Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks edit
| V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 36 | 2 | 38 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 52 | 30 | 82 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 126 sockpuppet investigations
- 31 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 8 Fully protected edit requests
- 3 Candidates for history merging
- 2 requests for RD1 redaction
- 100 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 36 requested closures
- 123 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 16 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection edit
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)
Uninvolved edit
Endorse closeAmend 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)- 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)
- 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) - 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)
- 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)
- A-men 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.
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)
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)
- Amend close to read "and that it should
either not be used at all — orused withgreatcaution 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) - 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Discussion edit
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
The Banner history of hounding and disruptive editing edit
- February 2023: Long-term pattern of hounding and disruptive editing by User:The Banner. The Banner went missing from February to June 2023 to avoid sanction after clear hounding of User:Another Believer and a return to the AFD problem.
- 2022: The Banner conduct
- 2020: The Banner, iBan
- 2016: The Banner
- 2015: WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner.
- 2015: AFD Topic ban?
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)
- 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)
- Now you have seen it and now you can respond to it. 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 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. The Banner talk 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 SusanLesch, faulty tagging of a most clearly notable article, and your history of generally disruptive editing. 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. Buffs (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Now you have seen it and now you can respond to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 30 April 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. 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. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 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. 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. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:32, 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. Buffs (talk) 18:44, 2 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. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
Uninvolved (COVID19) edit
This close was within the threshold of reasonable. 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. 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. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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" [2] of "votes" [3] (6-4 in favor of the RfC - though challenger claimed it was 7-1 [4] 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.
- A belief that (a) ROUGHCONSENSUS is a synonym for Referendum, and, (b) consensus was achieved by process of majority vote.
- 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)
- 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)
- "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] [5] of the "vote" [sic] [6] 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)- 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)
- "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] [5] of the "vote" [sic] [6] 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.
- What exactly do you mean by reality? Can you explain what you meant by that? FailedMusician (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- We could start here, but this is only a beginning... 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). 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. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- This response by the closer is further astray:
- 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)
- 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)
Discussion edit
- 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! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Fixed, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Ignoring the massive discussion, the facts are abundantly clear. I went WP:BEBOLD and invoked WP:IAR: [7]. WP:BRD if you feel I'm in error. Buffs (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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[8] was a direct copy of the link mentioned.[9] However the current article has been substantially changed, with only a small amount of copied material remaining.[10] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
ResolvedSee 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)
- Done. Zerotalk 02:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Please review my block User:Blaze The Movie Fan edit
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yes, anyone can give their opinion, endorse or oppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Endorse WP:NOTTHERAPY applies here. 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. WaggersTALK 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. The Night Watch (talk) 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. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, fwiw, the editor seems to be in favor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
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 [11].
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)
- @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)
- 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)
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)
AFD edit
could anyone start the AFD Artur Orzech on my behalf? 178.164.179.49 (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- (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))
Harassing Editors edit
This user @Saqib is constantly removing the articles that I have created without citing any reliable reasons. Just now, he has moved my article in the draft space Draft:Kashan Admani - Wikipedia. If I have COI, he should prove it. If there is some information that is not reliable, there is Citation needed template available. Perhaps, he is having some agenda to remove the pages that I create. I humbly seek an admin support and guidance in this matter.
P.s. he has a history of being accused of harassment and this time, I believe it is important to look deeply into his behavior and put a stop to it. Aanuarif (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I concur. It's become imperative for someone to intervene and examine my edits and conduct. I've been facing numerous attacks across various forums lately and truthfully, it's becoming quite bothersome. I can either defend myself against these accusations or fix articles. This needs to be addressed promptly. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Saqib, you shouldn't draftify old articles, so please just self-revert that one. You'll need to make a detailed case for whatever's been happening to you if they don't appear to be independent incidents. However, it's likely also that these are just independent editors bringing cases against you because they have each been emboldened and misdirected by the existence of previous complaints. Working AFC/NPP in high volume is another way you can get a lot of new editors confused and angry with you. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @Usedtobecool! Appreciate it.
