stringtranslate.com

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Open tasks


Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area

There is broad agreement that, under the current wording of WP:INVOLVED, Red-tailed hawk should be considered involved and refrain from participating as an uninvolved administrator on the topic of the 2023- Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no consensus that this involvement spreads to all of the WP:ARBPIA topic area. Furthermore, a significant portion of the commenters believe that the phrasing of WP:INVOLVED is outdated and may or may not be an accurate representation of the current consensus. There is no consensus on whether the wording should be made more or less strict. The community is advised to discuss the issue in greater depth and determine if any revisions are needed. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to request input from the community over a disagreement about what WP:INVOLVED means within context of User:Red-tailed hawk's activity both as an editor and admin in ARBPIA sanctioned areas. I have not done a deep assessment to what extent they are acting within ARBPIA as an editor versus an admin, but there are numerous examples listed by others in this diff. Others have argued that the percentage/number of edits would determine whether there is involvement or not.

Several people have expressed their concern, but nearly everyone opining is INVOLVED according to their self admissions (myself included), input from the community would be helpful.

If this is the incorrect venue, please recommend a more proper venue. I have alerted RTH on their talk page about this discussion. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had some involvement in the ARBPIA area, but haven't really actively participated in a while. I think creating articles, voting in RMs, participating in talk page discussions, etc. (all listed at that diff), makes someone involved. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into the specific concerns here, and am in no way challenging them. But I want to note my view that participating in widely advertised discussions - AfDs, RMs, RfCs - does not necessarily make someone involved, because in theory a lot of participation there is evaluating evidence others have provided, rather than being based on your own views and experience. Of course a lot of participants in meta discussions are there because they have experience in the subject that does make them involved. Understanding whether someone is capital-I Involved really comes down to the substance of their participation, not the numbers, namespaces, or venues. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting an RM, in contrast, would be based on your own views and experience? Levivich (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that involved really comes down to the substance of their participation, so I just took a look at RTH's 25 edits to the "Israel-Hamas war" article as an example, and here are some edits I saw, with additions and deletions shown:
I'm not saying these edits violate policy, but they are substantive edits that meaningfully change the content. I haven't checked the 40+ talk page edits. This is just one article. Levivich (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting an RM would depend on the RM. In that case, it's borderline. Your other examples, and one more I found on the talk page, are clearer: commenting below momentarily. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those examples prove anything, other than that RTH makes good copy edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think RTH is correct that the Misinformation section was a COATRACK in the making. That said, I think a valid Misinformation section could be written that provides a broad overview of the role of misinformation, rather than a tick-tock approach that provides random examples. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not copy edits. Levivich (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Palestinian militant" introduces Palestinians for the first time in that paragraph to clarify that it was Palestinian militants infiltrating into Israel.
  • Here's the full sentence Numerous cases of violence against Israeli civilians have also been reportedoccurred since the beginning of the Hamas offensive, including a massacre at a music festival in Re'im that killed at least 260. Violence did occur and there was a massacre at a music festival; they weren't merely "reported".
  • "Islamist militant groups Hezbollah and Al-Quds Brigades" Hezbollah and Al-Quds are Islamist militant groups and are described as such by our articles on them; this is something our readers should know.
  • Full sentence: The United States government announced it iswill supporting Israel by movingmove an aircraft carrier, warships, and military jets to the eastern Mediterranean and providingwill provide Israel with additional military equipment and ammunition. "Supporting Israel" did not need to be stated because that was obvious from the sentence's content; the U.S. didn't send a warship and re-arm Israel to oppose them.
  • ""large-scale invasion and offensive against Israel"; "Hamas offensive attack" Both of these are true statements. The Hamas incursion into Israel was definitionally an invasion. Attack is more simple language than "offensive"
  • "Some analysts": The first example properly attributed an idea to its author. The second example rephrased the very clunky "This conflict has also been called by analysts" to "Some analysts have described this war as". Neither is perfect, but the second is better.
voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're not copy edits because copyediting is fixing grammar/typos/readability without changing the meaning, whereas these edits are, as Vanamonde says below, substantive edits that meaningfully alter POV. Whether they're good or bad edits is not the point (I think some are good), and discussing the merits of the edits is a distraction. Levivich (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing which of those examples meaningfully alter the article's POV in context. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply on your talk page. Levivich (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link to disscusson for future record [1] LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 09:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a permanent link: Special:PermanentLink/1242930605#From AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RE the merits of the edits is a distraction. I think intent matters. Even if each of those edits altered the articles' POVs, they don't alter them in an ideologically consistent way: some edits could be construed as pro-Israel, some as pro-Palestinian. That further leads me to believe that these were intended to be clean up edits for grammar/style (sorry for using the phrase "copy editing" interchangeably), rather than stealthy insertions of non-neutral material. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INVOLVED is clear: editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. Involvement is about participation in particular disputes—concrete things where users are in disagreement—not about having written an article or two within the context a broad topic area or having participated substantially in a small number of article talk pages in the area. In discussions that I have participated, I have not acted as an administrator—I am not, for example, going around and closing RMs, nor XfDs, nor RfCs in which I have participated. And I will continue to not act as an administrator in those sorts of discussions where I have participated in the capacity as an ordinary editor, just as (for example) GorillaWarfare has done in the context of WP:GENSEX. But I am deeply skeptical of the notion that my relatively limited editing in the area has somehow made me involved in literally every dispute that might relate somehow to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, as appears to be suggested by Voorts above. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more careful with how I phrased my comment. Initially, I don't know how many edits you've made in the area or whether your edits in this area are disproportionate to the edits you make in other areas such that it could lead to an inference that you have a vested interest in the area, so I can't opine on that. And, to clarify, I don't think that your contributions (of which there are only examples listed) makes you involved in literally every dispute that might relate somehow to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. I think that it might make you involved in some disputes in the area; for example, if you tend to take a particular view in discussions on the topic, you would be involved to the extent that that view affects how you might perceive a conflict or how others might perceive your participation. I think it's more nuanced than just saying "you are involved writ large". voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this discussion has gone too far at this point, but, given that actions are forward-looking rather than punitive, and nobody's really suggested any particular action in particular, would RTH or the community really object if RTH simply promised to take more notice of the perceived separation needed between admin actions and involved editor conduct in the future? It seems at this point, a simple good faith assurance from an administrator in good standing to simply tread a little more carefully ought to be sufficient. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

That sounds like a sensible guideline to follow. Does this sound doable, Red-tailed hawk? With "involvement" issues, I've found it best to be overly cautious or these questions keep being rasied again and again. Best to nip it in the bud than to have to revisit this question. Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: That administrators should not perform both edits and administrative tasks in the same contentious topic sounds nice to one's ear, but I think it would concretely fail as a rule because several CTOP areas are extremely broad:
If someone writes a biography about a living Norwegian musical artist once, I don't think that should prohibit them from enforcing the CTOP that is biographies of living persons in the context of a totally unrelated biography about a librarian from Kalamazoo. Nor do I think that adding information to the article on Russian chess Grandmaster Ian Nepomniachtchi about his 2013 victory over Russian chess grandmaster Peter Svidler in the Russian Chess superfinal would or ought forever bar an administrator from enforcing the CTOP of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, even though it is an edit that would be in the scope of the extremely broad Eastern Europe topic area. Nor do I think that an editor who has once added content regarding former chess world champion Vishwanathan Anand's 1992 chess olympiad performance on Team India should forever be barred from closing discussions that relate to municipalities in Afghanistan, even though both are within the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan contentious topics area.
I don't think any reasonable individual would see the sort of editing described above as somehow being involved in the dispute when it comes to the corresponding edit in the topic area. Zero's proposal is an idea, but I think that it's an overbroad one. And frankly it's one that I routinely see rejected when people make closure challenges—it would be a new rule. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping to bring the wording of the involved rule up to date to match the spirit of it. I don't claim to have the perfect way of doing that. You are correct that some CTs are unreasonably broad and that is a good point. ARBPIA is not one of them, though. Regulars in ARBPIA can tell within one or two edits what POV a new editor has and how they will act in other ARBPIA articles. The topic does not consist of a lot of sub-topics with only a nominal connection. Zerotalk 13:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sympathetic to the argument that Contentious Topics can be overly broad when they involve either large country/populations (including BLP). I am not proposing a blanket change/clarification on how all contentious topics are handled, but ARBPIA specifically which has the strictest sanctions including 500/30 rule. Furthermore, if this was about Palestinian chess participants while possibly part of ARBPIA, it would be grey area. The example articles and actions here are firmly within ARBPIA scope. On other hand, in your analogy, if someone was tenaciously editing Chess related articles to promote a national angle, it could be raised here but I would rather focus on ARBPIA than other hypothetical areas. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "administrators should not perform both edits and administrative tasks in the same contentious topic". But I sometimes wonder whether an admin who will later spend time at AE on cases related to a specific topic area might benefit from having spent some time as an "involved" editor in the topic area before detaching and becoming uninvolved to perform admin tasks. This is probably not practical in the real world, and I guess the 'benefit' might not end up being a benefit. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At my RFA I was asked two days into the process, Please explain how you plan to approach disputes related to the Scientific skepticism topic area as an administrator, including whether or when you would recuse and any exceptions to a recusal. I responded I'd approach them much like I try to approach any dispute, neutrally and with a level head. I wouldn't recuse from the topic area, although I'm clearly INVOLVED with many of the active editors in the topic, so don't expect any admin action from me dealing with them. I went on to sail through RFA with little dramajokes!. My answer didn't raise any eyebrows or objections, despite having been a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing, having invoked the BLP allowance from 3RRNO, and having been involved with several disputes in the overlapping CTOPS of WP:ARBPS, WP:ARBCOVID, and WP:ARBBLP.
I'm not going to weigh in on this particular case because I really shouldn't have any say on what administrators are allowed to administer the topic area, but I did want to address this particular reading of INVOLVED, and how it played out in a discussion with over 300 editors. WP:INVOLVED refers to current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. Regular editing that does not involve disputes and prior involvements [that] are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias as called out by voorts do not, to me, cause a widespread INVOLVEment in a topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The question I raised is whether RTH is involved. If so, he would not be able to act in an admin capacity (closing discussions, blocking users and any other non-controversial admin tasks) when editing in said areas of ARBPIA (or subtopics) which the community is figuring out. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally when we seek to hold admins accountable, we need some sort of complaint about their conduct. It's hard to determine whether someone is INVOVLED or misusing the tools when there's nothing on the table to evaluate. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RTH has commented as an uninvolved admin in a number of ARBPIA AE reports, including some I've filed, and one he closed and referred to arbcom (not unilaterally). Those are the specific admin actions at issue here. Levivich (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Involvement is with disputes. That does not mean real life disputes - it means disputes on-wiki. There is no policy or guideline basis to force an editor to declare themselves involved with respect to an entire topic area - and in fact, multiple recent discussions should show that there is no community desire for this sort of "admin action topic ban" to take place. I have seen no evidence that RTH has acted as an administrator during a dispute/discussion which they commented on as a regular user or were involved in a non-administrator capacity. The mere fact that RTH has edited in the topic area does not mean they are involved with respect to administrator actions/discussions that do not involve articles they've edited or a content dispute they have opined on.
That all said, it is no surprise that this discussion was started. The user who started this discussion did so quite quickly after they commented on the current ARC/A request that RTH made with referral of long-term issues with editors in this topic area from AE. About half of the editors on the "yes involved" camp are "coincidentally" those being suggested as parties for the likely arbitration case to result from that request. To take such a drastic action based on a consensus of users who are definitely involved in this issue as they are being suggested as parties to an arbitration case that RTH arguably initiated... that's not only a wild abuse of process but is only encouraging those users to continue weaponizing noticeboards for their own benefit.
This is a contentious topic for a reason. There is no wider community consensus that an administrator should be barred from a whole topic area just because they have made non-trivial edits on some parts of that topic area. Unless evidence is provided that RTH has actually violated INVOLVED by operating administratively in a dispute they are actually involved in, this should be closed with no action whatsoever. And even if that evidence is presented, the proper place for that, in my opinion, is arbitration - where the actions of administrators can be evaluated along with other users. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About half of the editors on the "yes involved" camp are "coincidentally" those being suggested as parties for the likely arbitration case to result from that request. That's false. Only one editor in the "yes camp" is being suggested as a party for the likely arbitration (Nableezy). Conversely, two editors in the "no camp" are being suggested as a party (BM and SFR). There are very few (five) named editors who have been suggested as parties. (BTW, you are just as involved in this topic area as I am. If you and I get a vote, then so does everyone else who's involved in the topic area.) Levivich (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez my motivation to create this thread is absolutely motivated by the ARCA case; however I had even raised my reservations long prior, which Goldsztajn alluded to here as well in this thread and in their RfA 8 months ago. I cannot enclose wikidiffs due to (unrelated) revdeletions, but you can find our concerns here.
RTH has a strong world view expressed through their edits and discussions on Wikipedia in American Politics and Palestine-Israel related articles. As an editor, their American conservative positions can provide a valuable and unique perspective, but it's an inappropriate use of their admin tool belts in the exact same areas, and their unwillingness to listen to feedback of multiple good-standing editors/admins who say they are WP:INVOLVED, is why we have this longer thread here.
From the 90+ comments I've seen so far, without any formal proposals, there is no strong consensus to consider the entirety of ARBPIA itself a single dispute/sub-topic, however there is strong consensus here that RTH is WP:INVOLVED with Israel-Hamas war dispute and has acted both as admin and editor in this capacity. RTH offered to close several RM discussions in same area of Israel-Hamas war, which would be explicitly inappropriate going forward. I am hoping we can close this thread amicably, without going to Arbitration review. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You conveniently ignore yourself and Nableezy as suggested parties. I have nothing further to say to you about this other than trying to ignore the disruption by yourself and others that has been brought up during that request doesn’t make this witch hunt any more legitimate. In fact, this sort of comment makes even clearer that this request is simply weaponizing policies to remove someone you disagree with from being able to administrate. If you don’t have actual evidence of RTH misusing administrator tools, you may wish to “quit while you’re ahead” here and not sign your name to blatantly false information like this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 10:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A conflict of interest doesn't require misuse of admin tools, the appearance of conflict is sufficient. Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Involvement is with disputes. That does not mean real life disputes - it means disputes on-wiki. This is untrue. WP:INVOLVED simply says "disputes"; furthermore, the rest of the first paragraph makes it clear that "disputes" is meant to be interpreted broadly, saying This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings - someone who clearly has strong feelings about eg. the Arab-Israeli conflict or AP2 is WP:INVOLVED in those disputes and cannot act as an administrator in them. And, indeed, it goes on to say Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute (emphasis mine.) What does "disputes on topics" mean in this context, if not to say that eg. someone whose edits reveal strong feelings on the dispute underlying the topic area has involved themselves for that entire topic area? --Aquillion (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RM comments

