Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Open tasks
| V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 14 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 27 | 0 | 27 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 8 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 6 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 20 sockpuppet investigations
- 9 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 3 Fully protected edit requests
- 1 Candidates for history merging
- 3 requests for RD1 redaction
- 60 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 20 requested closures
- 27 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 9 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Request to re-open Georges Feydeau infobox RFC
This a request to reopen an RFC and allow it to run longer, because:
- Legobot tagged the RFC on September 29; the DNAU was dated Nov. 3 (tomorrow).
- On October 30, further input was requested at VPR
- That day, 2 editors voted (including me)
- On October 31, 4 editors voted
- On November 1, 1 editor voted
- On November 2, 1 editor voted
- Five hours later, the RFC was closed as "no consensus."
- The closer wrote, "It's right to close it now," but I disagree. There is no rule that says an RFC must be closed after 30 days, and this one was still attracting new participants daily -- this is contrary to WP:WHENCLOSE
- Of the 8 new votes that had come in after the VPR posting, 5 were "yes" and 3 were "no," so this was trending towards consensus, rather than away from it.
- The final tally at closure was 18 yes, 13 no, or 58% in favor (18/31).
Aside from being closed too early, I think the closing statement itself does not meet the standards for closing statements, because:
- It provided no explanation for how it arrived at a no-consensus result -- as WP:CLOSE says, "A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached." This closing statement didn't do that.
- The closing statement did not summarize, or even identify, any arguments, on either side
- It did not weigh any votes, although some votes seemed to lack any meaningful rationale (such as the final one)
- It did not count the votes (if you think that sort of thing matters)
- What it did was simply assert "no consensus," and then write a generic description of how WP:ONUS works after a no-consensus RFC.
Because there was still active, daily participation from new editors, because the trend line was towards consensus rather than away from it, and because the closing statement didn't explain the no-consensus result or otherwise follow WP:CLOSE or WP:ACD, I think this should be re-opened and allowed to continue running until participation dries up, and then re-closed. This will be more efficient than having to re-run the RFC later, and so will save editor time in the long run. Levivich (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- "
It did not count the votes
. See Wikipedia:Consensus: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote
". Given there was no consensus in the weight of the arguments (based on policy and guidelines), the "trending towards consensus" claim is a straw man. Vote counting has never had a place on WP.In your little chronology, you missed the point that Legobot removing expired RFC template on 29 October after thirty days, so it's already run over a fair period already. The advertisement at VPR on 30 October was the second time it had been advertised at that venue, the first time being on 29 September. Is creating more heat and dramah and dragging out a timesink rfc really beneficial? It wasn't on 30 October (when I requested a close at WP:RFCL, and I doubt it is now either. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Closer: Levivich gives me two substantive points to respond to.
- I closed the discussion prematurely. No, I didn't. That discussion had gone on for more than the requisite amount of time. It was eligible to be closed. With AfDs, there's a deplorable tendency to relist them when they don't reach consensus, but RfCs aren't the same; they're 30 day discussions that suck up a lot of volunteer time. We only want them relisted in exceptional circumstances. The "trending towards consensus" argument reduces to "if you'd closed it at a different time you might have got to the result I wanted".
- I didn't say how I got to "no consensus", and I didn't summarise the arguments, and I didn't count the !votes, and I simply asserted that the outcome was no consensus, all of which are just the same point said four different ways. The arguments reduce to "Infoboxes are useful" and "The infobox information is redundant to the first paragraph". Editors cited no policy or guideline that says we should or shouldn't have infoboxes, because no such policy or guideline exists. It's just an aesthetic judgment.
- Changes to an article need consensus; the consensus wasn't there; and at some point we have to draw a line under it.—S Marshall T/C 20:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Closed when !votes were still coming in, better to re-open it now and let that continue to see if a consensus can develop. nableezy - 22:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why do we have to draw a line under it? That is how filibustering works, when you have what you want in place you can block changes by "no consensus". If anything, your close opens the door to a brand new rehashing of the same discussion, because you didnt draw a line under it, you left it unresolved. If the discussion is continuing to get new input it should be allowed to continue. Because right now, the way I see it, anybody is totally justified in opening a brand new RFC on the exact same question. Because there is no consensus against the change. nableezy - 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Are you saying I "had what I want in place" and I was trying to "block changes"?—S Marshall T/C 20:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, of course not, sorry if that was unclear. I am not accusing you as closer of anything, but what I am saying is that when users feel they have their position in place as the status quo that they can, and often will, filibuster discussions to the point of aiming to prevail by no consensus. And since this was continuing to draw in more participation, that process should have been allowed to continue so that a consensus could form even with the volume from the people who really really care about the issue. nableezy - 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- You can't filibuster an RFC. !Voting and walking away still counts in the end judgement and adds no more time to the process. RFCs are timesinks and should only be used sparingly, which is why WP:RFCBEFORE "
RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable
". If anyone does decide to open a new RFC right now, it would be disruptive in the extreme. Those that care about the article and the subject are likely to have had it on their watchlist ahave had ample opportunity to comment on it in the previous 30 days. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)- Yes you certainly can, and Id say as a rough definition that making 20 out of the 115 comments in a discussion qualifies. Add to it the *involved* support of a no consensus close here because, surprise, that results in your (minority) position prevailing, and Id say that is actually a solid example. Besides, the whole point of an RFC is to get outside perspectives, presumably the reason an RFC is opened is because the people who do care about the article and the subject are likely to have had it on their watchlist have not come to a consensus locally and so they seek out more views from the wider community to find what consensus may be. And for the record, I probably would have voted no infobox. nableezy - 20:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, you can't: filibustering is about extending or prolonging a discussion to stop other people getting their argument in.This is not the case with an RFC. If someone is replying to a point, it doesn't stop anyone (or 5 or 10 people) from !voting at the same time.Just a little correction: I did not make 20 comments in the !vote section. I made about 15 comments to the that section (not the discussion section), and that is less than at least one editor who was vocal in his support for an IB, so if you want to make something of it, we cancelled each other out. And, as a reminder, "no consensus" for a change is an entirely acceptable and common end to an RFC. - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, filibustering is about talking so much that no change happens. Anyway, I think this should be reopened and more input sought out. nableezy - 21:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Filibustering is about extending a discussion to stop others talking (or at least it was when I did my politics degree - maybe its definition has changed considerably in the meantime). And it's not possible at RFC because one person commenting doesn't stop a hundred others from adding their input. It's a false parallel. If you think I've tried to extend the discussion, you've missed the point, but perhaps the others who commented multiple times (including at least one who commented more than me), may have had a different idea, but you'll have to ask them. - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, when people see a clusterfuck of a discussion they will stay away. Which is one of the reasons why people turn them into clusterfucks. Hey look, its happening here. nableezy - 21:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed it possibly is, but at the RFC (as with elsewhere) it takes more than one to tango - and this is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, as is an RfC. I'm not going to get into a finger pointing game, but you should count up comments made by people, if you want to try and have a go at me for something: in the !vote section, one IB supporter made 16 comments; I made 15 (yes, I acknowledge that's too many); a second IB supporter made 14. I don't think they were filibustering any more than I was, and I don't think they were trying to turn it into a clusterfuck any more than I was. I do, however, resent your implication that I tried to turn it into a clusterfuck, or I did so as part of some malicious gameplan. Neither of those are true, and you should strike the implication. - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Is "Clusterfuck" one of those bird names they're trying to change? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed it possibly is, but at the RFC (as with elsewhere) it takes more than one to tango - and this is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, as is an RfC. I'm not going to get into a finger pointing game, but you should count up comments made by people, if you want to try and have a go at me for something: in the !vote section, one IB supporter made 16 comments; I made 15 (yes, I acknowledge that's too many); a second IB supporter made 14. I don't think they were filibustering any more than I was, and I don't think they were trying to turn it into a clusterfuck any more than I was. I do, however, resent your implication that I tried to turn it into a clusterfuck, or I did so as part of some malicious gameplan. Neither of those are true, and you should strike the implication. - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, when people see a clusterfuck of a discussion they will stay away. Which is one of the reasons why people turn them into clusterfucks. Hey look, its happening here. nableezy - 21:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Filibustering is about extending a discussion to stop others talking (or at least it was when I did my politics degree - maybe its definition has changed considerably in the meantime). And it's not possible at RFC because one person commenting doesn't stop a hundred others from adding their input. It's a false parallel. If you think I've tried to extend the discussion, you've missed the point, but perhaps the others who commented multiple times (including at least one who commented more than me), may have had a different idea, but you'll have to ask them. - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, filibustering is about talking so much that no change happens. Anyway, I think this should be reopened and more input sought out. nableezy - 21:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, you can't: filibustering is about extending or prolonging a discussion to stop other people getting their argument in.This is not the case with an RFC. If someone is replying to a point, it doesn't stop anyone (or 5 or 10 people) from !voting at the same time.Just a little correction: I did not make 20 comments in the !vote section. I made about 15 comments to the that section (not the discussion section), and that is less than at least one editor who was vocal in his support for an IB, so if you want to make something of it, we cancelled each other out. And, as a reminder, "no consensus" for a change is an entirely acceptable and common end to an RFC. - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes you certainly can, and Id say as a rough definition that making 20 out of the 115 comments in a discussion qualifies. Add to it the *involved* support of a no consensus close here because, surprise, that results in your (minority) position prevailing, and Id say that is actually a solid example. Besides, the whole point of an RFC is to get outside perspectives, presumably the reason an RFC is opened is because the people who do care about the article and the subject are likely to have had it on their watchlist have not come to a consensus locally and so they seek out more views from the wider community to find what consensus may be. And for the record, I probably would have voted no infobox. nableezy - 20:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- You can't filibuster an RFC. !Voting and walking away still counts in the end judgement and adds no more time to the process. RFCs are timesinks and should only be used sparingly, which is why WP:RFCBEFORE "
- No, of course not, sorry if that was unclear. I am not accusing you as closer of anything, but what I am saying is that when users feel they have their position in place as the status quo that they can, and often will, filibuster discussions to the point of aiming to prevail by no consensus. And since this was continuing to draw in more participation, that process should have been allowed to continue so that a consensus could form even with the volume from the people who really really care about the issue. nableezy - 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Are you saying I "had what I want in place" and I was trying to "block changes"?—S Marshall T/C 20:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why do we have to draw a line under it? That is how filibustering works, when you have what you want in place you can block changes by "no consensus". If anything, your close opens the door to a brand new rehashing of the same discussion, because you didnt draw a line under it, you left it unresolved. If the discussion is continuing to get new input it should be allowed to continue. Because right now, the way I see it, anybody is totally justified in opening a brand new RFC on the exact same question. Because there is no consensus against the change. nableezy - 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see a strong reason to reverse this closure. S Marshall is correct in that there isn't a clear-cut policy on whether an article should have an infobox; as such, infobox discussions are essentially a headcount, and there isn't a good reason to give "I don't want this article to have an infobox" less weight than a more long-winded argument. Under the circumstances 18/31 is on the border between weak consensus and none, and I cannot fault a finding of no consensus. Aside; this is why the infobox CTOP designation should remain in force. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry to "badger opposes", but I'd like to respond to
there isn't a good reason to give "I don't want this article to have an infobox" less weight than a more long-winded argument
. While it's truethere isn't a clear-cut policy on whether an article should have an infobox
, there is also no clear-cut policy on whether a stand-alone article should exist. WP:N is a guideline. There isn't a clear-cut policy on when a close should be overturned. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is an information page. There isn't a clear-cut policy on when to use WP:IAR, which is probably the least clear-cut of all policies. But in all these situations, we weigh votes based on strength of arguments. Why shouldn't we weigh votes based on the strength of arguments in infobox discussions? - If there were a clear-cut policy, we wouldn't need to consider strength of arguments at all, because the policy would be clear, and all we'd have to do is apply it. Strength of arguments is exactly what we need to look at when we're talking about anything that doesn't have a clear-cut policy. It makes no sense to me that we should approach it as: (a) if there is a policy, apply it, or (b) if there is no policy, take a headcount. That seems to be the very opposite of WP:NOTAVOTE.
- I submit that there are good arguments for, and against, having an infobox, and editors make such arguments in every infobox RFC (though not every editor), and you can see examples on both sides in the RFC at issue here.
- On the other hand, if we accept that
infobox discussions are essentially a headcount
, why is 18/31, 58%,on the border
? Is "consensus" 60%? Why not 51%? Is that in any clear-cut policy, guideline, info page, or anything? - Finally, if we accept that it was
on the border between weak consensus and none
, and there were new votes coming in daily, isn't that exactly the reason to leave the RFC open, because it's on the border, so a few more votes could make a difference, one way or the other? Levivich (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)- Levivich, with respect, you're splitting hairs between policy narrowly construed in Category:Wikipedia policies, and policy broadly construed, meaning documented principles. We have documented policies and guidelines about notability. On infoboxes, we don't. We therefore have no basis to weigh votes besides setting aside entirely off-topic or ad hominem commentary: strength of argument is based on policy, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. And you're quite wrong that clear guidelines obviate the need for discussion; we have tons of guidelines about notability, yet AfDs remain contentious.
- As to the timing issue that BK49 raises below (I appreciate the note, Barkeep, I agree it's rare for us to disagree) I wouldn't necessarily object to this RfC being open for longer, but I don't see a strong reason to extend it purely on the basis that comments were still coming in. Infoboxes are contentious on Wikipedia, and contentious topics draw attention, especially if the RfCs are advertised widely long after they've begun. If we left the average AMPOL RfC open until comments stopped coming, we'd never close most of them. TL;DR: after the 30-day timeframe has long lapsed, I don't see a handful of new comments being enough to overturn an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
strength of argument is based on policy
I think it can also be based on principles, practice, and/or logic. I don't think the three options are WP:PAGs, off-topic, or ad hominem. (And I'd suggest our notability guidelines, though voluminous, are not clear.) Levivich (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry to "badger opposes", but I'd like to respond to
- Rare is when I find myself so disagreeing with Vanamonde but this is such a case. I think this this was closed too soon. WP:RFCEND says
An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be.
and it later saysConversely, whenever additional comments are still wanted after 30 days...
