at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drnhawkins]]. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 14:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 
===So whatIP isnow anin acceptableAlgeria solution===
What solution can you offer that allows some discussion (in main space) about who was the Pharaoh contemporary with Abraham, Joseph, Moses (and also the Isralites who were in Egypt for 430 years and grew from 70 to 2 million in that time).
I understand about what you say about original research and reliable sources but your policies put Christianity at a disadvantage because you do not accept the Bible as a reliable source of Historical information.--[[User:Drnhawkins|Drnhawkins]] ([[User talk:Drnhawkins|talk]]) 14:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:Nor do we accept the Torah, the Qur’an, or any other religious text as a reliable source of historical information.&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Ukexpat|ukexpat]] ([[User talk:Ukexpat|talk]]) 14:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:The fact is the solution may not be 'acceptable'. I understand the disadvantage, but without having the information published outside the bible in some sort of secondary reliable source, It may very well be that Wikipedia is not the right place for this to be presented.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 15:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:There is no solution which simultaneously meets our standards and yours, since you insist on rejecting our non-waivable requirements. After all your time here, this should have become clear by now. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] &#x007C; [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 17:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::There is a solution. If you have adequate evidence to support your views, arrange to have them published in a Reliable Source. If you can get them published, they can be reported here. If you cannot get them published, we cannot use them here.<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#002868;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#ADD8E6;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">T</span>]]</font> 17:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::Alternatively, write ''about'' notable opinions on this topic. Find modern sources that describe the debate. Don't engage in it. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 17:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I don't know that I can recommend this either. Editors working on natural science and history articles are usually familiar with the [[Wedge strategy]], which is what that would look like. [[user:causa sui|causa sui]] ([[user talk:causa sui|talk]]) 18:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::::See [[Creation–evolution controversy]]. "[[Teach the controversy]]" still presents both sides in of the debate, it does not go to the meta-level (which would be a sociological, not a biology topic). --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:I have to echo what others have said here. Wikipedia content follows the opinion of the professional researchers doing history: therefore, if you want Biblical accounts to be included in Wikipedia, you will need to start by getting them included in peer reviewed literature. [[user:causa sui|causa sui]] ([[user talk:causa sui|talk]]) 17:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::However, there is a perfectly good section, not long enough to be an article, on the [[Pharaoh of the Exodus]]; as there ought to be. Modern ''interpretation'' of ancient texts is perfectly encyclopedic; we should discuss a primary source from Ezra's time under Egyptology when the Egyptologists do. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 23:46, 26 July 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.
== Proposed community ban: {{user|Thepoliticalmaster}} ==
{{resolved|Community ban enacted. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 06:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC) }}
This user I initially ran into because of an incident where they were given rollback, but it was revoked, and as a result they started to cause widespread disruption, including misusing Twinkle and bothering people on their talk pages, as well as on IRC. They were indef blocked by {{admin|PeterSymonds}} for disruption, and after extensive discussion they were unblocked under conditions which I proposed. It seemed to me they were a new user that had misstepped. Since then, while they completed some of the [[User:Steven Zhang/Adoption|adoption lessons]], they still have been causing issues with other users, including {{user|Anna Frodesiak}}, as well as a countless number of users on IRC, which resulted in his bans on IRC being extended, and his restrictions on enwp being tightened. Just today, it has come to my attention that this is not the first account this user has had, and they have basically been wasting everyone's time over the past few months, including mine. They are an indef blocked user from the past, with over 30 previous accounts dating back to 2006. A list of some of the old accounts are below:
*{{vandal|Thehelpinghand}}
*{{vandal|Surajsamant}}
*{{vandal|Surajdsamant}}
*{{vandal|Sdsamant}}
*{{vandal|Bbcradio5}}
*{{vandal|Thisipwasrecentlyusedbyvndl}}
*{{vandal|Surajsamantrules1}}
*{{vandal|Marksandspecer}} (not blocked)
*{{vandal|Sdsmb}}
 
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.
Two were uncovered today, one being an announced account, the other is a {{likely}} sock which has not edited, as advised by a check user.
*{{vandal|Graveselliot}}
*{{vandal|Thepoliticalma}}
 