I went through Red-tailed hawk's edits at Talk:Israel–Hamas war. They fall into 3 categories: RM comments, archiving, and minor content questions and suggestions. A few of the RM comments jump out at me as not minor or obvious (per WP:INVOLVED).

  1. 00:41, 1 November 2023
  2. 02:46, 1 November 2023
  3. 18:06, 4 February 2024
  4. 18:08, 4 February 2024

These diffs show involvement in the disputes over the war's name. I also note that 02:46, 1 November 2023 is a reply to Levivich, which may make the AE close and ARCA request untimely. RAN1 (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

I hoped this discussion would be closed without need for proposals but for sake of explicitness enclosed some below. When voting, please determine whether you consider yourself involved or not, for the sake of closer reviewing this discussion.

Pinging past participants

Pinging folks who participated in above discussion: @LakesideMiners, CoffeeCrumbs, Zero0000, Sean.hoyland, Novem Linguae, BilledMammal, Chaotic Enby, Barkeep49, Tamzin, Nishidani, Aquillion, Arkon, Goldsztajn, Just Step Sideways, Berchanhimez, Firefangledfeathers, Hawkeye7, Pawnkingthree, S Marshall, Red-tailed hawk, Liz, ScottishFinnishRadish, Valereee, Selfstudier, RAN1, Starship.paint, Levivich, Voorts, and Vanamonde93: ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this board has the ability to find consensus for proposal 2 and proposal 3 would be merely advisory. This feels like a mal-formed process and so I stand by the comments I made above - which state my opinion this - without devolving into bolded voting in an unfair way (where's proposal 4: Red-Tail hawk is not involved?). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 Outright Opposing Proposal 1 would be the way to say he is not involved. The same way other editors have endorsed a proposal and opined that it should be more or less strict. As to whether this is a legitimate discussion, the closer can see the remaining comments by 30 people and weigh the proposals accordingly. I do not expect the results to contradict each other much. If a proposal/question raised is missing that couldn't be addressed by supporting/opposing a proposal, those would be best added as new proposals then. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed the fact that this WP:LOCALCON can not do all the things you want it to do and I'm glad we agree that this is completely unnecessary to a closer finding (or not finding) consensus for closure because what a waste of the thoughts and time of the number of editors you've pinged if those comments wouldn't matter for consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to close this, but will wait a few days to see if Shushugah's new proposals go anywhere. - Compassionate727 at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area. I see Proposal #2 as "RTH is WP:INVOLVED in WP:ARBPIA", whereas Proposal #1 is "RTH is WP:INVOLVED in Israel-Hamas war." I don't think either pose a WP:LOCALCON problem. As written, Proposal #2 somewhat suggests "anyone WP:INVOLVED in any part of WP:ARBPIA is WP:INVOLVED in all of WP:ARBPIA." I still don't see why that's a WP:LOCALCON problem, but if it is, it doesn't need to be decided in order to decide the scope of RTH's WP:INVOLVEment, if any. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Levivich said. My first proposal is hyper-specific to RTH in the most narrow sense, whereas yes the second proposal would have wider reaching ramifications for other editors editing in ARBPIA area, RTH specifically as well, since this is a line he argued. I would like to avoid spending/wasting more of the community's time, repeatedly coming back here because we never addressed the broader question of whether ARBPIA is a singular topic or not.
Sure, an updated wording of WP:INVOLVED would help clarify that, but right now we have genuine confusion from editors who narrowly and broadly interpret the existing wording and previous applications in practice, so asking this question for ARBPIA is not about creating an improper local consensus. But if this is something the closer disagrees, they will take this into consideration and inform us whatever other venue there is. There's been helpful discussion here about other CTOPs, which I do not think went to waste as it helps inform the parameters here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 2 is explicitly a general statement about INVOLVEMENT rather than a specific judgement about RTH. One of those falls with-in the scope of this board (conduct of an editor) and one of those does not (take your pick of contentious topics being ArbCom's and INVOLVEMENT being a policy that would need to be discussed in appropriate policy forum). So if the intent was to give people two bites at the "RTH is INVOLVED" apple, the proposal doesn't do it very well in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think AN(I) can declare an admin involved, but this thread would have some use if RTH would say if after reading the views expressed here if he considers himself involved or not. And if not and other feel otherwise I think the only recourse available is ArbCom. nableezy - 15:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the community can absolutely form consensus about an administrator's conduct and as a conduct board this board could absolutely come to consensus that RTH is/isn't INVOLVED. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a consensus can be, and IMO has been, formed. But any teeth for an admin conduct issue is in one place, and it isnt with the community. nableezy - 16:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an admin took an admin action in an area after there is documented community consensus asking them not to, I don't expect them to remain an admin very long. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Valereee (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with Barkeep on this. BilledMammal (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1

Proposal 1: Admin User:Red-tailed hawk is involved in the sub-topic of Israel-Hamas war which includes broadly events from 7 October 2023 to present. This would mean RTH should not close discussions, enforce ARBPIA sanctions or otherwise act as an admin. He would continue to be welcome to participate as an editor, as he already does.

Proposal 2

Proposal 2: WP:PIA unlike other Contentious Topics refers primarily to ONE dispute. The Israel-Hamas war is not a separate dispute from 1917 Balfour declaration, 1948 Nakhba or annexation of East Jerusalem. This contrasts with WP:BLP which can refer to numerous unrelated disputes. This would retain the usual exceptions specified in WP:INVOLVED e.g reverting obvious vandalism etc..

Proposal 3

Proposal 3: Reform definition of WP:INVOLVEDGet involved (pun intended): Wikipedia talk:Administrators § Proposal to update WP: INVOLVE language ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Oppose really not the time/place. Buffs (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 4

Proposal 4: User:Red-tailed hawk's edits on some pages on IWW do is not render him WP:INVOLVED broadly across the entire content area of ARPIA.