so our RFC information clearly contemplates situations where longer than 30 days would be an appropriate length. With the post to the Village Pump it was no longer clear that consensus wouldn't be achieved and so leaving it open for a few more days to see if that was the case, or not, would have been appropriate. However, given that momentum behind that will have evaporated by the time this thread reaches conclusion, I think this harm can't be cured. But that doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't have been closed at that time in my opinion. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)- I think we absolutely do contemplate situations where longer than 30 days is appropriate. For example, where a new source emerges during the discussion, or a sudden news event affects the topic we're discussing; or where it's one of the difficult matters that demands a panel close. But an infobox dispute? I disagree that that's the kind of situation envisaged.I would not want it to become custom and practice that we're not allowed to close an RfC if it's recently been cross-posted to another venue. I feel that would have negative consequences.I'm becoming concerned that we as a community might be losing our institutional memory of the infobox wars of a decade ago.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- it's precisely because I haven't forgotten that I think you made a mistake being impatient because now the war will continue there. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- If it continues it will be disruptive and can be dealt with as such. I know you've made at least one difficult close in the past on this matter and have a better awareness of the arguments than many, so are in a good position to take a measured approach looking both forward and back. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Impatient?—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- it's precisely because I haven't forgotten that I think you made a mistake being impatient because now the war will continue there. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think we absolutely do contemplate situations where longer than 30 days is appropriate. For example, where a new source emerges during the discussion, or a sudden news event affects the topic we're discussing; or where it's one of the difficult matters that demands a panel close. But an infobox dispute? I disagree that that's the kind of situation envisaged.I would not want it to become custom and practice that we're not allowed to close an RfC if it's recently been cross-posted to another venue. I feel that would have negative consequences.I'm becoming concerned that we as a community might be losing our institutional memory of the infobox wars of a decade ago.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse (involved) - Closing discussions is difficult enough and rehashing this does little to help anyone. My comment today wasn't to overturn or challenge this close but to ask the closer to remove the part of the close that admonished me for extending the RFC. I didn't violate any rules by extending the RFC and per WP:RFC it's perfectly reasonable thing to do to find consensus. Plus, it was working to get more comments. Most of the RFC infobox discussions over the past year have ended in consensus inclusions. The few that have not have been close and they suffered from the type of "flood the zone" commentary from both sides that was wisely observed by nableezy. The wall of text responses in the survey do little to change minds and only discourage others to comment. This particular RFC appeared to be contentious as soon as it started. The exact same scenario is playing out in a similar RFC that started a couple of days ago. I would encourage the participants on both sides to dial it back. If you are unable to find common ground speak your piece and move on. Thanks and happy editing. Nemov (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- (Uninvolved) I agree with Barkeep, who already wrote out a bunch of words, so I'll keep it simple. When new editors are continuing to join an RFC it's not ripe yet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Fwiw, the exact opposite happened here on James Joyce and complaints were made when more !votes trickled in before the 30 day period expired. Victoria (tk) 23:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse close (involved), the text of the close goes in-depth on the closer's reasoning. Seems like a fair and well described close. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse closure - The RFC was opened for over a month & it was time for closure. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Bad Close (uninvolved) Having an absolutist fixed set time view as the closer suggests is a no bureaucracy violation, and as comments were still coming in, the close rightfully should have been forestalled. Moreover, the stated rationale for the jump to close makes little sense, because that RfC was taking basically no effort by the community as a whole, and it takes very little effort and mere minutes to leave a comment there. It is neither a complicated, nor unfamiliar matter for the community to deal with, and is in total a small content editing decision. So, this close wrongfully interfered with community consensus gathering by cutting it off while the community was commenting. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: In the RfC I suggested the article would benefit from an infobox. The closure went against my suggestion. But I'd find it truly pathetic were I to offer an opinion here! The two sides are already split along the lines they chose in the RfC. The Ayes to the infobox find the closure premature or otherwise problematic; the Nays find nothing wrong with it. I'd suggest, although I suspect this is how it's going to play out anyway, that only the opinions of uninvolved editors should be taken into account. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse closure In the last two years, of the 14 infobox RfCs I've reviewed (that's all that I'm aware of), only 2 have failed to find consensus against inclusion, and those two look far more similar to this discussion than any of the ones which succeeded. The 2013 ArbCom decision states that editors should "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" and MOS:INFOBOXUSE makes clear that the discussion regarding infobox inclusion or exclusion is a page-specific content decision. Since 2021 closers of these discussions have generally not weighed general comments highly, with more weight given to arguments which focus on the specific attributes of the infobox proposed based on the article state and information available at the time (see Ian Flemming for an overview of this argument and Calude Debussy for a no-consensus example of its application). The arguments against in this RfC generally focused on the specific state of the article and proposal: there wouldn't be much information in the infobox and the little information there would be is found in the first sentence. The comments in favor of an infobox were rather general, and the late-breaking supports especially focused on how infoboxes were generally useful to readers rather than how this one helped this article specifically. Those kinds of comments are not weighed highly. We weren't having a referendum on whether infoboxes are generally useful, so keeping it open longer for more comments which don't address the main oppose argument doesn't help form consensus. Closing it after the usual 30 days and in line with precedent on infobox discussions is perfectly acceptable so I see no reason to overturn. On the merits, it adequately sums up the discussion and correctly interprets it through the lens of existing policy, so I see no reason to overturn on those grounds either. — Wug·a·po·des 22:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse closure Closure was reasonable. Additional push for input toward the end of the traditional 30 days probably wasn't ideal and additional input that came in because of it shouldn't be sufficient to hold off closure--otherwise it makes RfCs too easy to game. But most importantly, it seems very unlikely that the proposal was going to get consensus. And for the record, given control of the issue, I'd have included the infobox, so the outcome isn't how I'd have !voted, but the close is how I'd have closed. 04:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
- Endorse closure Marshall's close was nuanced, analytical, policy-based and ultimately a fair assessment of consensus. I took no part in the discussion. ——Serial 13:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse close - I am an advocate for infoboxes and I personally think that a majority of articles, longer than a few sentences, will have one sooner or later. It's the trend and with good reason, although I agree there is an issue with the content of infoboxes they do serve a purpose for readers that need quick info neatly compiled in a list and don't want to parse through an article to find it. However, one size does not fit all, also, one size does not fit all. I'm endorsing the close partly because there was clearly no consensus in this case, and this case is all that need be considered. As a side note, these discussions always turn into this because one side or the other refuses to acknowledge their contribution to it's lingering negative affects. The incivility in these discussions exhibited by both sides only serve to discredit both sides. There is no winner whether the outcome benefits one side or the other. I admire, respect and truly care about many of the editors involved that I have been fortunate to get to know through discussions and all involved are part of my community. I wish we could have infobox discussions where we genuinely discussed the article at hand and didn't resort to drudging up past block history or staunchly clutching to the same reasons for or against infoboxes. If there was less immediate vitriol more editors might be inclined to get involved with reasoned discussion. --ARoseWolf 15:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Principles of timing discussion closes
I've been trying to extract the principles that underlie Levivich's, Nableezy's and Barkeep's dissents here, and I think their basic position is that consensus is better than no consensus. (Am I being fair?) They're saying I should have waited to close because consensus might have formed, and if I understand them right, then I actually disagree with them at a philosophical level. On a philosophical level, I think that where there isn't a consensus, we shouldn't try to make one happen. We certainly shouldn't wait for a moment when consensus appears and then pounce. I think that we should close the discussions before us when they're eligible to be closed and participants who want them closed, and if there isn't a consensus there at that time, then as a matter of principle we should close it then and there as "no consensus". If I'm wrong -- if it's actually right to use timings to engineer or construct a marginal consensus out of a no-consensus outcome -- then we need to write that up and put it in Wikipedia:Closing discussions because it's nowhere to be found there!—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- It is on that page, WP:WHENCLOSE, last two bullets. In this case, second bullet point, discussion was not slowing down, it was picking up (8 new participants in the four days prior to the close, including one on the day of, and one the day before), and, third bullet point, further discussion would have been useful because it was trending towards, not away, from consensus (the majority in favor over the course of those 4 days got larger, 5/8 is 62.5% in favor, and the discussion in tots ending up at 58% in favor at the time of close, which is either consensus, or close to it, depending on your view).