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)
I feel that he has exhausted the community's patience. I assumed at first he was a new user who made mistakes and was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though he continued to annoy people on IRC and other Wikimedia wikis, but enough is enough. I propose his indef block be formally made a community ban. <font face="Forte">[[User:Steven Zhang|<font color="black">Steven Zhang</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steven Zhang|<font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking....</font>]]</sup></font> 04:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 
:{{courtesy link|Special:Contributions/105.99.197.187}} '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 04:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' (as already ''de facto'' banned block evader). By the way, you forgot
**{{vandal|Surasaman}} - which appears to be the first one. It was the one that Surajsamant was tagged with.
::How unfortunate, you worked really hard and put a lot of time into trying to salvage an editor only to have him admit to you that he's a blocked sock. Thanks for trying so hard and for notifying the community when you found out.--[[User:Doug|Doug.]]<sup>([[User talk:Doug|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Doug|contribs]])</sup> 10:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. User is clearly, ''clearly'' not here to be productive, in any of his incarnations, and plays the "but, but" game too well to give him any more rope. His IRC behavior, while not sanctionable on-wiki, gives clear indication that he enjoys playing the ends against the middle and will weasel through any openings left to him both on-wiki and off. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 23:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Bounced around between a stack of projects, causing problems wherever they find themselves. (I'll notify the sister projects: simplewiki, enwiktionary, ensource and commons of this thread). —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 13:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' No other viable or sensible option. [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: cursive;">'''Pesky'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#336600;">talk</span>]] …[[Special:Contributions/ThatPeskyCommoner|''stalk!'']]) 13:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Obviously obvious. - [[User:Burpelson AFB|Burpelson AFB]] [[User talk:Burpelson AFB|✈]] 15:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Obviously it's obviously obvious. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 21:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 
== [[Ecotechnics]] and [[Ecotechnology]] ==
== [[Wikipedia:Non-free content review]] backlog ==
 
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)
[[Wikipedia:Non-free content review]] is rather backlogged, and there are at present a number of files that have been under discussion for weeks if not months (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Kercher_single_bed_pillow_by_Italian_police.jpg|this one]]). In the interest of closing some of the longer-term discussions, the page could probably benefit from fresh administrator attention. I may see about performing some of the simpler closures myself. '''[[User:SuperMarioMan|<font color="#CE2029">Super</font>]][[User talk:SuperMarioMan|<font color="#FF3F00">Mario</font>]][[Special:Contributions/SuperMarioMan|<font color="#FF8C00">Man</font>]]''' 23:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
*I have a vested interest in one of the discussions, but administrators should take care to ensure fairness in their closures. If a discussion has been open for months without discussion or movement then consider the possibility of closing it as stale rather than surprising the uploader with a deletion of their file based substantively on remarks left months ago. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 17:42, 29 July 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)
== Merge related template TFDs ==
 
== Please undelete incorrectly speedily deleted article (now at AfD): [[Kalloor]] ==
{{Resolved|TfDs merged. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)}}
{{resolved}}
At [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_28#Template:Time_100s_2000s]] there are two nearly identical templates in separate discussions. Can these be mreged properly so that all the links from the notices work correctly.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|BIO]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:FOUR]]) </small> 04:38, 28 July 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)
:As someone who has actually once merged 2 CfD discussions, I think that this case is different - {{ul|TonyTheTiger}} expressed a support for one of these discussions which has no expression in the other. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד&nbsp;מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od&nbsp;Mishehu]] 05:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
: Done. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 02:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::I didn't support the other expressly because I thought they should be merged. The nominator said on his talk page that he did not know who to do a multiple nom merge. I have done multiple noms, but have forgotten (If I ever knew) how to merge noms once created. I'll support the other if that formality makes the merger more proper.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|BIO]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:FOUR]]) </small> 11:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
::Might need to undelete the talk page too, the last edit on the article is referencing it. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80B2:ED01:19B2:48CF:F504:23F5|2804:F14:80B2:ED01:19B2:48CF:F504:23F5]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80B2:ED01:19B2:48CF:F504:23F5|talk]]) 03:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Since they cover the same three templates under two different headers, I've merged the discussions. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Good idea. Thanks @[[User:Zero0000|Zero0000]] - can you click the undelete button once more? TIA, <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 03:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::: Done. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 06:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 
== ProposedPlease communityreview topic ban onmy block [[User:JohnBlaze The Foxe|JohnMovie FoxeFan]] ==
{{atop|Block has been adequately reviewed. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 17:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)}}
I don't think there is any issue with the block, which was the unfortunate yet inevitable conclusion to an editor having stress issues they could not resolve. Let's leave it at that. As they may themselves ask for review, given their latest posts about "abusive admins", I figure it is better to simply put it out here and let others opine as to whether my actions were appropriate or not. It's not the usual circumstance, and was done as a last resort to prevent further disruption, but in the interest of transparency, I ask for review. I won't post diffs, a look at their contribs should be sufficient when combined with their talk page. As always, any admin is free to modify my actions without my prior permission if they feel I've made a mistake. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 07:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''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 ==
[[User:John Foxe|John Foxe]] user has become [[Wikipedia:CTDAPE#Signs_of_disruptive_editing|disruptive]] enough under the following "Sings of disruptive editing" to merit a topic ban.
*1. '''Is [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|tendentious]]''':
** ie. continues editing an article pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposing consensus from other editors.
*2. '''Does not engage in [[WP:Consensus|consensus building]]:
:* ie. repeatedly disregards other editors input, biased solely on his personal prejudices.
:* ie. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
3.* '''Rejects or ignores community input'''
:* ie. resists his own requests for comment, and continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors, biased on his personal prejudices.
 