- Hi @Saqib! I don't want to get into a dispute with you. I have respectfully accepted your suggestions and will continue to do so, provided they are in good faith and not based on assumptions. Aanuarif (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Usedtobecool - I moved the draft back to the main NS. I initially draftified it because the majority of its content was contributed by @Aanuarif and the BLP appeared to be PROMO and relied on non-RS. Instead of nominating it for deletion, I thought giving the creator a chance to fix the issues would be more appropriate. However, I've come to realize that draftifying old articles isn't the right approach. I might take it to AfD. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's sometimes frustrating when you come across articles you think are too poor for mainspace but there isn't an easy way to rid of them. Unfortunately, comes with the territory, as you are finding out, especially when working in third world topics, where you rarely find another editor also familiar with the area to back you up. You can remove serious BLP problems and get an admin to help you enforce that removal without much hassle. Most of the other problems, sometimes you can do something about, sometimes, you have to learn to be able to ignore and forget about for your own mental wellbeing. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers Aanuarif, glad to hear you're open to hearing out Saqib's concerns. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Usedtobecool - I moved the draft back to the main NS. I initially draftified it because the majority of its content was contributed by @Aanuarif and the BLP appeared to be PROMO and relied on non-RS. Instead of nominating it for deletion, I thought giving the creator a chance to fix the issues would be more appropriate. However, I've come to realize that draftifying old articles isn't the right approach. I might take it to AfD. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Saqib, you shouldn't draftify old articles, so please just self-revert that one. You'll need to make a detailed case for whatever's been happening to you if they don't appear to be independent incidents. However, it's likely also that these are just independent editors bringing cases against you because they have each been emboldened and misdirected by the existence of previous complaints. Working AFC/NPP in high volume is another way you can get a lot of new editors confused and angry with you. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am not actually an admin, so I fear I've already taken too much space in this thread. But I wanted to leave some parting thoughts.To Aanuarif: I would caution that just because there are many complaints on a user's talk page does not necessarily mean that that is a bad editor. Most admins' talk pages are filled with complaints from other editors and all kinds of accusations, of bias, of incompetence, of prejudice, and so on. So, sometimes, it can actually mean the person is doing good work.To Saqib: Most COI/UPE editors produce poorly referenced, promotional articles but so do newbies. One of my first articles was speedy deleted as spam even though all I had done was follow Wikipedia's own suggestions in good faith to translate an article from another Wikipedia. So, in your first response, you almost always have to allow for the possibility that it's a good faith editor accidentally producing subpar content due to inexperience. Secondly, even when you're reasonably certain you're dealing with an actual spammer, it's best to keep that to yourself until you are ready to make a proper case backed by evidence in the proper venues. Makes for a more pleasant environment all around. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Usedtobecool Sure, I've just started NPP so I don't have much experience dealing with UPEs yet. I've interacted with COI editors before but UPEs are new territory for me. I'll definitely take your tip going forward. In this case, I haven't filed any complaints against @Lkomdis or @Aanuarif. Actually, they're the ones who lodged complaints against me. OK you might be wondering why I called @Aanuarif a UPE. Let me break it down here. @Aanuarif were adding WP:OR and WP:PROMO to Waqar Zaka's BLP. When I raised concerns on their tp last month, they suddenly became inactive and stopped editing WP altogether. So, was I wrong to suspect they might be a UPE? --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- And @Aanuarif has been actively editing this BLP since 2021. Here's the thing. In 2021, they removed well-cited material (probably because Zaka didn't like it) and then added PROMO using unreliable sources. Added his achievements using unreliable sources. Added more PROMO, More, More, More and the PROMO goes on. I removed PROMO and unreliable references in 2017, again in 2020 and once more in 2024. In between, I made several edits to clean up the BLP. The point is I've been neutral back in 2017 and I'm neutral still in 2024. BUT, @Aanuarif and @Lkomdis accusing me of being a UPE. I'm seeking an answer from an admin on how to deal with @Aanuarif who has been adding PROMO themselves and now has the audacity to call me a UPE instead.--—Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Usedtobecool, i just saw this and wanted to share my opinion. Few days ago, Saqib nominated one article Shuja Asad on which i voted keep, then instantly he followed my editings and harrased me. He tagged my article Abu Aleeha with notability tag [12] and for proving his instances, he even tagged other articles which was linked to Abu Aleeha with notability tag although those articles were not created by me. The tag was instantly removed by another senior edior [13] By searching his work, i found out that he is harrasing many Pakistani wikipideans and eventually found out this page where i thought to share my opinion. Libraa2019 (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I understand pointing fingers at UPEs without strong evidence can stir things up in the community, but honestly, if you take a peek at their contributions, it's pretty clear they're up to some shady business. It seems like they're all just covering for each other. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Usedtobecool, i just saw this and wanted to share my opinion. Few days ago, Saqib nominated one article Shuja Asad on which i voted keep, then instantly he followed my editings and harrased me. He tagged my article Abu Aleeha with notability tag [12] and for proving his instances, he even tagged other articles which was linked to Abu Aleeha with notability tag although those articles were not created by me. The tag was instantly removed by another senior edior [13] By searching his work, i found out that he is harrasing many Pakistani wikipideans and eventually found out this page where i thought to share my opinion. Libraa2019 (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Saqib You should present an evidence, not assume. If you are alleging someone of shady business, you should present a proof. Now you are at the receiving end of your stuff, you are Aanuarif (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Saqib! By analyzing your edits i too believed that you are an experienced UPE, just saw the level at which you are defending Waqar Zaka at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (3rd nomination) & other Pakistani politician articles (may be they have paid you) as your area of interest is only Pakistani politics. Anyways i dont want to put allegations on someone without proper evidence like you do. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- And @Aanuarif has been actively editing this BLP since 2021. Here's the thing. In 2021, they removed well-cited material (probably because Zaka didn't like it) and then added PROMO using unreliable sources. Added his achievements using unreliable sources. Added more PROMO, More, More, More and the PROMO goes on. I removed PROMO and unreliable references in 2017, again in 2020 and once more in 2024. In between, I made several edits to clean up the BLP. The point is I've been neutral back in 2017 and I'm neutral still in 2024. BUT, @Aanuarif and @Lkomdis accusing me of being a UPE. I'm seeking an answer from an admin on how to deal with @Aanuarif who has been adding PROMO themselves and now has the audacity to call me a UPE instead.--—Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Usedtobecool Sure, I've just started NPP so I don't have much experience dealing with UPEs yet. I've interacted with COI editors before but UPEs are new territory for me. I'll definitely take your tip going forward. In this case, I haven't filed any complaints against @Lkomdis or @Aanuarif. Actually, they're the ones who lodged complaints against me. OK you might be wondering why I called @Aanuarif a UPE. Let me break it down here. @Aanuarif were adding WP:OR and WP:PROMO to Waqar Zaka's BLP. When I raised concerns on their tp last month, they suddenly became inactive and stopped editing WP altogether. So, was I wrong to suspect they might be a UPE? --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- The OP has been directing toddler-level comments toward Saqib at various AfDs: [14], [15], [16]. They should probably just be indeffed per NOTHERE or CIR or something like that. We don't need to indulge such foolishness. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Requesting a TBAN exemption specific to my Sandbox, to get input from others on a possible appeal edit
I would like to have the opportunity to work on a draft appeal of the TBAN that I received in March 2023, at my Sandbox. I proposed this idea to an admin, who demurred saying that this is a gray area and that I should seek explicit permission here.
The reason I am asking for an exemption specific to that sandbox is that I don't see any way to work on or get feedback on the possible appeal without mentioning the topic the TBAN is about - I will not be discussing issues about that topic within the Sandbox, nor will I respond to any other editors who might choose to comment on the topic in their comments on the draft.
The three elements I do intend to include in my appeal are:
- a section where I acknowledge why the TBAN was applied,
- a section where I document my current (less problematic) approach to editing, and
- a section discussing the neurodivergent blind spots that got me into the mess the first place.
In other words, I will not be attempting to relitigate the ANI in any way.
I have taken considerable time to reflect on this, and it seems clear to me that the largest contributing factor to the outcomes of the antecedent RSN discussion, the ANI discussion that prodiced my sanction, andthie request for a carveout that I made in April 2023, were my failure to be aware of and to take strategies to mitigate my aspects of my neurodivergence, discussed here (and subsequently).
From these experiences, I was forcibly made aware of the extent of "blind spots" which have made it essentially impossible to predict how my comments at ANI or AN and related bahaviour (especially clarification-seeking behaviour) are likely to be interpreted by other editors. I therefore believe that a smooth decision-making process at AN is much more likely if I have the opportunity to "workshop" the filing in draft, and receive input on the filing from editors of varying perspectives.
I can and most likely will file to have my TBAN lifted (while the BLUDGEON ban remains in place), with or without this sandbox being allowed, but I think the net benefit of a smoother appeal process ought to be evident. I therefore hope this request will be positively received. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Crafting an unban request in user space, so others can provide input, seems at best promising and at worst harmless. I think SFR's suggestion to come here was wise, as I don't think it meets the letter of the law at WP:BANEX, but I think it probably meets the spirit. I'd have no concerns. I assume it is clear that any GENSEX-related disruption in the sandbox would be extraordinarily damaging, so nothing that even comes close to that, please. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- According to WP:BANEX, bans don't apply to legitimate discussion of the ban itself, and it explicitly mentions appeals as an example of this. I think drawing a distinction between "appealing" and "drafting an appeal" would be splitting hairs to nobody's benefit. – Joe (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Colmedy and Consistant Disregard of Rules edit
User:Colmedy has been consistantly warned about their edits on the Mac Tonight Wikipedia page (see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Self-Published and Unreliable Sources on Mac Tonight). Following Archival, I pinged him on his page, citing the guidelines broken and a plea to stop their disruptive editing (User talk:Colmedy#Use of Unreliable and Self-published Sources). Colmedy has continued to violate these rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mac_Tonight&diff=prev&oldid=1222645245) after being warned by users like SounderBruce and myself, who both warned him twice. XCBRO172 (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)