- Continued new participation + further participation would make a difference = keep it open, per WHENCLOSE. Levivich (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I think you're entirely missing my point.—S Marshall T/C 15:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, I am. I'm also missing Vanamonde's point about strength of arguments above. This seems clear to me for the reasons I've said above. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I think you're entirely missing my point.—S Marshall T/C 15:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Its if there is a chance of a consensus developing it is better to let that happen than to close it on some timeline, and if there are people still coming in to comment then there is still a chance of a consensus developing. I dont really care which way this goes tbh, I have zero interest in the infobox wars or the "content creators" vs the "wikignomes" or any of the other battle lines that appear to exist here. But just on a process question, if things are looking like more time will potentially lead to a consensus, then it is better to allow that to happen than to close it as no consensus. Its why we relist things. nableezy - 16:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay, let me help you with that. We agree that the key paragraphs are the last two bullets of WP:WHENCLOSE. They read:
- When the discussion is stable: The more contentious the subject, the longer this may take. Two signs of achieving this state are the same editors repeating themselves, and the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing.
- When further contributions are unlikely to be helpful: If additional comments, even weeks or months later, might be helpful, then don't close the conversation. Most conversations do not need to be closed. On the other hand, when further responses are likely to result in little more than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same widely held view, then it should be closed sooner rather than later. In between, wait to see whether enough information and analysis has been presented to make the outcome (including an outcome that editors do not agree) clear.
You understand that to mean I should have left the discussion open.
Well, on the first of those bullets, we haven't reached the point where the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing, but we've certainly got to the point where the same editors are repeating themselves. There's an opportunity for a sysop to consider whether or how to manage the conflict between SchroCat and Dronebogus.
On the second, the further contributions are definitely unhelpful. Infobox decisions are straight up votes. I can tell that you're amazed and horrified by this fact, but it's how it is. Arbcom has specifically asked the community to come up with a guideline or at least a set of principles about infoboxes but after the last lot of infobox wars, nobody had the stomach to start the RfC. Everyone was either sick of it or topic banned.
I don't get why I should care that it was "trending towards consensus". It's not my job to find a consensus. It's my job to read, understand, think, and decide if there's a consensus or not. I make that determination at the time.—S Marshall T/C 16:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think both SchroCat and Dronebogus should have been formally warned for their suboptimal behavior in that discussion. In fact I started to fill out the paperwork to do so but decided I wouldn't have had the time to defend the action in the following days so I didn't take that action. I was getting ready to take SchroCat to AE for continuing that less than optimal behavior in this discussion but then he left me a friendly and productive talk page message and so I decided to try responding there in a softer approach. But that sub-optimal behavior doesn't change that that new and productive comments were being left - it is my opinion that the comments from October 30th on were collectively quite productive. I think this idea that we need 30 days to find consensus was a bad mindset for you to have had when approaching this close. Consensus can, and often is, found faster than 30 days even in an RFC and there are times - and this is one - where consensus might take longer than 30 days to find. The goal of an RfC is to gauge what the community thinks about a specific issue not to have a time limited discussion. Hopefully, there consensus can be found. If it can't it should be closed as such, but yes you shouldn't prioritiize some 30 day deadline over the finding of consensus, which is exactly what the information pages tell you to do. I think you misapplied those principles when doing this close and sadly that misapplication has caused a harm that we can't easily fix just by reopening. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- ^ I agree with this, and would add: it should matter that it was "trending towards consensus" because any closer's job, first and foremost, is to not get in the way of consensus by closing too soon--exactly what WHENCLOSE says.
- I don't really care about this infobox or infoboxes in general, either, but what I do care about is that individual editors do not singlehandedly shut down productive discussions by other editors. I care that closers don't start closing things just because 30 days have passed when new participants are joining the conversation. If we don't wait for discussions to run through before closing them, we short-circuit the consensus-building process. This is especially true when the close is "no consensus" -- what is the point of closing a discussion as "no consensus" if it's still ongoing? What good does that gain? There is a perception amongst some that stopping discussion is a good thing. I disagree, strongly. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Building off what Levivich says here, one thing I wish more closers would do is distinguish between "no consensus" and "consensus against". In any number of RfCs there is a consensus against something which is absolutely as valuable to know as if there is consensus for something but it's instead closed as "no consensus". But that's a periphery concern to the facts of this case where the outcomes were realistically going to be either consensus for or no consensus and a couple days more of participation could, and should, have let us know which was the true opinion of the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- If the community agrees with you and Levivich, then what edit would we make to Wikipedia:Closing discussions to summarize these points?—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- None. I think you didn't properly apply what is already there in WP:WHENCLOSE: it was too soon, it wasn't stable, and further contributions were likely to be helpful. If the community agrees that the timing wasn't correct - and I will note that of the editors discussing that point a significant number of editors seem to agree, with Vanamonde offering the most strident defense of timing as opposed to the overall content of the close which I don't object to - I hope the outcome of this will be for you to factor that feedback into your future decisions about when you close a discussion. Of course Levivich has already said the outcome he wants - for the discussion to be reopened. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Because I think it's clear, my answer is also "none," but I'd put the question back to you, S Marshall: what words, had they been written at WP:Closing discussions, would have caused you to conclude "not yet time to close" for this particular RFC on Nov 2? Personally, I generally don't think bright-line rules are helpful, so I wouldn't be in favor of anything like "X days with no new comments," and I think the current description on the page is clear enough, but not everyone agrees with that, so perhaps there is some other/additional language that would clarify it, that isn't a bright-line rule. Levivich (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, it's surprising that you'd to ask me to write the words that justify your view when I don't agree with you... but okay, let's try it.Straight votes: In rare cases, the community needs to make a decision about which no policies or guidelines are germane. These tend to be aesthetic judgments, such as which of two photographs to use, or whether the article should have an infobox. Before deciding to treat a discussion as a straight vote, the closer should make sure that nobody has cited a germane policy or guideline in the discussion, and should then use their personal knowledge and searches to make sure that no policy or guideline is germane. Where the matter is a straight vote, try to avoid a "no consensus" outcome. You should instead leave the discussion unclosed until the !votes swing one way or the other.—S Marshall T/C 18:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- If the community agrees with you and Levivich, then what edit would we make to Wikipedia:Closing discussions to summarize these points?—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Building off what Levivich says here, one thing I wish more closers would do is distinguish between "no consensus" and "consensus against". In any number of RfCs there is a consensus against something which is absolutely as valuable to know as if there is consensus for something but it's instead closed as "no consensus". But that's a periphery concern to the facts of this case where the outcomes were realistically going to be either consensus for or no consensus and a couple days more of participation could, and should, have let us know which was the true opinion of the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Break: "Manage the conflict"
- The Gnome, I've inserted a break here as this is a separate topic from the RFC close, which warrants further examination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- S Marshall|, you wrote "There's an opportunity for a sysop to consider whether or how to manage the conflict between SchroCat and Dronebogus." I wouldn't know about such an opportunity. What I do know is that the recommendation in WP:BLUDGEON is treated with a lot of indifference by everyone, including administrators. When a discussion develops into a conflict, then, more often than not, the reason is that one or more contributors are permitted to attempt and force their point of view by the sheer volume of their comments. For instance, SchroCat was twice warned they're all over RfC, bludgeoning the discussion, once by yours truly, but the admonition to allow others to contribute was ignored. (Schrocat even came to my talk page to accuse me of "incivility".) I strongly believe that the discussion would have proceeded much better, irrespective of conclusion, if the noise was forced down. -The Gnome (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- You made only one less comment that me in the !vote section, including the disgusting comment "The hatred against infoboxes per se, however, exhibited openly by some contributors, as I've witnessed in the past, is amusing, though it verges on the pathological". That was followed up by Dronebogus's comments "SchroCat, I agree your obsessiveness here is pathological and disruptive" and "SchroCat is acting obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive". And I thought Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions was supposed to mean something. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- I did write that. I'm not the civility police: as a discussion closer, I do content, not conduct. All I do is determine what the community thinks about something and write it up. Anyone can see that a conflict between SchroCat and Dronebogus exists but that's conduct. It's for uninvolved sysops to determine the rights and wrongs, i.e., not me.Having said that, the conflict touches on my role because of how it affects discourse. Infoboxes are a designated contentious topic and they generate one heck of a lot of RfCs, so if two prolific editors are often arguing about infoboxes, then it's in the best interests of the encyclopaedia for that conflict to be managed.You've mentioned WP:BLUDGEON and measured it in terms of the number of comments someone writes in a discussion. I don't measure it in those terms, though. Consensus-seeking editors talk to each other. They reply to each other's points. Each tries to understand the other's position and address their arguments and that's awesome and it's what a request for comment is for. And some editors are passionate about their subject, which is one of the things about Wikipedians that I find most endearing. I'm a discussion closer because I rather enjoy reading such conversations. And let's remember that WP:BLUDGEON isn't a policy or guideline, although it is certainly widely cited.I'm saying that the number of contributions someone makes to a discussion isn't a problem. Where editors talk about each other and restate their own positions while ignoring the other's points, that's the problem.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- You made only one less comment that me in the !vote section, including the disgusting comment "The hatred against infoboxes per se, however, exhibited openly by some contributors, as I've witnessed in the past, is amusing, though it verges on the pathological". That was followed up by Dronebogus's comments "SchroCat, I agree your obsessiveness here is pathological and disruptive" and "SchroCat is acting obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive". And I thought Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions was supposed to mean something. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, that was the case in that discussion, i.e. editors talking about each other and restating their own positions time and again, as in parallel monologues. The epithets flew! The above missive by Schrocat is indicative of the discussion's tone - and still believes the comment was about them, which would be funny under other circumstances.