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]]
Foxe's has a desire to push the POV that any "Mormon" who dose legitimate scientific research done, any news story written, or any Wikipedia edit made by a "Mormons" '''must''' be biased and therefore must be suspect, flawed and removed. Foxe also is using flawed (since not all the editors are Mormon) and prejudice view that any Mormons editor must be working together to build consensus against him, in order to ignore any consensus he dosn't like. This is flawed since one editor, Gandydancer, is not "Mormon" nor I am not LDS (the brand of Mormonism he is referring to when he says "Mormon", which is irrelevant anyway. However, the real issue is Foxe's edits are in fact [[wp:POV|POV pushing]] and he refuses to see that an consensus has been reached. For example the following statements and edit have been made '''Repeatedly''':
:*Mormons have worked in lockstep to defeat every compromise I've tried.--John Foxe (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:*It's time to take this controversy to a forum where we can get some non-Mormon opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:*I'm a patient guy, and until non-Mormons agree that I'm wrong, I'll continue to take this point up the Wikipedia ladder of dispute resolution unless we can agree on a compromise.--John Foxe (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
At first I assumed he was willing to listen to the community and gave him the benefit of the doubt for quite a while, even though he continued to attack people biased strictly on religious prejudices, but enough is enough. Foxe has ignore and will continue to ignore the current consensus opposed to including his POV statements. Numberous statments made by Foxe on [[Talk:No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith]] shows his. I feel that Foxe has exhausted the community's patience. <br>
'''I therefore propose a one month [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] be formally implement on [[User:John Foxe|John Foxe]] under [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Community_bans_and_restrictions|Wikipedia:Banning_policy]] of the following:
* The entire [[No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith]] page.
* Any edit related to the [[Y-DNA testing]] of geneticist [[Ugo A. Perego]], the [[Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation]], as it related to Joseph Smith and possible children.
--[[User:ARTEST4ECHO|ARTEST4ECHO]] ([[User talk:ARTEST4ECHO|<sup>talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/ARTEST4ECHO|<sub>contribs</sub>]]) 18:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
:Please read the notice at the top of the page:<blockquote>You '''must notify''' any user who is the subject of a discussion.</blockquote>I've done it for you. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 18:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
::I was actually working posting it as you posted here. I was taken away from my computer for a moment, which caused the delay. It was not my intention to not notify him and I sincerely apologize for the delay.--[[User:ARTEST4ECHO|ARTEST4ECHO]] ([[User talk:ARTEST4ECHO|<sup>talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/ARTEST4ECHO|<sub>contribs</sub>]]) 18:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Okay, sorry; I'd figured that you would have done it as soon as you finished writing what's above section if you'd remembered. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 19:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
::::You are 100% correct that I should have one it as "as soon as you finished writing" which is why I am sincerely apologize for the delay. It was unintentional, but I see that it looked bad. Next time I will make sure nothing prevents me from posting the notice immediately.--[[User:ARTEST4ECHO|ARTEST4ECHO]] ([[User talk:ARTEST4ECHO|<sup>talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/ARTEST4ECHO|<sub>contribs</sub>]])
*Why aren't you following the course of action given under [[WP:DR]]? [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 18:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
:I thought we did:
:*We can't "Ask for a third opinion", since there are a total of 5 editors in this dispute.
:*We [[Wikipedia:DR#Ask_about_the_subject|Ask about the subject]], which is actually how I got involved. I was uninvolved "Ask about the subject" editor that was requested.
:*We [[Noticeboard#No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith|Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard here]] (which he ironically opened) which was completely ignored even though the comments made by a "Non-Mormon" were in response the the ANI, as he demanded.
:As to mediation it say "Mediation cannot take place if all parties are not willing to take part." I will admit I am not willing to "take part" since I feel this issue is strictly an editor trying to push the POV that any Wikipedia edit made by a "Mormons" must be biased and therefore must be suspect, flawed. Additionally I believe that he would not be willing to "take part", in any real way, since he already refused to except the results of the ANI and the "Non-Mormon" said exactly what all other editor are. He has repeatedly said, in so many word, that any edit he doesn't like is going to be undone, no matter what. I therefore see no point.
:Therefore the next step is Arbitration or this, and I choose this since I'm sure a Arbitration request would be "declined".
:If I'm wrong about this I will immediately withdraw this, but after several months of this I'm just tired of it happening. This is a case of an edit who has personal prejudices who is unwiling to work with anyone who as an opposing viewpoint.--[[User:ARTEST4ECHO|ARTEST4ECHO]] ([[User talk:ARTEST4ECHO|<sup>talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/ARTEST4ECHO|<sub>contribs</sub>]]) 19:07, 29 July 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]].