Comments on proposals

I created this section to allow the proposals themselves to be discussed outside of bolded assertion. Like many other AGF errors here, I'm sure failing to do this was an honest mistake. BusterD (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Proposals 1-3 and saw you created Proposal 4. Thank you for creating this section. The community is giving feedback in Proposal 1, and a number of people have commented in Proposal 2, but a number of admins also mentioned Proposal 2 is in wrong venue, so while the feedback is useful, it is not actionable. Proposal 3 is more an advertisement for a broader policy change. For the closer, I imagine reviewing outcomes of Proposals 1 and 4 is most concrete, along with any other conclusions from larger discussion. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your collegial response to my feedback. BusterD (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LDS Church-related topics TBAN - partial appeal by Rachel Helps (BYU)

This discussion has been open for a period approaching two weeks, and has largely slowed in recent days. There is clearly insufficient support to remove the topic ban as appealed. Daniel (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Why I was banned

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

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

Plans for work in non-article space

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

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

Work on other subjects

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

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

Discussion (LDS Church-related topics TBAN - partial appeal)

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

Hello David Fuchs, is there a rule against appealing a ban less than six months after it was issued? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STANDARD. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a non-binding essay, not a rule. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty hard-core when it comes to COI editing. But, I'm also a believer in WP:NOTBURO. As far as I'm concerned, the primary criteria for lifting any kind of editing sanction is demonstrating an understanding of what led to the sanction and a convincing argument that it won't happen again. At least at first blush, it looks like we have that here. I'm not yet ready to offer an opinion one way or another on lifting the TBAN, but I would hope people would not make counting days on a calendar their primary means of evaluating the merits of this request. RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a request for a full repeal of the TBAN I might have issue with the timing, but this editors seems to be making a good faith proposal that will allow them to demonstrate the grounding necessary for for a full appeal. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems fine, and while hesitant, I will generally speaking support. Appropriate changes appear to have been made to prevent the originally-problematic behavior from happening in the future. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The six months is supposed to indicate that the person understands what went wrong. This appeal addresses the issues which led to the TBAN, and makes a good case for a limited carve-out. Support this limited appeal. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, I would like to make several changes to how we have approached Book of Mormon pages. However, some of these ideas are not ones I would implement right away. I would first try to establish some consensus with other editors in the LDS editing space. That said, these are my current ideas:
  • I would take a deletionist rather than a conservationist approach to pages about Book of Mormon people (i.e., rather than trying to "save" pages, merge or delete them).
  • I would seek consensus for a style guide for the lead sections of people and books from the Book of Mormon (which could mention that Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon).
  • I would make changes to clarify any literary analysis that assumes an "in-universe" narrator comes from a faithful viewpoint.
  • For example, on the Book of Omni page, instead of starting the Interpretation section with "According to authors Fatimah Salleh and Margaret Hemming, Omni wrote in order to maintain a record of the genealogical line," I would include an introduction of several sentences, and hatnote a new page I would create on "bracketing" as a scholarly approach to scripture:
  • The introduction to the interpretation section on the Book of Omni page would say something like: "Members of the Latter Day Saint movement accept the Book of Mormon as divinely inspired scripture compiled by ancient prophets in the Americas [wording taken from Origin of the Book of Mormon]. Literary and social analysis of the Book of Mormon includes an assumption that the stated narrator is the actual narrator, even from scholars outside of the Latter Day Saint tradition, in order to participate in discussions about the meaning of the text." Then I could link to a separate page on bracketing within religious studies.
  • The "bracketing" approach is used in Mormon studies as well as broader Christian studies. In How Jesus Became God, Bart Ehrman, a secular historian, argues that the historical Jesus was not seen as divine during Jesus’s lifetime. To make his book useful to both scholarly historians and Christians, Ehrman writes: "I do not take a stand on the theological question of Jesus’s divine status. I am instead interested in the historical development that led to the affirmation that he is God." Biblical criticism similarly defines a certain kind of Biblical analysis: using critical analysis "to understand and explain the Bible without appealing to the supernatural."
  • This is how I believe that Wikipedia, like other scholarly and reference sources, should look at the Book of Mormon. However, because of the nature of the text of the Book of Mormon, dismissing a supernatural explanation for the book could result in dismissing the entire book of scripture. I acknowledge that the secular interpretation of the Book of Mormon is that it was written by Joseph Smith, possibly with a collaborator. However, I also believe that finding the intended meaning of the Book of Mormon requires a literary approach that considers the meaning of its narrative. Most Mormon and non-Mormon literary scholars who write on the Book of Mormon use this bracketing approach.
  • Mark Thomas, in Digging in Cumorah, also tries for a bracketing approach, acknowledging that apologetic interests often interfere with the interpretation of scripture. He imagines how people of differing Christian faiths could agree on how to interpret the Book of Mormon without referencing Joseph Smith’s biography or archeological evidence: "they must find a way to talk about what the book actually says." Talking about what people think the Book of Mormon actually says is part of my motivation for summarizing Book of Mormon literary criticism on Wikipedia. Some interpretations of the Book of Mormon (using techniques of narrative or typological analysis) are different from the traditional interpretations of the Book of Mormon taught by general authorities. I believe that scriptural interpretation ought to be varied, and that reading how other people have interpreted a text can lead to interesting new ideas (of course, I am happy to summarize analysis that references Joseph Smith’s biography or archeological arguments when they are notable--but I only know of one source that does this). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of what you've written above is that the damage, in this case, is that the intended meaning of the Book of Mormon and its constituent parts are not communicated clearly enough on Wikipedia. The correction you propose is to introduce new guidelines and text that emphasize exegesis in writing about the Book of Mormon (i.e. explaining the meaning of scripture) so that the intended meaning of the Book of Mormon is adequately conveyed to readers. To quote your response to another editor below, I've noticed that there isn't very much interpretation of scripture on pages about scriptures on Wikipedia. I think that should change. I can see how that might be intellectually enjoyable for you and consistent with your interests and employment. But I don't see how consuming other editors' time on a mission to shift our encyclopedia's policies and guidelines toward exegesis helps the encyclopedia. I oppose lifting the topic ban, and encourage you to keep working on the millions of other topics on offer here. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I understanding you correctly that you believe that summarizing exegesis (adequately sourced) is inappropriate for Wikipedia? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you need to develop new guidelines to support what you're trying to do suggests that what you're trying to do is not consistent with our current policies and guidelines. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that we as a community should have a larger conversation about what kinds of content we want to include on Wikipedia pages, and I would like to be a part of that conversation. Maybe we don't want to summarize exegesis on pages about scriptures. But that shouldn't be decided by this conversation. And if we do decide that, we should make that information easy for other editors to understand, so they don't have to make the same mistakes I made. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One concern is the apparent the copyvio on the library page, the library which Rachel Helps represents or works for. Yes, that page was tagged for copyvio in 2017, but from the very small interactions I had with her and paid students during the summer, it's clear there will clean-up that will need to be done by an unpaid volunteer. If there clean-up needed anywhere where Rachel Helps et. al. have edited, then that should have been the very first bullet point in the request - the request, which shouldn't even be considered until the proper time. However, I have to echo Levivich's comment. Victoria (tk) 23:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright violation on the Harold B. Lee Library page occurred before my employment in the library. After the copyright violation was discovered, the page was deleted. I rewrote the page to remove the copyright violation, and so a page would exist. This was a conflict of interest. Other editors reviewed my work. I have no plans to make further edits to the library page (and my current TBAN applies to it). I am only asking to be allowed to participate in discussions on LDS-related topics, like to help with sourcing, develop best practices, or raise issues where there are errors. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to collaborate with other editors on-wiki to develop guidelines for editing pages about scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon. Uh, what? Why do we need, or should we be developing, special guidelines for editing such pages, and why would someone who was topic banned from a subject ever be an appropriate choice to build guidelines around the editing of that subject?
  • Previously, I have collaborated with other editors off-wiki, which has caused some suspicion of my off-wiki correspondence. This partial reduction of my topic ban would allow me to collaborate more transparently. This brushes off as not very problematic or serious the very real concerns about inappropriate collaboration as "some suspicion", and it suggests that the TBAN is only preventing Rachel's "transparent" participation in editing the topic-banned subjects. That's not reassuring--that's incredibly worrisome.
  • I would also like to attempt to make positive contributions to discussions about Mormon studies to try to build community trust in my work on those topics. This just seems unwise. Rachel should be editing other, unrelated topics in order to build community trust in general at this point.
There are an infinite number of topics and subjects in the world, and there is no good argument here for why Rachel (or her students) specifically need to edit Mormon- or BYU-related topics. They should actively stay away from such topics, because there will always be at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, and it's not as if there is a dearth of other subjects needing attention. Indignant Flamingo has summed it up perfectly (As it stands I'm inclined to say that that topic ban is doing exactly what is best for the encyclopedia by harnessing the energy and money of students and sponsors in creating content unrelated to their sponsoring agency.), and I strongly oppose even a partial lifting of the TBAN. Grandpallama (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Grandpallama. You are absolutely right, there are plenty of other topics that we can edit. If this appeal is denied, and even if it is granted, we will continue to edit pages outside of Mormon studies. Why would anyone want to to work with me to develop guidelines for editing Book of Mormon pages? I believe that even though I was topic banned, that I have developed expertise in both Book of Mormon studies and editing Wikipedia that could benefit both communities. These guidelines could benefit not just LDS editors, but editors of pages about scripture across Wikipedia. I've noticed that there isn't very much interpretation of scripture on pages about scriptures on Wikipedia. I think that should change, but that the best way to start that is to develop guidelines with community consensus. You say that I've brushed off "very real concerns about inappropriate collaboration". Can you tell me more about that? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone want to to work with me to develop guidelines for editing Book of Mormon pages? That is not the question I asked. I asked why the community should want/trust someone topic banned from a subject to be developing editing guidelines around that same subject. Grandpallama (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For developing guidelines, I think she is referring to things like WP:LDS, WP:LDSMOS, WP:NCLDS, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement/Temples, and WP:LDS/RS. Epachamo (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Epachamo, that is not what her responses to Indignant Flamingo suggest to me. The more she explains, the more signals I see that the TBAN should remain in place. Grandpallama (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with reducing the amount of information my team previously added to Book of Mormon pages. However, the current policies and guidelines are unclear about who and what an independent secondary source about scripture is. Does a Book of Mormon with commentary written by an LDS person but published by Oxford University Press count as a secondary source? Are all sources about the Book of Mormon by a member non-independent? The topic of sourcing for religious pages (when an author's religion affects whether or not a source is independent or not) is also important for articles about the Bible and the Quran. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's way too soon to even think about it, and we as a community have spent way too much time on this issue already. My opinion on lifting the tban is "never" and I would be in favor of increasing sanctions if we can't get like at least a full year of not having to have volunteers spend time dealing with BYU's paid editors. No paid editor who's been doing this for 8 years should need this much help from volunteers to grasp the basics of Wikipedia (like how not to get tbanned, what the standard offer is, and what a good appeal looks like). Levivich (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Levivich. An appeal from what was (as understatedly noted above) "a giant mess", only a few months after its imposition, strikes me as being tone deaf as to the intention behind it. The ecclesiological wall-of-text, AKA breach of the actual topic ban in the middle of an appeal against the topic ban, supports the view that this is neither the time nor the place, yet it occurred anyway. No sense of awareness, either self- or the attritional effect on the community's time and patience. SerialNumber54129 17:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I distinctly remember that big WP:COI report on the the LDS group, that started so slowly. The idea once it was reported everything would be cushtie, which was made worse by their intransigence, later became particularly problematic in light off wiki canvassing. Not a chance. I have no confidence that predatory behaviour will change. scope_creepTalk 18:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Other users can add information to that section. Especially when in control of college students, just seems like a terrible idea to let the fox back into the hen house. Lulfas (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User FMSky repeatedly removing the Dubious template without addressing the disputed parts