Your point about passion in Wikipedia and extensive discussions finds me in agreement, the latter of course only if long discussions are constructive and educational. The whole kerfuffle rendered an admin's intervention critical, in my opinion. (And I don't think being a "closer" affects such an intervention.) Finally, WP:BLUDGEON is a very useful recommendation, which is why, as you also note, is so often invoked. In any case, I simply wanted to submit this remark for potentially a future consideration. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, that was the case in that discussion, i.e. editors talking about each other and restating their own positions time and again, as in parallel monologues. The epithets flew! The above missive by Schrocat is indicative of the discussion's tone - and still believes the comment was about them, which would be funny under other circumstances.
I took the time yesterday to step back through the diffs of this dispute (because it's always instructive to see how something unfolded in real time, which can give a better impression than just reading what remains on the page).
The dispute began as the article was featured on the main page – a high activity, high stress day for any FA – with the first callous arrogant post (followed rapid fire by someone who should know better than to launch such a proposal on TFA day). The misrepresentations of what happened at this article (in a recurring pattern [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ), the pretentions of innocence on this page, and the lack of adminning of issues that would be sanctionable even without two arbcases and a contentious topic designation, are astonishing. That the goading, failure to confine comments to the specific merits of an infobox on this specific article, and doubling-down without striking of personal attacks (sanctionable even without CTOP) have not been adminned – and the issue has been reduced to the idea of a "conflict between SchroCat and Dronebogus" – does serious disservice to all that actually happened here. Clearly unacceptable personal attacks,[6] [7] [8] only partially struck,[9] and goading that precipitated those personal attacks,[10] [11] [12] haven't been adminned in spite of CTOP restrictions in place, and there is a one-sided representation on this page of who did what to lead to that.
S Marshall, as a non-admin, did their job in closing the RFC, which was gamed and had no consensus before or after the inappropiate notification, and in which one person followed arbcom guidance on how to discuss merits of infobox inclusion while others didn't (strength of argument was clearly in play, and new feedback was adding more heat than light); S Marshall's job was not to admin behavioral issues, and those who should do that, haven't. On strength of arguments, those against the infobox generally stayed on the topic of this particular article and presented clear reasoning or questions towards seeking consensus without invoking the infobox dispute generally (samples: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]), while those in favor flaunted the ARBINFOBOX2 reminder to discuss the merits at this article, rather than infoboxes in general, or gave no reasoning at all, or wouldn't engage consensus-seeking questions (samples [20], [21], [22], [23]). SchroCat's intemperate remarks were all struck. There was an edit war that, while unfortunate, raises valid points about the context in which these RFCs have been presented, and how ARBINFO2 has not been enforced by adminning. Outright unacceptable personal attacks (by any definition of civility, "obsessive and pathological") -- goaded by the initial use of the word pathological -- were only partially struck after two independent editors called them out; that remains on the page for every admin who has looked thus far to ignore. A frequent bludgeoner (The Gnome) professes innocence and blames another for bludgeoning-- of which there is no evidence for weeks into the dispute. SchroCat, a word of advice: you must stop taking the bait. You were clearly baited, yet if you hadn't taken the bait, we'd probably see sanctions in place today against a couple of other editors in the dispute.
What doesn't remain on the talk page is how the issue began, pre-RFC, on TFA day, now in archives. Why is someone who can call another editor "obsessive and pathological", in a CTOP area subject to civility restrictions, and then only partially strike that, still allowed to edit in the Infobox topic area? Must we have a third arbcase to examine why the recurring behaviors are being ignored? The bludgeoning came from one who projects innocence, and the blatant personal attacks haven't even been discussed on this page, except to be ignored and labeled as the "above missive by Schrocat" followed by a smiley emoticon when referencing a blatant personal attack (more goading); the presentation of this dispute on this page is not even-handed, leading me to wonder if a third arbcase will be needed to understand why that is happening and to deal with the recurring behaviors, which are a repeat of ARBINFOBOX1. Admins: deal with the misbehavors, and watch the Infobox problem go away. The case before us is not about bludgeoning; it's about blatant flaunting of WP:ARBINFOBOX2 by a very small group of editors.
I suggest a temporary halt to infobox RFCs by involved individuals until these behaviors can be examined before arbcom. I don't see how re-opening this RFC, without dealing first with the misbehaviors, will lead to any different outcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Dronebogus noticed of this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- And nothing of Tim Riley’s “civil incivility” antics here, with remarks about a “kampfpanzer” directed at a German editor notable for her politeness, “infobox zealots” and “infobox absolutists”? Nothing about WP:OWNership being practiced and denied by editors who vehemently oppose infoboxes on certain articles? Nothing about SchroCat’s laundry list of incivility blocks? About the fact that he basically called me stupid multiple times here and here? Yet everything about civil editors offering opinions you think are invalid. Dronebogus (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- You are responsible for your own behavior regardless of the actions of others. With no acknowledgement of the problems with your own editing, only more digging in, I see more evidence that we need a new arbcase, with removal of those individuals extending ARBINFOBOX1 and ARBINFOBOX2 from the infobox RFC "battlefield" that has been created, including those doing it "politely" and surreptitiously by proxy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have admitted my behavior was unbecoming and even offered an apology. I would like to see a similar admission of wrong from the other parties. Dronebogus (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Dronebogus, I see. I wasn't aware that discussion had continued after it was closed. I'm happy to see your partial acknowledgement, and sorry to hear of your editing difficulties. I wonder if you see that the discussion might have proceeded differently had you fully retracted all three personal attacks on the original RFC? Or that you appear unaware or ungrateful that you escaped being blocked for those attacks, when you throw up here SchroCat's block log? Would you contemplate -- to reduce your stress and that caused on others -- removing yourself voluntarily from the Infobox RFC campaign for at least a year or two, and removing yourself from the possibility of being exposed to "polite" requests to proxy for other individuals who might not be having the best effect on your editing experience? [24] [25] I suspect that if you focus elsewhere for a while, you will find that a better experience, and ARBINFOBOX3 can be entirely avoided, because there are so very very few editors furthering this ongoing infobox discord. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt notified of this discussion. [26] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Have to think about it Dronebogus (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Dronebogus Thanks for considering it; sometimes things can look so different a few years down the road. Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Dronebogus, I see. I wasn't aware that discussion had continued after it was closed. I'm happy to see your partial acknowledgement, and sorry to hear of your editing difficulties. I wonder if you see that the discussion might have proceeded differently had you fully retracted all three personal attacks on the original RFC? Or that you appear unaware or ungrateful that you escaped being blocked for those attacks, when you throw up here SchroCat's block log? Would you contemplate -- to reduce your stress and that caused on others -- removing yourself voluntarily from the Infobox RFC campaign for at least a year or two, and removing yourself from the possibility of being exposed to "polite" requests to proxy for other individuals who might not be having the best effect on your editing experience? [24] [25] I suspect that if you focus elsewhere for a while, you will find that a better experience, and ARBINFOBOX3 can be entirely avoided, because there are so very very few editors furthering this ongoing infobox discord. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have admitted my behavior was unbecoming and even offered an apology. I would like to see a similar admission of wrong from the other parties. Dronebogus (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- You are responsible for your own behavior regardless of the actions of others. With no acknowledgement of the problems with your own editing, only more digging in, I see more evidence that we need a new arbcase, with removal of those individuals extending ARBINFOBOX1 and ARBINFOBOX2 from the infobox RFC "battlefield" that has been created, including those doing it "politely" and surreptitiously by proxy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- And nothing of Tim Riley’s “civil incivility” antics here, with remarks about a “kampfpanzer” directed at a German editor notable for her politeness, “infobox zealots” and “infobox absolutists”? Nothing about WP:OWNership being practiced and denied by editors who vehemently oppose infoboxes on certain articles? Nothing about SchroCat’s laundry list of incivility blocks? About the fact that he basically called me stupid multiple times here and here? Yet everything about civil editors offering opinions you think are invalid. Dronebogus (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict twice, with the new section below, and then also with the notification above: I compiled the diffs before the notification.)