::::There are a number of steps of dispute resolution that haven't been tried, such as request for comments and informal and formal mediation. I think [[User:ARTEST4ECHO|ARTEST4ECHO]] is attempting to ban me because in my last post on the article talk page I wrote, "I'm a patient guy, and until non-Mormons agree that I'm wrong, I'll continue to take this point up the Wikipedia ladder of dispute resolution unless we can agree on a compromise." Banning me from the page is the only way he can avoid having the question resolved through the normal dispute resolution process. In other words, he's afraid he'll lose.--[[User:John Foxe|John Foxe]] ([[User talk:John Foxe|talk]]) 19:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::I have listed my reason above, fear has nothing to do with it. You are an editor who has a personal prejudices who is unwilling to work with anyone who as an opposing viewpoint. This is no different then if the four editor who have come to a consensus were black and you posted "I'm a patient guy, and until [white people] agree that I'm wrong, I'll continue...". Your are using your personal prejudices to demand your way.--[[User:ARTEST4ECHO|ARTEST4ECHO]] ([[User talk:ARTEST4ECHO|<sup>talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/ARTEST4ECHO|<sub>contribs</sub>]]) 19:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm certainly willing to seek compromise through the normal Wikipedia dispute resolution process. Why aren't you?--[[User:John Foxe|John Foxe]] ([[User talk:John Foxe|talk]]) 20:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::You say that but you are unwilling to compromise yet
:::::::*You refuse to except the results of your "normal Wikipedia dispute resolution process", ie your own Noticeboard post.
:::::::*You wont even even except Non-Mormon disagreeing with you. You fail to realize '''I AM NO MORMON''' in the way your refer it. Two Non-Mormon and three Mormons Make a consensus.
:::::::*You say you are willing to compromise, yet I see that you undid the page again not only adding back his religion, you added back the statements already agreed on to remove in the past.
:::::::You say you are willing to compromise by your actions prove otherwise. I have chosen this route becuse of it and you religious intolerance.--[[User:ARTEST4ECHO|ARTEST4ECHO]] ([[User talk:ARTEST4ECHO|<sup>talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/ARTEST4ECHO|<sub>contribs</sub>]]) 20:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm certainly willing to seek compromise through the normal Wikipedia dispute resolution process. Why aren't you?--[[User:John Foxe|John Foxe]] ([[User talk:John Foxe|talk]]) 20:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: It is clear than not all DR avenues have been exhausted. I don't think anyone is about to consider a band until that has been demonstrated.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#002868;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#ADD8E6;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">T</span>]]</font> 21:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
===Decide===
It is clear that John Foxe and I disagree with who is willing to compromise and weather his demands are appropriate and correct, or bigoted religiously motivated discrimination. I will therefore give John Foxe the "last word" above and ask those in the community to decide.
:*'''Strongly Support ban'''--[[User:ARTEST4ECHO|ARTEST4ECHO]] ([[User talk:ARTEST4ECHO|<sup>talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/ARTEST4ECHO|<sub>contribs</sub>]]) 20:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strongly Oppose ban''' - I'm not seeing any diffs here, let alone anything bad enough to warrant a site ban. To be blunt, trying to get someone banned in order to win a content dispute is... well... just a poor showing on your character. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 21:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose ban'''. Forcing a quick decision to squelch discussion (128 minutes after the initial AN post), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=442102370 making personal jabs against the editor on an article talk page], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Causa_sui&diff=prev&oldid=442094333 asking for the 'right' version to be protected], these are all hallmarks of a heated content dispute, with impropriety on both sides. [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 21:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 
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].
*'''Strongly Oppose''': 1) John seems agreeable to methods of WP:DR 2) This is not even close to being ripe enough for such a discussion. 3) I'm actually seeing a bit of [[WP:BOOMERANG]] in this. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 21:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 
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)
===Withdrawn===
I will withdraw this request. HOWEVER, I only ask for a chance to point out that I do not view this as a "Content" dispute, and my intent is not to win a content dispute. I view this as a Personal attack. According to [[WP:NPA#WHATIS|What is considered to be a personal attack?] # 2 "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." or his religiously motivated discrimination biased on allowing only "Non-Mormons" to decide Mormon topic is a '''personal attack''. This is why I opened this which is why I didn't think they were needed here they are below, not that it matters. I also admit that I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Causa_sui&diff=prev&oldid=442094333 asking for the 'right' version to be protected], but as I pointed out I didn't know that was wrong and I will NEVER do it again.
 