On Dustborn, user Poketape introduced a claim about the game's Sales. On the talk page, I provided a detailed explanation as to why I believe the claim has no relation to sales and placed the Dubious template linking to the talk page. User:FMSky removed the Dubious template with no edit summary or response on the talk page. I restored the template and pointed at the talk page. The user reverted again with zero explanation. I undid, pointing at WP:ES and Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute#Disputed_statement. The user reverted and provided a summary for the first time, though the summary does not address the issues raised on the talk page in any way (for one, no amount of pointing at the concurrent players count would tell us anything concrete about the game sales). Daisy Blue (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the wiki article says Eurogamer reported that the game appeared to have sold poorly, reaching a peak player count of only 83 concurrent players on Steam. What the linked source (1) says Dustborn's launch appears to have gone rather poorly, at least as far as Steam data is concerned. [...] since its launch, the game has only recorded a peak of 83 simultaneous players. Eurogamer is considered a reliable source. What is the issue? --FMSky (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issues are raised on the talk page. Repeatedly undoing with no explanation or engagement on the talk page is not helpful. Daisy Blue (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand what the issue is, even after reading your talk page post. The article says exactly, almost word for word, what the source says. Maybe someone else could explain it to me. Someone else has since added to the section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dustborn&diff=prev&oldid=1244131093 maybe its now satisfactory for you --FMSky (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most one could say based on the source is something to the effect of "Eurogamer reported that the game appeared to have launched poorly on Steam, reaching a peak player count of only 83 concurrent players on the platform", however, that still wouldn't address the fact that it's not a statement about sales. Looking at WP:VGLAYOUT, I see no appropriate section for a statement of that nature. Daisy Blue (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the template, maybe someone else could chime in on the discussion page --FMSky (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That is my hope. Daisy Blue (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
poketapes edits are a problem. He is making statements beyond what the source states. The source being a statistic database of unknown reliability. This speaks to competency issues given he doesnt understand why this isnt allowed on Wikipedia after so many years and edits. It warrants a warning/discussion to help him understand why it is not allowed 115.189.88.238 (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth looking into the edits of User:Poketape as well. No edit summaries, responsible for the edit that kickstarted the above, also quite obviously introducing original research. Daisy Blue (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then leave a message on his talk page, this doesn't need admin intervention. While you're at it you can also read WP:GOODFAITH and WP:BATTLEGROUND --FMSky (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does you saying "Are you here to improve the article" fall under that? Daisy Blue (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats just asking a question while I'm struggling to understand your motivations --FMSky (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not "just asking a question". — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is clearly an WP:ASPERSION in context - "I was just asking questions" is doubling-down on it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My edits do not fall under original research, even though you say they "quite obviously" do. NOR does not apply to "routine calculations" and checking if a title is listed in a table falls under that. I made those edits to assuage your original concern that the Steam article I had posted did not cover other platforms. poketape (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, you used the post for FMSky to mention that someone should look into my edits, but did not inform me, per the rule above "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough." I notice that getting into fights with other users is routine with you. Despite you having only around 800 edits, a whopping 30% of them aren't made to the article space. As FMSky mentioned above, Wikipedia is not your battleground, and yet you repeatedly make it one. poketape (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by Poketape to another article combines the issues discussed in this section and on the talk page of Dustborn. At the minimum, I'm hoping for an administrator reply that would explain why that is not acceptable. The efforts of two registered users and one unregistered user have not been successful. Daisy Blue (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Poketape said previously: My edits do not fall under original research, even though you say they "quite obviously" do. NOR does not apply to "routine calculations" and checking if a title is listed in a table falls under that. see WP:CALC --FMSky (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that being Poketape's explanation, however, I see no relation between that part and the edits at hand. Even if there were no original research, the reiterated lack of connection between the number of peak concurrent players and sales would still exist, making it also an issue of relevance (and MOS:RELTIME for the Draugen edit). I don't want to be in an edit war until one of us ends up in the corner of 3RR, so this needs a third-party intervention. Daisy Blue (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the issue here since it's apparently the source that makes the claim rather than an editor? You can disagree with the source's conclusion but that still takes precedence over your own and it seems to be properly attributed. You say "The peak number of concurrent players says little to nothing about the sales." but I'm not really seeing an argument backing that statement beyond what seems to be your personal opinion on the matter.
You also say "Lastly, the figure does not reflect the numbers on Xbox, PlayStation, and Epic Games Store" which is a fair point but can be easily solved by properly mentioning that it only refers to the numbers on steam which is already something that was done, at least in the diff that introduced the change.
Overall, it seems like it's entirely a content dispute so I'm not sure what you expect from WP:AN. I mean, you could have gone for other dispute resolutions since the issue seems to have been barely discussed on the talk page, especially since you don't seem like a new editor. Yvan Part (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking mostly about three separate parts of content. For the first one that cites Eurogamer.pt, I've never argued that it's original research. It's Poketape pointing out the raw SteamDB concurrent players figures or a game's absence on top charts that relate to that. For the Eurogamer part, apart from how there's no common sense in connecting the peak concurrent players number to sales, the source does not say anything about sales either, so it's not my personal opinion. Daisy Blue (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly reasonable to connect concurrent player count to number of sales. While concurrent player count won't directly reveal sales, it can be used as an indicator of general sales performance. You keep stating things like "quite obviously original research" and "no common sense", but these aren't logical arguments, they're just your opinions that thus far nobody else has shared. I'd appreciate if you don't bludgeon users that disagree with you. poketape (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User Zxcvbnm characterized you citing the charts as POV pushing and explained why. An unregistered user described it as original research and explained why. The same cannot be said for you continuing to undo with no edit summary or talk page activity. Daisy Blue (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found that his statement did not clarify either way, as his full post was "Directly citing charts needs to have an actual purpose besides dunking on the game. It's not typical to mention that a game failed to chart, because most games fail to chart, though in the specific case of the Steam charts, it had an article devoted to it, showing that it did notably poorly. In contrast, a game can not be on the charts and still be successful, raising the question of why it is mentioned. Removing POV pushing is definitely improving the article." In the case of this game, an article was made and the other tables were provided to provide supporting material, which you had requested when you stated the article did not comment on other platforms.
I do not trust an unregistered user, as I mentioned in my edit summary it was suspicious that an unregistered user would make this edit out of the blue and is seemingly aware of Wikipedia rules like NOR, which was your argument. I noticed that in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 141#Talk:Michael Greger#Removal_of_sourced_content, a discussion you were also involved in, a user stated "As a point of administrivia, I am not convinced that Bluemousered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ciopenhauer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ckrystalrose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cschepker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Iloveinfo22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are separate people. If they are, then the arrival in short order of several limited-purpose "warriors for The Truth™" may indicate offsite solicitation, not uncommon when Wikipedia critiques evidentially unsupported but lucrative claims." I notice that you changed your username from Bloodyrose to Daisy Blue, when Ckrystalrose was one of the suspicious users, who only ever made one contribution, that exactly mimicked yours of removing a section of an article you disagreed with. poketape (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a lot of mischaracterization in one comment. Firstly, me saying that paraphrasing a source has to stick to what it actually covers (Steam in that example) rather than making broad statements is not me requesting anything else, let alone original research.
Secondly, I've never had any other account on Wikipedia and I don't remember ever making edits without being logged in, unless I wouldn't know (definitely not to Dustborn). Either way, I'm open to any checkuser reviewing my whole history and checking it against anybody else. From there, I'm hoping for action against your derailing and baseless accusations. Daisy Blue (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to be upset but I am fully within my rights to question your history of getting involved in multiple Wikipedia fights and convenient edits by short-term/sporadic users. You are continually hypocritical. First you mention me in this post without notifying me. Then you state my edit history must be investigated yet complain when I investigate yours. The fact that you're calling for retaliation is quite offensive, so I respectfully ask that you behave yourself. poketape (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made sure to revert your edit to Draugen, per Wikipedia:Counting and sorting are not original research. poketape (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no counting or sorting in the edits. You cite the raw data or its lack without relying on articles that talk about it in the context of sales (or in any way). Daisy Blue (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FMSky has edited this very page to change the section title to not include their name. One time without any explanation. Daisy Blue (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their talk page history, they also have been removing any sort of notifications or warnings that are ever put on their talk page for anything, which they are allowed to do, but it gives the impression of trying to pretend they aren't repeatedly being involved in disputes and inappropriate editing. The section name change edit you pointed out also gives that impression. SilverserenC 23:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SHOWN states, no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate. e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, [...]
It's clearly inappropriate here, though. The focus of this discussion is on FMSky's conduct in refusing to discuss their edits and then engaging in WP:ASPERSIONs on talk, not on the original dispute. And generally speaking it's obviously inappropriate for an editor to decide, themselves, that an ANI discussion focused on their conduct is not actually about their conduct anymore - obviously nobody wants to be the focus of an ANI discussion, but in context it comes across as trying to avoid scrutiny. --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats your personal opinion, the guideline linked above clearly says something different. Either way, it has the original title now so it should be fine. The pile-on can continue --FMSky (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that changing your name in this discussion title isn't appropriate. However, changing titles on your own talk page and/or removing notices is not nefarious behavior. No one has to keep comments on their own talk page. Silver seren, that's casting WP:ASPERSIONs as well.
As to the locus of this dispute, I don't see that this is "dubious". If you disagree, that's fine. You need to discuss this at the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war. Buffs (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close review: X blocked in Brazil

The story in question is clearly no longer "in the news", and there's no consensus for any action at this point. Interested editors can join the ongoing discussions at Wikipedia talk:In the news#RFCBEFORE: removing significance criteria. Clearly there's also a wide range of viewpoints on how closers should go about assessing consensus in ITN discussions, and some of the issues raised (e.g., whether WP:ITNATA should be worded more strongly) may warrant further discussion too. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC), revised 09:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd like for the community to review the close at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Closed) X blocked in Brazil, where multiple editors have raised objections. The !votes were split 14 support versus 13 oppose, and the closer cites WP:ITNSIGNIF in their close, quoting It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closer

Statement An attempt could have been made first to discuss my close with me one-on-one, but we are here, so let's proceeed. The two main criteria for my close were:
  • WP:ITNSIGNIF

    It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting.