- Diffs then. Two diffs preceding the collection above.
- 02:53 Infobox added by User:Valentinejoesmith
- 11:50 Infobox reverted by SchroCat, edit summary "Let's just go back to the PR/FAC version - the talk page awaits if people disagree" - I disagreed, and followed this invitation, and found that Dronebogus had reacted to it before me. Those two reactions to the revert of an infobox are the first two diffs above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt I see you referred to above as someone who is "notable for your politeness". As you have dealt with TFA before, and know it can at times turn stressful, do you think it "polite" to launch an infobox proposal-- knowing the likelihood of it turning acrimonious-- on TFA day? And I'm also curious to know if you think you have been acting in the best interests of Dronebogus, who seems to trust you and have taken guidance from you in these infobox matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's past midnight here. I launched nothing. I was provoked by the edit summary of the revert, admitted. Had the revert come with some good reasoning, I'd probably remained silent. Just imagine the revert had not happened ... - I saw a user who was new to me stepping into the kafkaesque field around infoboxes of which they were possibly not aware, and helping them was my intention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Allrighty; perhaps we have different definitions of "polite". I wouldn't do that to a fellow TFA participant; I'd instead mention to everyone else that it would be best to hold off on such a discussion until after the article is off the mainpage. My concern that you should remain under infobox sanction remains, especially now having seen the influence exerted on Dronebogus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t like the way you’re casting Gerda as a bad influence and enabler because she doesn’t agree with the status quo, which I think she and I both agree is unfair and not reflective of broader community mores. My incivility is the real issue and entirely my fault. Dronebogus (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for acknowledging that, but I think there are bad behaviors being modeled throughout. User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned is good reading; you have been engaging in sanctionable behaviors in infobox discussions supported by diffs months deep and miles long, and those behaviors seem to have been "politely" encouraged by Gerda, which did you no favors. Gerda Arendt, also, while we're here, maybe you can help me understand your statement that there's only a single-digit number of editors opposed to infoboxes? I'm curious about how that could be, considering the difficulty in finding consensus in discussions, and wondering if that might support my hypothesis that the problem is not so much with infoboxes per se, as the methods that have been used to advance them. If that's the case, it might mean that removing more quickly those editors who further disruption, or maintain lists for going after entire topic areas, or ask others to proxy for them, might solve the whole problem of disruption in this area. If there's really only a handful of editors who oppose, why then do we need to keep seeing the kind of disruption visited upon this RFC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I saw that question only now. We talk about a comment made in August, and I said "dislike" (not "oppose"), and I meant "dislike enough to revert". Let's look where we are today and be more precise. On my user page, I have - for years - listed the names of articles where I noticed that an infobox was reverted. In 2023, I noticed 14, seven of which have no infobox today. If you follow the article histories you will find that the reverts were made by no more than four users. In 11 cases, I did nothing. For Feydeau, Cosima Wagner and Robert le diable, I posted on the talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt do you think it might be time for you to stop maintaining lists, which render you "infobox advertising central" and may be serving to further the battleground? If readers and editors really want infoboxes to the extent you say they do, why not let those completely uninvolved in past infobox disputes pursue that without your shepherding and intervention at every turn? I submit that your input had a detrimental effect on Dronebogus, whether or not they recognize that. It seems that Dronebogus got the impression that keeping lists of targeted areas was collaborative editing. And they were going to be the one to end up sanctioned-- not you. Maybe it's time to completely and voluntarily step away from infobox disputes, and remove all lists and references to same ? There are plenty of others who can and will opine if and when they think an infobox helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- I believe that infoboxes should never have become battleground, and will do what I can to stop the "wars". I have tried to explain the conflict to a younger generation, and they couldn't understand. In the infoboxes case 10 years ago, I made a list of articles where infoboxes were reverted, because I believe - contrary to some other editors - that removing content is worse than adding it. Those were mostly operas and classical compositions, because the introduction of {{infobox opera}} and {{infobox musical composition}} were the reason why the case was requested. The list was been deleted, regarded as an attack page, in 2016.
- Since, I have only listed the article names where reverts happened (no dates, no editors), but if you think it helps I can do that privately. As explained, in most cases I just made a note and did nothing.
- I have begun a list of articles where infoboxes were established peacefully. I don't see how that is detrimental to peace.
- My advice to Dronebogus is on my talk page (because asked there) for you to check.
- I believe that the RfC for Mozart was as close to the centralised discussion that the 2013 arbitrators demanded as we can get: high participation and quality of arguments. That can indeed speak for itself, - there were plenty of others who opined, namely Voceditenore: "Infoboxes are an integral part of editing and more importantly of the reader experience. They allow us to cater both to the reader who is looking only for the basic facts concerning the person quickly and easily presented and to those who want a lengthy and more detailed artcle. The "repetition" argument is simply a canard. The Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't have a problem with "repetition" via infoboxes [27]. Nor does the Australian Dictionary of Biography [28]. ... The main thing is that we are producing an encyclopedia that benefits all kinds of readers on all kinds of devices, not simply our own notion of how they should be using it. Voceditenore (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)"
- I think our best approach would be to follow the good advice by Brianboulton: take a fresh look. For peace.
- Could you perhaps draft the Infoboxes Accord? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Since, I have only listed the article names where reverts happened (no dates, no editors), but if you think it helps I can do that privately.