:{{ping|TimothyBlue}} I'd advise you to reword this notification. Using non-neutral notifications to bring attention to a consensus-seeking discussion is considered an [[WP:INAPPNOTE|inappropriate notification]] under [[WP:CANVASSING]]. [[User:ModernDayTrilobite|ModernDayTrilobite]] ([[User talk:ModernDayTrilobite|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ModernDayTrilobite|contribs]]) 19:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I only ask that you assume good faith that I am telling the truth here about this. How would you feel if I told you that because you where "Black" you couldn't reach a consensus on "Black subject". That is what he is doing. That is why I considered this a "a personal attack and disruptive editing.
 
:I've been closing discussions, to include move requests, for many years, and this is just part of the process. An editor closes an RM, another editor discusses it on the closer's talk page, the closer then makes a decision to leave things as they are or to change things that need to be changed. It is not unprecedented for that part of the process to take several days while I or other closers mull it all over. Don't know why you think it's "horrible", that's just how the process works sometimes. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>01:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)</small>
That is what I see here I am just sick and tired of the Personal attacks he posts. However, I will eat my crow and withdraw this request.
 
== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac]] closed ==
However, if you are willing I would appropriate some help stopping this. '''It's absolutely not fair to demand that NON-Mormons "make the call"'''.--[[User:ARTEST4ECHO|ARTEST4ECHO]] ([[User talk:ARTEST4ECHO|<sup>talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/ARTEST4ECHO|<sub>contribs</sub>]]) 21:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 
An arbitration case regarding [[User:Mzajac]] has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in February to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Mzajac requested it within three months. Because Mzajac has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac#Motion to suspend]].
 
For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
These are examples where John Foxe re-added his POV religiously bias viewpoint going against the consensus that against adding them is POV pushing.
: 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 ==
* 1st: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Man_Knows_My_History%3A_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith&action=historysubmit&diff=440497055&oldid=440496008]
* 2nd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith&diff=next&oldid=440935330]
* 3rd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith&diff=next&oldid=441001100]
* 4th: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith&diff=next&oldid=441112587]
* 5th: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith&diff=next&oldid=441194421]
* 6th: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith&diff=next&oldid=441367058]
* 7th: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith&diff=next&oldid=441474919]
* 8th: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith&diff=next&oldid=441548011]
* 9th: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith&diff=next&oldid=441708037]
* 10th: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith&diff=next&oldid=441708372]
* 11th: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith&diff=next&oldid=441715411]
* 12ht: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith&diff=next&oldid=441729171]
 
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)
<small>-- Above list is also by ARTEST4ECHO.</small>
 