  • WP:ITN/A

    If there is not consensus to post the item and the nomination has had suitable time to run (generally 24 hours), nominations can be closed.

There are no requirements or guidelines on what must be posted. This is not like WP:AFD, where arguments that align with WP:P&Gs are weighted higher, e.g. meeting WP:GNG, WP:BLP violations, unneeded WP:CFORK, etc. For ITN, ITNSIGNIF explicitly admits that the positing criteria are highly subjective and that each event should be discussed on its own merits. The nominated article is presumed to already meet GNG and be reliably sourced, otherwise AfD is the proper forum to debate. There's no requirement that an event based off of a notable, sourced article must be posted. The decision to post is subject only to the consensus of the participants. In this case, a quorum existed with well over 20 participants, and its almost 5 days of discussion was beyond ITN/A's 24-hour guidance. The rate of new votes in the last 1–2 days before it was closed did not make it reasonable that a surge was still possible to form a late consensus to post. The community is free to add more objective criteria to ITNSIGNIF, but it does not exist to date.—Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I personally think posting would be a WP:SUPERVOTE. If any uninvolved admin feels strongly enough about this case, feel free to undo my close, and proceed to post it. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going forward Despite what is written at Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions § ITN/C and frequent ITN practice, I will not be closing any more noms based on "consensus will not form to post" reasoning. Ultimately, everybody wants their day in the sun and the belief that there is still a chance. This also makes it more inviting to non-regulars. I do encourage the community to make WP:ITNSIGNIF more objective, otherwise there still won't be a change to whether or not arguments used in this case ultimately result in a post, even if they remain open for the full 7 days. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm reading here is that you still intend to ignore how consensus is determined on Wikipedia when deciding whether to post something, you're just going to avoid using an archive template with a close message. It has been the community's standard since time immemorial that consensus is determined by application of policy, not by voting. This is a fundamental principle, and an in depth understanding of this principle is required before evaluating a discussion. ITN doesn't get to set its own rules about how Wikipedia works. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to rewrite WP:ITNSIGNIF. —Bagumba (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom wasn't free. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weighing ITN !votes There is a misconception regarding the extent to which ITN arguments can be given less weight. In other WP venues, there are dedicated P&Gs, e.g. WP:AFD refers to WP:Notability, WP:RM leverages WP:Article titles, WP:RFD turns to WP:Redirect, etc. Those P&G’s are weighed more than “I like it / I don’t like it”. ITN does not have the domain-specific equivalent to objectively decide whether to post or not.
Some have suggested—in a WP:VAGUEWAVE—applying core P&Gs like WP:RS, but that doesn’t specify when an ITN blurb should be posted. ITN candidates are generally verifiable by reliable sources. Many are also “all over the news”, as many !voted, and many news items are from countries as populous or larger than Brazil, another argument employed. Diito for touting it being a democracy. Those criteria have never mandated posting—witness many rejected US-based candidates. WP:ITNSIGNIF lists a few principles for deciding to post, but has the disclaimer:

These sorts of principles are useful in convincing others to support or oppose posting a story. None are solely sufficient to override consensus.

Ultimately, we are left to circle back to

It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough ...

The ITN situation is far from ideal. Closers have limited avenues to discount !votes, lest they be berated for WP:SUPERVOTING. Make ITNSIGNIF more objective (some are saying to nuke it?) Outsiders are invited and essential to reform.—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OR WP:OR was another policy mentioned to discount !votes. However, its page states:

This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.

Reliable sources won't explictly say, "This is notable for an ITN blurb".—Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-participants

Formatting this as a reply to make it clear that this portion is my personal interpretation. While editors decide their !votes by analyzing the circumstances subjectively, the closer's quote confirms what should already be clear: discussions at ITN are still subject to Wikipedia's standards around consensus, meaning that the !votes should backed by P&G. Breaking down the !votes, I see:
Support rationales:
  • It's considered prominent by reliable sources (Nsk92, RodRabelo7, Nice4What)
  • It has significant ramifications or directly affects many people (PrecariousWorlds, Ad Orientem, Nfitz, DarkSide830, Slowking Man, The Kip)
  • It's notable (Chaotic Enby, Happily888, Flipandflopped)
  • No rationale or disagree with opposes (Kcmastrpc, Khuft, BD2412)
  • It's newsworthy (BD2412)
Oppose rationales:
  • The event was preventable but it was Musk's fault (Masem, AusLondoner, AbcMaxx, Skyshifter, A.WagnerC, Gödel2200)
  • The event was preventable but it was Brazil's fault (Scu ba)
  • Quality too low for the main page (Hungry403)
  • Not worth posting because examples of similar things failed to be posted (PrinceofPunjab)
  • It might become more common in the future (Black Kite)
  • Not interesting or not worth posting (CFA, Midori No Sora)
  • Wait until the investigation ends (31.44.224.222)
The way I see it, most of the supports argue that support from WP:RS, WP:IMPACT, or WP:GNG is sufficient reason to post. Nearly all of the opposers invoked some variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and have no legitimate reason to object beyond personal preference. Other opposes use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:CRYSTAL. This close review is essentially deciding whether IDONTLIKEIT !votes can be used to cancel out policy-based !votes on Wikipedia in this fashion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved) - "This is not like WP:AFD, where arguments that align with WP:P&Gs are weighted higher" - Yes it is. WP:CONSENSUS applies at ITN. Those oppose arguments were very weak and should have been down-weighted. After down weighing, there was consensus to post, per nom's analysis. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ECx2)As usual Levivich has gotten straight to the point and provided a piece of evidence that all on its own means it has to be overturned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Wow, I read through the actual discussion and those oppose reasonings are...incredibly bad. And made by several long-standing editors, which makes them even more disappointing. Since when was "it was an avoidable event, so it's not news" even an argument? The vast majority of the Oppose votes even in closing should have been tossed in the bin. SilverserenC 16:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The length and depth of coverage itself (are the articles long and go into great detail, or are the articles short and cursory?);
  • The number of unique articles about the topic (does each major news source dedicate its own reporting staff to covering the story, or are they all simply reposting the same article?);
  • The frequency of updates about the topic (is the article posted once and forgotten about, or is it continuously updated, and are new articles related to the topic appearing all the time?);
  • The types of news sources reporting the story (is the topic being covered by major, national news organizations with a reputation for high-quality journalism?).
Additionally, ITNATA provides several arguments that should not be made at ITN. There are clearly ways to evaluate significance and obviously bad arguments (e.g., irrelevant ones) should be discounted. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest changing ITNSIGNIF to make it clear that the community gives closers discretion to weigh !votes with these, or other factors. As written, I don't believe it exists. —Bagumba (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand that closers have that discretion across the board and are not vote counters you should refrain from closing... If you don't understand that you don't understand consenus which worries me as this is a consensus based project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" is explicitly called for at ITNSIGNIF, and we have a whole policy on achieving and determining consensus. We can add a more explicit point on this into ITN's guidelines, but that doesn't mean admins currently have no leeway. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can a consenus be achieved outside of policy and guideline based arguments? If there is no clear policy or guideline then there can be no clear consensus and this is a consensus based project, not a precedent based one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no policies and guidelines to draw on when making the decision about what's significant enough to post as a news story on the main page and what isn't. None of the sitewide rules bandied about above have any bearing on this because selecting blurbs in this fashion isn't something thay applies in article space. It's a unique process which happens to also have very few written rules. As such, unless you can prove obvious gaming, socking or vote stacking, it comes down to how many people support and how many oppose. When the counts are neck and neck like this we call it no consensus and it doesn't get posted. You can cry that this is not the Wikipedia way as much as you like, but we have nothing else to draw on. There are no policies and guidelines. Your opinion on this story isn't more valid than those who opposed the posting just because you say their views are "weak".  — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no policies and guidelines to draw on when making the decision then you aren't on wikipedia. Here everything falls under some collection of policy or guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a novel argument but moot because if its on wikipedia then its under controlling policy, WP:NOT for example was cited by the strongest oppose arguments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not the encyclopedia proper. It is part of the main portal. A portal is a web thing, not an encyclopedia thing. It is not the encyclopedia. Wp:NOT doesn't apply to ITN. It's already NOT by virtue of its very existence. —Alalch E. 19:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOT appears to cover the entire encyclopedia, not just the encyclopedia proper (for example I don't think anyone would accept the argument that NOT doesn't cover talk pages) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participants

Could you clarify no consensus existed to post? This seems to be the main issue at hand here that is being discussed. Natg 19 (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The raw votes were near evenly split with 27 in total. Even if you slightly devalue the opposes, as some have suggested, I don't think there is a clear consensus. To post this you would have to almost completely dismiss the opposes, which would be extremely controversial. FWIW, I supported the nomination and was not impressed by most of the opposing comments, but objectively there is not a clear consensus here. Had I been an uninvolved admin I would not have posted this based on the discussion at the time of closing and I think any admin who did would have been in for some sharp criticism. Would I have closed the discussion using Bagumba's rational? No. But to get to a consensus I think we would have needed a significant influx of comments with all, or nearly all breaking in favor of posting. Based on my rather long experience at ITN, that was not likely to happen. I appreciate that there is some disagreement here. But as of this comment the nomination will be archived in less than 24 hours. Sometimes in life things just don't work out the way we think they should and we have to pick and choose our battles. IMHO this is not a hill worth fighting over. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Slightly" devalue? What if you more than "slightly" devalue them, as I suggest? Levivich (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above; "To post this you would have to almost completely dismiss the opposes, which would be extremely controversial." and "Had I been an uninvolved admin I would not have posted this based on the discussion at the time of closing and I think any admin who did would have been in for some sharp criticism." -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be extremely controversial? And even if it was, so what? What's wrong with completely discounting rationales along the lines of 'The event was preventable but it was Musk's fault'? WP:CONSENSUS says we discount votes that don't follow PAGs, how does that rationale track with anything at WP:ITNCRIT, and if it doesn't, why shouldn't it be discounted completely? Levivich (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see where simply dismissing approximately half the comments because you disagree with them would be controversial? Really? Calling ITNCRIT vague would be an understatement. There is no hard and fast criteria beyond article quality. Any admin who dismissed all of the opposes would almost certainly have been overturned on appeal and likely been served a nice trout for their supper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what a closer is supposed to do; no, ITNCRIT has criteria besides quality; and no, they wouldn't be overturned, as evidenced by the guy who didn't discount the votes about to be overturned here. Levivich (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Plutonical unblock request

Per rough consensus and commentary below, unblocking with a Wikipedia-space topic ban, appealable to this noticeboard in 6 months. Daniel (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is copied over from User talk:Plutonical#Unblock Request 2, on behalf of Plutonical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

I've had a lot of time to think about my actions during my block, and I've spent some of it making contributions on the Simple English Wikipedia. I think I'm ready to be constructive in mainspace. I probably should have included this when I first made the unblock request, but I'd like to tackle some of the backlog, especially the links section.