And now, in a discussion about canvassing and coordinated editing, we have a proposal to further same privately? I may be very confused, but this seems to be the heart of the ongoing discord. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)- How would you describe the present discord? What I see is that a good faith edit was reverted with no better edit summary than status FA. Imagine a better edit summary would have been offered: no discussion, no RfC, no AN thread. 14 articles in a whole year: do you really think we can't do better than claiming this is a war? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt do you think it might be time for you to stop maintaining lists, which render you "infobox advertising central" and may be serving to further the battleground? If readers and editors really want infoboxes to the extent you say they do, why not let those completely uninvolved in past infobox disputes pursue that without your shepherding and intervention at every turn? I submit that your input had a detrimental effect on Dronebogus, whether or not they recognize that. It seems that Dronebogus got the impression that keeping lists of targeted areas was collaborative editing. And they were going to be the one to end up sanctioned-- not you. Maybe it's time to completely and voluntarily step away from infobox disputes, and remove all lists and references to same ? There are plenty of others who can and will opine if and when they think an infobox helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I saw that question only now. We talk about a comment made in August, and I said "dislike" (not "oppose"), and I meant "dislike enough to revert". Let's look where we are today and be more precise. On my user page, I have - for years - listed the names of articles where I noticed that an infobox was reverted. In 2023, I noticed 14, seven of which have no infobox today. If you follow the article histories you will find that the reverts were made by no more than four users. In 11 cases, I did nothing. For Feydeau, Cosima Wagner and Robert le diable, I posted on the talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes it would “solve” the problem by, essentially, systematically eliminating the loudest opposition. Not a good look when you’re complaining about “maintaining lists for going after entire topic areas”. I’ve already stated that most editors probably don’t have a problem with infoboxes, but the status quo is so aggressively entrenched that trying to change it inevitably means butting heads with those who passionately support it, which is both draining and leads to anyone who does so being labeled part of some violent radical infobox extremist cell. Dronebogus (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for acknowledging that, but I think there are bad behaviors being modeled throughout. User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned is good reading; you have been engaging in sanctionable behaviors in infobox discussions supported by diffs months deep and miles long, and those behaviors seem to have been "politely" encouraged by Gerda, which did you no favors. Gerda Arendt, also, while we're here, maybe you can help me understand your statement that there's only a single-digit number of editors opposed to infoboxes? I'm curious about how that could be, considering the difficulty in finding consensus in discussions, and wondering if that might support my hypothesis that the problem is not so much with infoboxes per se, as the methods that have been used to advance them. If that's the case, it might mean that removing more quickly those editors who further disruption, or maintain lists for going after entire topic areas, or ask others to proxy for them, might solve the whole problem of disruption in this area. If there's really only a handful of editors who oppose, why then do we need to keep seeing the kind of disruption visited upon this RFC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t like the way you’re casting Gerda as a bad influence and enabler because she doesn’t agree with the status quo, which I think she and I both agree is unfair and not reflective of broader community mores. My incivility is the real issue and entirely my fault. Dronebogus (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Allrighty; perhaps we have different definitions of "polite". I wouldn't do that to a fellow TFA participant; I'd instead mention to everyone else that it would be best to hold off on such a discussion until after the article is off the mainpage. My concern that you should remain under infobox sanction remains, especially now having seen the influence exerted on Dronebogus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I trust her because she actually displays common sense here and is involved in a project that otherwise seems like an anti-infobox advocacy group. Dronebogus (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Dronebogus, We are all influenced by and known by the company we keep; your infobox involvement has only led to problems. For your consideration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- And by "common sense", you mean "views that align to your own"? To me, you appear to be suggesting that those with whom you disagree on this subject, lack "common sense". Personal attacks extend to groups of people, remember that. CassiantoTalk 07:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's past midnight here. I launched nothing. I was provoked by the edit summary of the revert, admitted. Had the revert come with some good reasoning, I'd probably remained silent. Just imagine the revert had not happened ... - I saw a user who was new to me stepping into the kafkaesque field around infoboxes of which they were possibly not aware, and helping them was my intention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt I see you referred to above as someone who is "notable for your politeness". As you have dealt with TFA before, and know it can at times turn stressful, do you think it "polite" to launch an infobox proposal-- knowing the likelihood of it turning acrimonious-- on TFA day? And I'm also curious to know if you think you have been acting in the best interests of Dronebogus, who seems to trust you and have taken guidance from you in these infobox matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Is there a better way to “manage the conflict”?
I think there’s a better way to tone down the infobox wars than dragging every regular who’s done something objectionable to ArbCom and instituting mass sanctions to “make an example of ‘em” and scare contributors into submission (because this is what it would be in practice, no matter how you frame it as “preventative”). I think two simple rules could be implemented: state your argument once and leave and only discuss content if a consensus to include has been formed. Because as discussed above there’s very little actual debate on individual merits— it’s largely an aesthetic preference with some philosophical components added in, and rarely is anyone interested in actually listening to the other side so much as stating the same thing they always say in these arguments over and over (yes that includes me, I feign no innocence). Dronebogus (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes; just stop conducting "infobox wars". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- They’re going to happen whether I’m involved or not. A simple solution is to stop them from becoming “wars” by making them straight consensus votes with no capacity for back-n-forth sniping. Dronebogus (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I doubt it. There's only three editors furthering the issue. But you can take me up on my offer, and then open the possibility of "I told you so" a few years down the road :) Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with SandyGeorgia. The best way for an individual editor to deal with infobox wars is to decline to participate in those pointless, time wasting debates. Boycott all those debates which do nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Go write or expand an article instead. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I could also argue there’s about the same number maintaining the status quo; the fact that most RfCs do, in fact, end up pro-infobox is telling. I’d rather the opposers just drop the issue and stop fighting against an emerging meta-consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Anyone can argue ad nauseum about anything. These debates are an utter waste of time for all concerned. Cullen328 (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- People act like suppressing infoboxes from certain articles is a free action because it’s the status quo, but it’s not— it has to be enforced by reverting any attempt at adding one and constantly explaining to new users on talk pages why x doesn’t have one. So the status quo is just as much of a waste of time on the whole. Dronebogus (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly, you are unconvinced by my long held view that these debates are a complete and total waste of time. So go ahead, and waste your own time. Cullen328 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- People act like suppressing infoboxes from certain articles is a free action because it’s the status quo, but it’s not— it has to be enforced by reverting any attempt at adding one and constantly explaining to new users on talk pages why x doesn’t have one. So the status quo is just as much of a waste of time on the whole. Dronebogus (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Anyone can argue ad nauseum about anything. These debates are an utter waste of time for all concerned. Cullen328 (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I doubt it. There's only three editors furthering the issue. But you can take me up on my offer, and then open the possibility of "I told you so" a few years down the road :) Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- They’re going to happen whether I’m involved or not. A simple solution is to stop them from becoming “wars” by making them straight consensus votes with no capacity for back-n-forth sniping. Dronebogus (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Is there a better way to manage the conflict?
Well, not really, no.
There are three choices. Either (1) everyone manages their own behaviour; or (2) someone else steps in to manage their behaviour; or (3) we leave the behaviour un-managed. (3) is undesirable and (1) isn't happening, so we're at (2). QED.
Those of us who aren't sysops have one tool in our box to help with (2). We can politely remind people that they need to manage their own behaviour. Where that fails us, as in this case, we use our sysops as referee. They deploy the excellent judgment and top class interpersonal skills that RFA is meant to test for and all sysops therefore undoubtedly possess. Where that fails, all we have left is sanctions.