: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)
I'm not seeing ''any'' personal attacks. I am seeing a slow burning edit war, which would get ''both of you'' into trouble, but nothing else out of the ordinary. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 22:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
::Again, According to [[WP:NPA#WHATIS|What is considered to be a personal attack?] # 2 "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". How is saying only NON-Mormons input valid not a personal attack? --[[User:ARTEST4ECHO|ARTEST4ECHO]] ([[User talk:ARTEST4ECHO|<sup>talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/ARTEST4ECHO|<sub>contribs</sub>]])
:::It's an indication that editors with no POV, COI, or axes to grind are necessary, not an attack when it's on a page about that religion. If I worked for IBM and was discussing something IBM had done, my current or former status with IBM would be relevant to the discussion. [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 22:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
::::But I'm not Mormon, nor is at least one other editor, and his edit are blatantly POVish against the Mormons. Evey edit is being dismisses a "Mormons" or supporters of Mormons.--[[User:ARTEST4ECHO|ARTEST4ECHO]] ([[User talk:ARTEST4ECHO|<sup>talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/ARTEST4ECHO|<sub>contribs</sub>]])
::::However, are you willing to at minimum agree that comments like the one below are '''inappropriate'''
::::*It's time to take this controversy to a forum where we can get some non-Mormon opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
::::*Mormons have worked in lockstep to defeat every compromise I've tried. We need to move to a different forum where we can get non-Mormon opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
::::*until non-Mormons agree that I'm wrong, I'll continue to take this point up the Wikipedia ladder of dispute resolution unless we can agree on a compromise.--John Foxe (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Since I have withdrawn my request, and I admit would have lost, I am going to take a self imposed break to cool off, so I will not be reading this or anything else for the weekend. I only ask that you take the time to consider how you would feel if your comments were immediately dismissed and all our edit reverts just because you are a Catholic, Muslim, etc, or whatever your religon is, before you decided to reply to my post.--[[User:ARTEST4ECHO|ARTEST4ECHO]] ([[User talk:ARTEST4ECHO|<sup>talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/ARTEST4ECHO|<sub>contribs</sub>]]) 22:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 
== [[CAT:PER]]Probable vandalism ==
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inah_Canabarro_Lucas
There are currently 32 requests at [[CAT:PER]]. The backlog threshold is 8. I have never seen the category so full. Could some friendly admins please fulfil these requests? — <span style="border:dashed #666;border-width:1px 0 0 1px">[[User:This, that and the other|This, that]]</span>, and <span style="border:dashed #666;border-width:0 1px 1px 0">[[User talk:This, that and the other|the other<small> (talk)</small>]]</span> 02:10, 30 July 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)
== Request for backup on Unblock mailing list ==
*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)
 
==AfD discussion needs closure==
Hey guys, being one of the 109 administrators on the unblock list, I feel it fair that every person gets some kind of response (unless they don't need one, like a banned trolling sock). We get 10-20 requests per day, and i'm ok handling most of them per day, but there are some I just don't have the time or experience to handle. I have emailed a separate thread of (for tonight) 5 requests that have been from the past two days that I would like some assistance with. Thanks guys, -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ]][[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="red"> (t) ]] <font color="blue">[[Special:EmailUser/DeltaQuad| (e)]]</font></font></font> 04:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French ship Gapeau (B284)]] - this discussion needs to be closed please. No idea why it was relisted a 3rd time. Discussion has petered out, with a week gone with no further input. Would someone uninvolved please close this. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 05:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
:AfD's are regularly relisted up to three times. I think this is a reasonable relist, as it may facilitate further discussion to build towards a clearer consensus should additional participation come its way. It will be closed when it appears on (or before, if an admin so chooses) the daily +7 days log, which will be on 12 May. I'm not seeing how this is any different to most relisted AfD's. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 07:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
::(For context, on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 5]] there are six other debates which are on their third relist. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 07:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC))

Latest revision as of 07:49, 9 May 2024

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Open tasks[edit]