Courtesy links: simple:Special:Contributions/Plutonical and the original block thread. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two years is a long time, and people can change. Given they were blocked for concerns around diving too fast into projectspace, I think an unblock with a topic ban from Wikipedia: space, appealable in six months is a good way forward. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for HouseBlaster's unblock/TBAN proposal. The contributions to simple Wikipedia look good, but six months without being in projectspace will give Plutonical a chance to show us some good edits in mainspace. @Plutonical: if the TBAN is enacted and you intend to appeal it in 6 months, you should be prepared to explain why you were indeffed and show an understanding of why your actions were wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Your contributions elsewhere show that there's a chance to be welcomed back. Weak support for TBAN on Project space. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please can someone undelete an article into a draft space, a lot more refs are now available

Hi all

I was involved in creating the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Education Monitoring Report which was deleted for notability. I've found a large number of suitable refs recently and I'd like to revive the article. An admin kindly offered in the deletion discussion to undelete the article and put it in a draft, unfortunately they are no longer an admin. Could I please ask someone here to undelete it to User:John_Cummings/Articles/Global Education Monitoring Report so I can work on it?

Thanks :)

John Cummings (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletions are requested at this page. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well and good for future reference, but I had a moment so I enacted. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: courtesy ping as AfD closer. Daniel (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a general note, Liz does not respond to pings. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)L[reply]
Color me embarrassed. Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Primefac, Daniel and 331dot, thanks so much for your help :) John Cummings (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content model change

Hello everyone, could someone please help me out by changing the content model for User:BaranBOT/RestrictionScan from text to JSON? Thanks in advance! – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me that having absolutely no clue what this all means doesn't mean I'm a "legacy admin". Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to get used to this whole internet on computers thing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't actually information you need (and so certainly not a big deal that you don't know it), but: The content model of a page is basically a flag to tell your web browser or other computers what kind of stuff to expect in that page. For most pages, such as articles, talk pages, etc., the content model is "wikitext", because the page is full of (presumably) human-readable text that uses wiki markup, like article prose or talk page discussions (e.g. this one). Changing the content model to JSON tells computers to expect the data within a page to be in the JSON format--this stands for "JavaScript Object Notation", and is basically a way to create structured data that is readable by computers without making it too impenetrable for humans. So, this change in content model just means you're telling computers "expect this page to contain data that a computer can read", and so it can be used by various tools, bots, etc. that are looking for it. Other examples of content models include "Javascript", which tells a computer "expect this page to contain Javascript code that a computer can execute". Admins can change the content model of pages using the Special:ChangeContentModel link. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this request is resolved, sorry for this extra comment. I was working on a tool and needed this page in JSON format. This tool helps check if there are any community or ARBCOM-imposed editing restrictions on users. If you use the MoreMenu gadget, you can add the following code to your Special:MyPage/common.js. This will add a new option named 'Editing restriction' to the user menu on any user's page, making it easy to check their editing restrictions.
mw.hook('moremenu.ready').add(function (config) { var username = mw.config.get('wgTitle'); var encodedUsername = encodeURIComponent(username); var url = 'https://restrictionscan.toolforge.org/?search=' + encodedUsername; MoreMenu.addLink( 'user', 'Editing restrictions', url );});

– DreamRimmer (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a technical correction: the content-type header in the HTTP response is what the browser uses to determine how to handle the content in the response. The MediaWiki content model is used by the MediaWiki software to determine how it should handle the content on that page (which can include returning it with the appropriate content-type header when serving the raw content to a browser). For example, when editing the page, it will launch a different editor for a page with the JSON content model than one with the wikitext content model. isaacl (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, next time you need a JSON subpage, if you create the page with the title ending in .json it should automatically set the content model to json for you. — xaosflux Talk 12:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks xaosflux. I knew that .json pages have JSON content model by default and I'm using .json pages like User:BaranBOT/Task 1/Drives/2024-09 New Page Patrol/config.json; I just wanted one without the .json extension. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, you can create it with the .json extension and then move it to a different name, which won't change the content model. isaacl (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive User

I'm closing this discussion as the OP has stated they are okay with this step. Unless there is immediate vandalism or content violating copyright or BLP guidelines, editors are encouraged to use Wikipedia's forms of dispute resolution before posting at an Administrators' noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Southasianhistorian8

Hi Wikipedia, this user has recently made a comment on another use @RegentsPark to make a compliant against me. As per https://w.wiki/BAz6.

RegentsPark Interactions:

This particular is off concern, as he has not made this on the Administrators Noticeboard. Furthermore, he has chosen a user who I believe is in conflict of interest due to ongoing issues with Sikh articles. It would be best for a user who has not had edits on either Sikh, India, Hindu based articles to intervene.

I think you should definitely investigate this, as tagging a user who already has an established relationship to obtain favouritism is highly concerning.

- https://w.wiki/BAyq - He says "Hi RegentsPark, I thought this ANI thread might be of interest to you since you warned this user in the past for such behaviour-[1]. It's clear that this user paid no heed to that warning since his edit history is dominated with gross attacks and condescending remarks"

- https://w.wiki/BAyt

- https://w.wiki/BAyu - This was back in December 2023

- https://w.wiki/BAyz - This was back in Jan 2021 and interactions go further back to December 2021

I think Wikipedia MUST Intervene at the highest level on this. Using other users to sanction actions against me is highly against its terms and conditions.


SouthAsianHistorian8 Draft Articles:

Most of SouthAsiansHistorian8 Edits and interactions are unfavourable on Sikh Wikipedia Pages which has led to past issues. Particularly he has an issue with my page Anti-Sikh sentiment in Canada. However, if you look into his edits he has been drafting up these articles which are strong indicators of this contentious issue he has:

- User:Southasianhistorian8/Sikh extremism in Canada (which is literally clear as day). Since my article he has been working on this again.

- User:Southasianhistorian8/Millitancy

- User:Southasianhistorian8/Attacks

- User:Southasianhistorian8/sandbox


SouthAsianHistorian8 Pages:

If you look through all his pages he's pretty much focused on Sikh related articles.


His Issue:

His use is claims that I use bias or supporting evidence which doesn't present the facts which is simply not true. He likes to keep throwing around links to Wikipedia rules and terms of service but actually doesn't even apply it in his editing on here.


World Sikh Organisation:

He claims I am "over zealous" in promoting them. The organisation itself has been involved in endless legal cases related to Sikh related racism and discrimination which I have made clear in Anti-Sikh sentiment in Canada. He argues that they aren't an legitimate organisation or source.

This individual also has been adding his whole section on the World Sikh Organisation regarding "Allegations of extremism". So what set him off was my response to his comment of a WSO Tweet on X on their version of events. https://w.wiki/BAzH


Transport for Canada:

He also says on his user talk "Here, you falsely claimed that Transport Canada made offensive lyrics about Sikhs, even though the source you provided had zero mentions of the word "Sikh"."

If you actually take a look at the article

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/transport-canada-offensive-email-no-fly-list-1.5389058 "Parody's lyrics include threats of violence against turban-wearing travellers" - So because it doesn't include the world Sikh according to him this doesn't come under Anti-Sikh Sentiment against Sikhs.

https://www.worldsikh.org/wso_writes_to_minister_garneau_about_racism_at_transport_canada


Just to note, this is just scratching the surface. I can provide a lot more to this. Further dives into his edit pretty much are self explanatory. Jattlife121 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to note I have no issue with @RegentsPark. It's the conflict of interest and asking somebody who has an established relationship themselves due to their standing on Wikipedia to take action against me. Jattlife121 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, this is a pretty immature and vindicate way of resolving content disputes. To those uninformed, Jattlife121 and I were involved in some disagreements on the page Anti Sikh sentiment in Canada, if you go through the history, you'll see I had concerns about the page resembling AI generated language, very extensive use of WP:SYNTH, and many instances of events/incidents being fabricated, and what appeared to be an overzealous defense of the World Sikh Organization. Jattlife121 became upset at that and left disparaging messages on my t/p. Fast forward to today, Jattlife added content trying to exonerate the WSO through a tweet from the WSO themselves-[5]. Since this was clearly a violation of WP rules, I asked an uninvolved admin, RegentsPark, if he could remind Jattlife121 of Wikipedia's rules and norms surronding proper sourcing since Jattlife clearly does not take me seriously-[6]. Instead of going through Wiki rules on what constitutes reliable sourcing, he launched into this diatribe to win a content dispute . Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, my post on RegentsPark t/p was not to get Jattlife121 in trouble, when I tried to engage with hm before on the t/p of Anti Sikh sentiment in Canada, Jattlife did not respond to my arguments and instead made 2 disparaging attacks against me on my t/p. My expectation was that RegentsPark would gently let Jattlife know that tweets are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia, and that would justify a revert of his edit, and that would be the end of that. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per Template:Cite tweet "Tweets are usually unacceptable as sources.
Tweets and other self-published material may be acceptable if the conditions specified at
WP:SPS
or
WP:TWITTER
are met. For further information, see the
Wikipedia:Verifiability
policy and the
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
guideline."
As per SPS "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information
about themselves
, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as"
Thus, the tweet used is acceptable as presented by WSO themselves on behalf of the claim. I haven't said they are right or they are wrong. Only their response to the Parmar event at Maddison Square Garden.
Jattlife121 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Admin, https://w.wiki/BAzv It appears that @Southasianhistorian8 has removed my response to his comment. I find this quite odd. Jattlife121 (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One can make the argument that the tweet is making claims about third parties (Bagri) and is self serving. So it's highly dubious that would count. Also, that policy (WP:TWITTER) seems to be for WP:BLP, not for organizations. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I didn't remove your comment; that was a edit conflict. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At a first look this seems to be an instance of an age-old problem on Wikipedia. POV-pushers, such as Jattlife121, accuse neutral editors of pushing the opposite POV. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to post the response again further up the chain
"::What I would say is mature is once again using a user who you already interact with in a conflict of interest to support you.  Stop tagging RegentsPark to speak on behalf of you. Why can't we leave to a neutral Wikipedia Admin.
What incidents have been fabricated as such - You still haven't given me a response to Transport Canada Email ?
Also note, you have been constantly working on WSO with the allegations/extremism whatever you want to call. I haven't even removed the text on what you have said but merely added what WSO themselves have responded to the incident with. How on earth is this "Over Jealous". Secondly, WSO are the only Sikh organisation involved involved in the legal disputes on Anti-Sikh Sentiments. How many more cases do you want ? Literally the press interview as spokesmen them such as CBC based on the anti-sikh events have taken place. You really are clutching at straws.
You can't accept the fact that they were included as an organisation on the page dispute the clear evidence of them being involved in these legal cases. That was only three I provided, there are many more on-top of that"
------------------------------
Secondly, to the point of their response to Bagri, it is an official statement rather than a claim by the organisation official X handle. I don't see the difference it makes on the page in their response to what Bagri had said (which I completely am against and think was terrible). If you've seen other pages, countless provide the response of an organisation. As such, you have put the text about Bagri so high up on the page, it eludes the idea that WSO themselves were involved in his speech. Jattlife121 (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does this individual get classed as Neutral Editor considering the evidence provided ? I provided the response of an organisation to a serious allegation and but apparently this is not allowed. @Phil Bridger If you kindly look at the evidence rather than at first glance, that would be appreciated. Jattlife121 (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting close to boomerang territory. Regardless of anything else, we have a wall of text, part of the argumentation is that a complaint was filed privately with an admin (perfectly acceptable), an uninvolved longtime-active user considers this complaint an attempt to silence opposing points of view, and the admin with the private complaint warns that the complaint was made inappropriately. I'm leaning toward closing this. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response @Nyttend. If we just start on the initial problem that has arisen because the other stuff will just be a merry go round.
SouthAsianHistorian8 doesn't accept a Tweet in which a statement made by World Sikh Organization refuting a paragraph he has put within the article. I think first of all, under Wikipedia is this allowed to be used as a reference to show their side of the view. Yes or No due to the seriousness of the statement included. My edit https://w.wiki/BAzH , in which he claims I am promoting the organisation (I have no prior edits on the WSO page since my time on Wikipedia). Is my sourced edit using WSO's tweet allowed. Yes or No ? Thank you ! Jattlife121 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we fully-protect ECP pages targeted by LTA Hamish Ross?