    XFD backlog
    V Feb Mar Apr May Total
    CfD 0 0 40 2 42
    TfD 0 0 1 6 7
    MfD 0 0 3 0 3
    FfD 0 0 3 1 4
    RfD 0 0 52 30 82
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (71 out of 7723 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Assembly theory 2024-05-09 01:47 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; previous protection level has not been sufficient; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Dumraon Raj 2024-05-09 00:34 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA Daniel Quinlan
    On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians 2024-05-08 19:28 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
    Jaffa riots 2024-05-08 04:31 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq
    Russia–Ukraine relations 2024-05-08 03:05 indefinite edit,move Enforcement for WP:GS/RUSUKR; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Rapunzel's Lantern Festival 2024-05-08 02:35 2024-05-15 02:35 create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    Dhadhor 2024-05-07 19:28 2024-06-07 19:28 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content Ponyo
    Background of the Rafah offensive 2024-05-07 18:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Sophie Anderson (actress) 2024-05-07 13:21 2024-11-07 13:21 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Draft:Karintak operation 2024-05-07 12:48 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA enforcement Firefangledfeathers
    Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-07 06:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Robertsky
    Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived/Archive 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/February 2009 election/Oversight/Lar 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/WJBscribe 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/White Cat 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dmcdevit 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/AntonioMartin 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Everyking 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grawp 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Lesser General Public License 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Filiocht 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/BillMasen 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/FayssalF/Questions for the candidate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Snowspinner 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Kmweber 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Hemlock Martinis 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Fish and karate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Lifebaka 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Vassyana 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/AGK/Questions for the candidate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Dream Focus 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Blankfaze 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Merovingian 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    User:Halibutt/Archive 15 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Shell Kinney 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Proposed decision 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Year-linking responses 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Trial/Votes 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed decision 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Wizardman 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Wizardman 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dbiv 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 2 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Coren 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Rlevse 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Alexia Death 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Privatemusings 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Charles Matthews 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    User talk:Leonidlednev 2024-05-07 03:26 2024-10-08 05:50 move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Yusufzai 2024-05-07 02:34 indefinite edit make ECP indef Daniel Case
    Islamic Resistance in Iraq 2024-05-07 02:15 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Palestinian political violence 2024-05-07 02:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: restore previous indef ECP Daniel Case
    Battle of Beit Hanoun 2024-05-06 22:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    A-1 Auto Transport 2024-05-06 21:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated ToBeFree
    Killing of Sidra Hassouna 2024-05-06 19:17 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I ToBeFree
    China 2024-05-06 08:12 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: upgrade to WP:ECP due to long term and sustained disruption from multiple confirmed accounts El C
    Module:Chart/Default colors 2024-05-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2583 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Module:Chart 2024-05-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2578 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Draft:Cheese 2024-05-05 17:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pppery
    Revisionist Zionism 2024-05-05 12:54 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian
    Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024 2024-05-05 12:22 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Universities and antisemitism 2024-05-05 07:00 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: inextricably tied to WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    User:Zee Saheb 2024-05-05 06:19 2024-06-05 06:19 create Repeatedly moving drafts to User space Liz
    User talk:Fathia Yusuf 2024-05-05 06:03 indefinite edit,move Foolishly moving a User talk page Liz
    Battle of Krasnohorivka 2024-05-05 04:30 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C
    Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure 2024-05-05 03:40 indefinite edit,move This does not need to be indefinitely fully-protected Pppery

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

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

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

    Notified: [1]

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

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

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

    Uninvolved[edit]

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

    Involved[edit]

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

    Discussion[edit]

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

    Edits from The Banner[edit]

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

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

    The Banner history of hounding and disruptive editing[edit]

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

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

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

    SPI[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

    Notified: User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion

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

    Uninvolved (COVID19)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Involved (COVID19)[edit]

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

    Discussion[edit]

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

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

    Marketing-related draft essays[edit]

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

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

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

    IP now in Algeria[edit]

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

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

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

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

    Ecotechnics and Ecotechnology[edit]

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

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

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

    Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Experience closers needed in discussion[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    AFD[edit]

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

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

    Probable vandalism[edit]

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

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

    • It was just simple vandalism. Someone has already reverted it. Nothing special. Feel free to revert obvious vandalism like that. I went ahead and semi-protected it for a bit since there has also been some other minor issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD discussion needs closure[edit]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French ship Gapeau (B284) - this discussion needs to be closed please. No idea why it was relisted a 3rd time. Discussion has petered out, with a week gone with no further input. Would someone uninvolved please close this. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD's are regularly relisted up to three times. I think this is a reasonable relist, as it may facilitate further discussion to build towards a clearer consensus should additional participation come its way. It will be closed when it appears on (or before, if an admin so chooses) the daily +7 days log, which will be on 12 May. I'm not seeing how this is any different to most relisted AfD's. Daniel (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (For context, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 5 there are six other debates which are on their third relist. Daniel (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1223002731"