These three pages are being constantly targeted by sockpuppet accounts of LTA Hamish Ross gaming the EC permission to attack these EC-protected pages. Hamish Ross is not your ordinary abuser, they rapidly randomly undo hundreds of edits from various IP addresses and new editors, including many constructive ones, thus racking up quite a lot of drama from those editors and potentially damaging newbie editors who receive those "Only warning" vandalism notices from this LTA. The fact that they revert both good and bad edits means that we can't just smash mass-rollback on all of these edits, thus making them an awfully difficult LTA to deal with.

Thus, it is my belief that the user and user-talk pages of TheGracefulSlick should be upgraded to indefinite full-protection, and the History of the chair page be upgraded to temporary full-protection.

User:TheGracefulSlick has been banned from editing since early 2019, hasn't made a single edit since early 2020, and has additionally abused multiple accounts as well, so I think there's very little harm to the user in fully-protecting their user and user-talk page here, as it is highly unlikely they intend to ever come back. In fact it might be beneficial for them as then they wouldn't be receiving the horde of "You have a new talk page message!" and "Your user page has been edited by another user" notifications that they get every time a HR sock attacks these pages. They may be logged-out, but are probably receiving all those email notifications about it.

I do realise FP'ing these pages may be going against the deny recognition principle, giving the LTA what they potentially want (i.e. the 'full protection'), but the intended goal here is to give the LTA less things to do by making them unable to edit the pages that they love to attack. I know some of you may be doubtful of the actual effectiveness of these actions, so let's take a look at a previous full-protection-due-to-LTA case, which ended up working really well – that is, the article Brianna Wu. The LTA who persistently vandalised that article with EC-gamed accounts would not only attack that page, but also a whole bunch of other ECP pages as well, e.g. Turning Red and the userpage of Drmies. Ever since the placement of indef FP on that article, the LTA stopped hitting those other pages as well. Considering the amount of trouble LTA/HR causes every day, I'd say, why not give it a try here? — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, no, we should not. We should treat them as we would every vandal (they're not special), WP:DENY and carry on. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually put history of the chair under ecp for half a year some weeks ago. Lectonar (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Brianna Wu, that article has had no edits to expand the content since the protection. I would not call that a success at all. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of that article is also EC-protected indefinitely, keep that in mind. Which, by the way, has had quite a number of successful edit requests on it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but they're all trivial and minor. There has been no content expansion to it. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In theory it should be easily doable through edit requests. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theory and practice are different. Protection results in less editing and full protection results in almost no editing. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were no edits to expand the content even before the full protection. I don't think we're missing much, other than having to oversight every other edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah was going to say the same thing. The changes between now and full protection seem to be [7]. That was about 18 months. The changes for about 3.5 years before full protection when the article was ECP is [8]. I don't see what we've lost between the two. And besides the longer time under review, if anything I'd also expect more in the early part of that ECP period since she was still running for Congress then. (There did seem to be more earlier in 2019 relating with he second Congressional run hence why I stopped with that late 2019.) Yet IMO we've had about as much change in the 18 months of full protection as in the 3.5 years under ECP I showed. Of course changes always tend to depend on many factors including those which could be said to be almost random, so IMO a single example is fairly useless either way, but if you are going to look at it as an example, you need to at least compare before with after. Otherwise I might as well just chose some random article which is unprotected and still a stub after 10 years and say, look how bad unprotection is! Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting § Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

CLOSED
Removed by HouseBlaster. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy, which rolled out the use of WP:ECP for non-ArbCom-mandated protection, required that Notification is to be posted in a subsection of AN for review, unless the topic is already authorized for 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee. The idea was that the community might want to form consensus on whether each individual use of ECP was the correct course of action.

Obviously, that does not happen anymore, nor do I think the community is interested in reviewing every case of autoconfirmed users edit warring. We continue to include a report at § Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection, which transcludes User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report. Almost a decade later, I think it is time to remove this section from AN. AN is long enough already; we don't need additional clutter. Interested editors can watch User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report directly.

Does anyone object to its removal? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removal is a good idea. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Lectonar (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stealthy date/year change vandalism by 2601:46:87F:26A0:0:0:0:0/64

IP has been blocked. RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

2601:46:87F:26A0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Hi, I am coming from another wiki where the above /64 range was found engaging in stealthy year/date change vandalism, with those edits disguised with the innocuous edit summary case fix (via WP:JWB). It looks like the same issue is occurring here as well, and I have managed to revert an obvious one so far. I am posting on this noticeboard hoping that someone will be available to take a closer look. Chenzw  Talk  15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chenzw. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

Can an admin kindly implement the edit request at Template talk:Collapse top#Protected edit request on 4 September 2024? It's been 11 days and should be uncontroversial. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User vandalized "Emily in Paris"

I've warned the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's now fixed, but this was blatant vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emily_in_Paris&diff=1245910294&oldid=1245901113

MisawaSakura (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is the page protected?

Asked and answered.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page 13 (number) is protected. Why? It might be unnessecary protection for now.

2001:4456:CD1:C400:3084:D963:7867:2E5B (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is persistent vandalism. The edit history of that article is a bit of a mess. — Czello (music) 04:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See [9]. If you want, you can ask for un-protection at WP:RPP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request early closure of RM for Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax

I requested this RM on September 12 and I respectfully request that it be closed early, because it has clearly failed to achieve consensus, and subsequent developments relating to the topic have prompted me to withdraw my support for renaming it from "hoax" to "rumor". (I intend to submit a new RM relating to the "cat-eating" part of the title; modifying this part is broadly supported within the discussion of the current RM, but it has been drowned in controversy about "hoax" vs "rumor".) Carguychris (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 17:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! But there's still a RM template at the top of the article. Snafu? Carguychris (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will take care of it soon. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 18:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NightWolf1223 & @Carguychris: per WP:RMEC, an RM may not be withdrawn if any editor "has suggested any outcome besides not moving". Several editors supported a move in this discussion. Closing the RM and starting a new one to guide consensus is improper. I suggest reverting the close and closing the new discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My pologies, I did not realize that was a condition. I will take care of that right now. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 23:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second voorts. Why close this early if editors were still in the process of reaching a consensus? It's obvious that with a topic like this, one that is currently controversial and a massive political talking point, there will be many editors talking about this and having different viewpoints on how to make this article Wikipedia-ready. Per previous discussions on the talk page, this RM was bound to happen anyways, so one editor shouldn't be able to close the RM they proposed, especially when so many others were engaged in active conversation under it. JungleEntity (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please rename the correct season number

Not a matter for AN. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Greece's Next Top Model season 5 => Greece's Next Top Model season 3, Greece's Next Top Model season 6 => Greece's Next Top Model season 4, Greece's Next Top Model season 7 => Greece's Next Top Model season 5, according to the number of seasons given by the source, see [10]  Rafael Ronen  16:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Ronen, this is not a matter that requires an administrator. I would suggest starting a request move discussion, since it's reasonable to believe these moves would be controversial. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: I believe it is not controversial, the correct season number is given by the source, the creator of the past article wrote the wrong season number due to no source given due to Greece's Next Top Model connecting the season number with Next Top Model (Greek TV series)  Rafael Ronen  17:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shrug. I see you've already requested the moves. Nothing more to do here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: I can delete at requested the moves if needed, I know a little English so I'm confused, sorry  Rafael Ronen  17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let the process play out there. The experienced volunteers will either action your requests or tell you what to do next. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: OK, thank you  Rafael Ronen  17:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Twitter under Elon Musk" edit notice

I have just added a comment at Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk and I was greeted by the edit notice Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk. Yes, I get that there have been several move requests and that it is a controversial discussion, but does it need to be so big and disruptive? Can someone make it a bit less flashy? Cambalachero (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging InfiniteNexus for input as they created the edit notice. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The usual answer to the question "can someone do something?" is "who do you expect to do anything if not you?" If you don't have the technical skills needed can you at least suggest something better? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that editnotices can only be edited by admins, that's why I ask here Cambalachero (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now see (it was pretty obvious in fact) that edit notices can only be edited by admins, template editors, or page movers. In such a niche area that only applies to one or two articles I would still do most of the work myself, only asking an admin or page mover to perform the final move. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Cambalachero said, edit notices cannot be edited by most users: "This is the page notice for Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk. This editnotice can only be created or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers."
The only recommendation that I can make is that the third line of the system message says "To request a change be made to the page, please submit an edit request, ensure you include a description of your requested change and the reason for the change" which did not occur. However, had it been done at Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk, then it might have been missed as Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter is the primary edit notice that the other one transcludes to. (In any case, this discussion seems to have become the edit request by default.) --Super Goku V (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(non-admin page mover) I can do it if there's consensus, although it could be good to put an alert at the relevant pages (Talk:Twitter, Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk and Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter) to get a wider consensus on what's the best way to write the editnotice. (Edit: Relevant alerts have been sent) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is on the result of the move discussions, that the edit notice informs about, and which I'm not discussing. Making a big and disruptive edit notice a bit more discrete, without changing its purpose, should be a simple thing and not require big discussions. As said, I would have done it myself if it wasn't for the detail that editnotices can only be edited by certain users. Cambalachero (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it disruptive? Also for the record were you supportive or opposed to that consensus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is on the result of the move discussions, that the edit notice informs about, and which I'm not discussing.
I understand, I was talking about getting consensus for changing the editnotice styling. A much more minor thing, but I preferred to make sure that there wasn't any opposition to it before going ahead, as there might have been support for the current styling. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the notice isn't big enough considering the volume of move requests. Cortador (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The flashiness of the editnotice was due to the various RMs (we're currently at 10) that had been repeatedly opened and closed without consensus for a move, which at that point was becoming disruptive, tiring, and repetitive (WP:DEADHORSE). Hopefully, if the proposed moratorium for future move requests passes, it will ensure stability and allow the editnotice to be more subdued. (Speaking of which, that discussion needs a close; if anyone here would like to volunteer, they are welcome to do so — there's a posting at WP:CR.) Editors are free to discuss the style of the editnotice on Talk:Twitter, or edit the embedded FAQ page directly. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, as this discussion was said above to have become the edit request by default and I've sent a notice on the relevant pages to participate here, it makes sense that the discussion on the style of the editnotice could continue here rather than move again. Although, if it's preferable to continue the discussion on Talk:Twitter, I am not categorically opposed to it either. I'm not sure the embedded FAQ page was even a point of contention, the issue is really about the font size on the editnotice itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probable sockpuppet User:Florentino floro

Take it to SPI and include evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

FrederickEvans According to the edits, this is most likely a blocked user. User:Florentino floro WikiBayer (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

RfC closure review request at Talk:United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#RfC_for_United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#Syria

United States and state-sponsored terrorism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: diff

Reasoning: This is a request to review the RfC close at United States and state-sponsored terrorism, to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly and closed RfC with wrong procedural close. There were five editors in this discussion, two editors thought this was not a RFC, then User: Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) reworded question to make it intelligible and grammatical. Two editors thought editorial synthesis of published material implied a new conclusion. One editor did not express its opinion clearly. Obviously, no consensus was achieved at this RfC. However, the closing comments were: "A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Procedural close for RfC that is not an RfC: N and RFC apply." I tried to discuss this with the closer, but there is no respond in 5 days. Kof2102966 (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closer

Non-participants

Participants

Discussion

@Kof2102966: you don't need a closure review. You just need to discuss at the talk page and develop a new, better RfC question. The experienced users there, including RMC and WAID, can probably help you craft a neutral opening question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Volume persistent reverts

User:Cheer0000 has been persistently reverting changes on Quantum volume promoting a quantum computing system with a tie to cryptocurrency -- without providing any WP:SECONDARY sources or WP:RS. User had been warned once already with 3rr on the user's talk page. Other accounts have in the recent past also tried to add similar information. Michaelmalak (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I very sincerely apologize for MichaelMalak's ignorance. Dynex is a decentralized supercomputer, that is of course, orders of magnitude more powerful than any other quantum supercomputer, and its not even close. The difference is many exponents. I don't know why he's crying about crypto-currency. A quantum volume is a quantum volume, it doesn't matter. It is what it is. I don't know why he's crying about it Cheer0000 (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTHERE'd and semi'd the article for two weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't know if it's worth an SPI to check if Cheer0000 and DrMartin1970 are socks or just meat. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
magic eight ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: meat.-- Ponyobons mots 17:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they're certainly socking now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes in Draft Space by IP editors

A large number of draft pages have been created within the past month by shifting IP addresses. Approximately 18 of these drafts have been nominated for deletion at Miscellany for Deletion as hoaxes. Some of them have unverified links to the biographies of living persons. I have @voted to Delete some of them as hoaxes and BLP violations, and to keep some of them. The content issue is that drafts are in draft space that will not pass AFC review, but none of them have been submitted. They should be declined or rejected when submitted, and, if accepted, they should be taken to AFD. That is the way Wikipedia works. But there is also a conduct issue. A person or group of persons are editing anonymously from shifting IP addresses and writing things that are not true. Here is the list of the drafts that, in my opinion, contain BLP violations or hoaxes. These are 12 out of the total 18 drafts that have been nominated for deletion. All of them appear to be by IP editors:

One editor wrote: If the user has a history of hoaxing, take it to WP:AN and propose that they be blocked for disruption. It doesn't look like one editor. It may be one or two or three humans from multiple IP addresses. Am I required to notify all of the IP addresses? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about notifying the IPs. I've seen this fairly frequently while patrolling CSD when they're tagged as hoaxes. I err on the side of deletion. Although not all of these kinds of drafts are created by IPs from Finland, most of them have, and when it's worth doing (they have a fairly lengthy supply of them), I block single IPs and ranges. Frankly, although I know I can't change the overly-lenient Wikipedia culture, it would be way better for everyone if IPs couldn't create drafts. As long as policy permits them to do so, we will have more work cleaning up after the messes and with no accountability when there's socking involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paulina Holzier

OP User has been indeffed, nothing more to do here. RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Perhaps an administrator could take a look at User talk:Paulina Holzier#Managing a conflict of interest and Draft:James Holzier. Perhaps there's no conflict of interest here per se, but there seem to be other problems per WP:NOT and maybe even WP:HOAX that might require more eyes looking at her. The current draft might somehow be related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Holzier back in 2004, which seems to be what's being alluded to here in this user talk page post. I'll also note that this comment on the user's Commons user talk page also makes me wonder whether this is someone who's more WP:NOTHERE than WP:HERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This user has just been indefinitely blocked by Cullen328. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone smarter than me will have a more insightful assessment but this this looks to me like a Breaching experiment combined with a hoax combined with good old fashioned trolling. I have indefinitely blocked Paulina Holzier as not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I got taken in by this editor at WP:AFCHD and spent more time refuting their bullshit than I should have. WP:AGF is a behavioral guideline, after all. Cullen328 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1RR and current events articles

This is a bit of a perennial discussion, but I'm not sure if it's been discussed, at least recently, in a centralized location, and I'd like to solicit admins' views on how 1RR is supposed to work on a current events article.

I recently made an edit to a high-profile current events article. That edit was a revert. I later went to make another edit to correct some incorrect information, and it occurred to me that changing what someone else just wrote would be a second revert, and I would be violating 1RR.

What am I supposed to do? Wait until tomorrow to make any further edits to the article? Limit myself to only adding new information and not changing any existing information? Make edit requests for the rest of the day? Just keep editing until someone complains about my crossing 1RR and asks me to self-revert (and hope I don't catch a no-warning block)?

These questions also apply to non-current-events articles, but with current-events articles, the articles become outdated and incorrect rather quickly as new sources are constantly being published (which is not the case for non-current-events articles).

So what is the best practice here? How do I edit a current events article without crossing 1RR? Levivich (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A month later, Telegraph RfC hasn't been reclosed

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444 § RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues was reöpened (correctly, IMO) on 18 August. Well, less reöpened and more un-closed, since it's sitting in an archive. An edit just came across my watchlist citing The Telegraph on a gender article, and given all the work people put in to expressing their opinions on the matter (including me, full disclosure), it would be nice to have something to point to as the current community consensus, even if it's just an admin-approved finding of no consensus. A key issue in both the original close and the original overturn was that they were unilateral non-admin closes. Could we maybe get a panel of two or three admins to finally put this to bed? Otherwise I fear all that discussion will have been for naught and we'll be doomed to repeat it all in 6 to 12 months. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 18:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to mention, this is listed at closure requests, but CR has a backlog of 44 discussions currently. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised. With close challenges becoming de rigueur and people pushing for the broadest possible interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, closing complex discussions is becoming an even more thankless task. – Joe (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean putting aside the general problems with closing, that Telegraph RfC is very long (68k words from a simplistic counter) and an extremely fraught issue in recent times. The re-opening happened after it spawned a 50k+ word review. (For clarity I mention the review not because anyone closing has to read it, but because it indicates the mess anyone closing probably fear awaits.) So I'm not particularly surprised anyone looking at closing who's even vaguely aware of the background goes "no way!" perhaps with some swear words thrown in. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
* Present company excepted; I didn't spot that Tamzin had already mentioned a panel  :) SerialNumber54129 14:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP address 89.243.60.161

Vandalism bot just reverted an anti-Semitic edit by this IP to Theophilus Freeman. I spot checked and three of their five edits are similarly unhinged and/or horrifically racist. jengod (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This IP account has been blocked. I'll look into their edits to see if revision deletion is called for. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TY.
Resolved
jengod (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technics SL-1200 Slow Edit Warring

Djrichie t blocked by Bbb23 Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Djrichie t has been adding overly detailed pictures and descriptions to the Technics SL-1200 page. Multiple reversions have happened over a long period of time. I feel that this user is trying to promote their own personal business rather than add encyclopedic content, but they continue to undo my removal of their edits. I would appreciate some more eyes on this so that we can figure out how to move forward. hbent (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not promoting my own personal business. That claim is fully disputed. I am the copyright owner of the specific part mentioned, which I have provided citations including UK government website link to my intellectual property. It must be said that there are a number of jealous people on Wikipedia who have constantly tried to vandalise my contributions regarding this. There is no need to undo any of my contributions whatsoever as the basis is factual. Djrichie t (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Djrichie t:, you are editing with a conflict of interest when you do this, as you own the copyright to the parts. While you may not intend to promote your interests, it is generally advised that editors with a conflict of interest request edits using the talk page. Furthermore, calling the revisions of your edits vandalism is not helpful and is not the case.
Could this be discussed on talk page of the article first? That is usually the first step of dispute resolution. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree that there is a conflict of interest if the contribution has valid citations. You cannot get more valid than a UK Government link. So your claim is void. Djrichie t (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've indefinitely blocked Djrichie for thumbing their nose at our policies and for continuing to edit-war at the article today.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bbb23 using privileges for misconduct

No merit to report,user directed elsewhere for their sandbox. Star Mississippi 02:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

If he had checked the edit history of MY personal sandbox, he would know it's fictional, plus, it doesn:t matter if it's a hoax, that's why it's a personal sandbox, i'm not gonna upload it ZZenyx (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:FAKEARTICLE. Creating hoax articles, even in your personal sandbox, is not allowed. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are also eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G3. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never knew that may move to HHO instead ZZenyx (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is HHO? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they might mean HHW, Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki. I linked them there, since it seemed like that's what they wanted to write about. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.