I would suggest to you that the feelings of alienation from and persecution by Wikipedians that you mention are avoidable and your sysop-imposed departure from the project isn't inevitable at all. Never revert anyone, but proceed directly to the talk page; speak your mind mildly and politely; say it once and then move on. Accept that sometimes other people are wrong, and that's okay.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
It took a few years for me to learn, it's best to practice 'not repeating' oneself in any RFC, RM, etc. Trying to convince an editor who disagrees with you, will most likely have the opposite effect. Concerning posts in an RFC, RM, etc? Less is more. GoodDay (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed Dronebogus (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Query about use of Village Pump Proposals
- Queries for Barkeep49 and Levivich; at the point you made your (initial) posts to this thread, were you aware that the October 30 VPR post followed on a September 30 post of same? How is this not thinly-disguised canvassing or easily gamed (as in, if I haven't yet gotten the result I want, I'll keep cross-posting 'til I do)? And is even the first VPR an appropriate use of VPR; that is, what is the scope of VPR (I was under the impression it was for meta issues, not individual article disputes), and how does repeated use of it for individual articles, rather than issues of broader impact across all articles, not facilitate "asking the other parent" and gaming of the system? I'm truly confused about why we would stall closing an RFC because someone repetitively asks for more feedback, worried about the slippery slope acceptance of that, and wonder how VPR is intended to be used, and how allowing an RFC to continue running as long as people are cross-posting about it elsewhere will not lead to gaming the system, and make anyone reluctant to come in and close an RFC. As a non-admin, I'm not in a position to state whether the close was premature, but S Marshall is a most sensible editor; I'd not want us to be discouraging sensible editors from tackling tough closes, and I'm truly confused about why multiple cross-posts about an individual article isn't gaming the system, and why we want to open that door. Why should VPR be used to canvass editors to infobox discussions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't really have an opinion on RFC notifications at VPR. Levivich (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Levivich ok, just me trying to understand whether VPR was used appropreately in this case, and maybe someone will clue me in, but for your part specifically, when you said in your opening post that
"On October 30, further input was requested at VPR"
, were you aware it was a duplicate of a September 30 post? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)- I don't remember whether, a month ago, I saw that post on VPR or not. Also, I have no idea where else, besides VPR, this may or may not have been advertised. I only mentioned the Oct 30 VPR post because that is what brought me and other voters (I assume) to vote between Oct 30 and Nov 2, when the RFC was closed, and I'm asking for this RFC to be reopened because there was active voting on the day of, and in the days prior, to the close. I don't mind answering your questions of course, but tbh I don't understand why the earlier VPR post, my thoughts on its propriety, or my awareness of it, is relevant to whether this RFC should be reopened because there were new votes coming in. Levivich (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's me wondering how many times someone can "ask the other parent", and worrying where that will lead if we truly endorse same, and concerned that such a trend will turn VPR in to the go-to place to canvass. Re you in particular, just wanting to doublecheck whether the knowledge of the earlier post changes your initial impression. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't change my view. I think when an RFC is "tied" (or close to it) after 30 days, it's a good idea to advertise for more input. If editors have already invested time into an RFC and it's "on the border" of achieving consensus (like 58%), trying to get more editors to participate is the most efficient route to a clear result. Also, I don't really see how a post to any village pump can be canvassing, so long as it's neutrally-worded, since the village pump isn't an audience with a particular viewpoint. As to VPR being overrun by RFC notices, yeah, that could be a problem, but I don't think that is relevant to whether this RFC should be reopened. Levivich (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thx, Levivich; now I understand your viewpoint. (And glad you acknowledge my concern about VPR being overrun by RFC notices, but I guess we'll have to cross that bridge if we come to it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't change my view. I think when an RFC is "tied" (or close to it) after 30 days, it's a good idea to advertise for more input. If editors have already invested time into an RFC and it's "on the border" of achieving consensus (like 58%), trying to get more editors to participate is the most efficient route to a clear result. Also, I don't really see how a post to any village pump can be canvassing, so long as it's neutrally-worded, since the village pump isn't an audience with a particular viewpoint. As to VPR being overrun by RFC notices, yeah, that could be a problem, but I don't think that is relevant to whether this RFC should be reopened. Levivich (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's me wondering how many times someone can "ask the other parent", and worrying where that will lead if we truly endorse same, and concerned that such a trend will turn VPR in to the go-to place to canvass. Re you in particular, just wanting to doublecheck whether the knowledge of the earlier post changes your initial impression. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't remember whether, a month ago, I saw that post on VPR or not. Also, I have no idea where else, besides VPR, this may or may not have been advertised. I only mentioned the Oct 30 VPR post because that is what brought me and other voters (I assume) to vote between Oct 30 and Nov 2, when the RFC was closed, and I'm asking for this RFC to be reopened because there was active voting on the day of, and in the days prior, to the close. I don't mind answering your questions of course, but tbh I don't understand why the earlier VPR post, my thoughts on its propriety, or my awareness of it, is relevant to whether this RFC should be reopened because there were new votes coming in. Levivich (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Levivich ok, just me trying to understand whether VPR was used appropreately in this case, and maybe someone will clue me in, but for your part specifically, when you said in your opening post that
- There's nothing wrong publicizing a RFC on VP per WP:RFCTP. It's particularly strange accusation of "thinly-disguised canvassing." What particular group is being canvased here? Are you opposed to getting more input? Nemov (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- WP:RFCTP says you can post on Village Pump forums "
if related to it
". Can you explain how a content discussion is "related to" the Village Pump forums? I'm not convinced it's "related to" it enough for posting once, let alone twice. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- WP:RFCTP says you can post on Village Pump forums "
- I was not aware but I disagree Sandy with your idea that it's thinly disguised canvassing. Both posts meet the criteria laid out in the guideline, with the only questionable piece being the repeated posting. What I think that shows is a belief by Nemov that broader participation will support their POV which may or may not be correct but seems like the kind of action we want to avoid WP:LOCALCON issues. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- They don't meet the criteria. The VP forums are not there to be used for advertising content RFCs. Only RFCs that are "related to" the particular forum should be posted there. We have a feedback request service for advertising RFCs, not every other forum that people think they want to clog up once, let alone twice. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- You're right that content doesn't belong on the Village Pump. However I think, for a number of historical and practical reasons, that I wouldn't label Infobox disputes as purely content ones and this is why I did not find a single notification to a pump objectionable but instead in keeping with the CANVASS guidelines. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- We will have to differ on whether it ever appropriate to post to the VP for something that is not supported related to VP activity. It's certainly not justified by the RFC guidelines and I personally think it wholly inappropriate. In this case, if only it were "a single notification": the notification that was put on the VP was left after Legobot removed the RFC tag and after I left a request at WP:RFCL was the second one post on that board about the same RFC. The RFC had run for over 30 days, been on the Feedback Request messaging service and been advertised inappropriately on a VP forum and there was still no consensus before it was inappropriately added to the VP forum for a second time. Disruptive much? However, as it seems that people are not going to bother with the the guidelines at WP:RFCTP, it does now mean that any future IB discussions are likely to see such notifications at other semi- or un-related forums - FAC, etc, is likely to now have such notifications neutrally notifying of the process. I wonder how long it will be before someone is accused of gaming the system by doing just that. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- You're right that content doesn't belong on the Village Pump. However I think, for a number of historical and practical reasons, that I wouldn't label Infobox disputes as purely content ones and this is why I did not find a single notification to a pump objectionable but instead in keeping with the CANVASS guidelines. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, BK, that answers my question then. It's ten or fifteen years too late now, with the fait accompli accomplished, but it's interesting that posts to WT:FAC and other places were avoided for so many years while IBs were imposed on FAs, as posting there was thought to be a breach of the spirt of canvassing. I've continued my discussion of broader concerns at User talk:SchroCat, as they're beyond the scope of this closure discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- But since we're here at AN, where admins can opine on such things, and because the last Arbcase requested a community-wide discussion of infoboxes, why are (most often, the same) editors being allowed to pursue individual article infoboxes, and not admonished to open the community-wide RFC instead? How is the arbcase not being flouted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Never mind, SchroCat located a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 143#Infobox RFC. And I even participated in it (growin' old ain't for sissies, apologies). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- They don't meet the criteria. The VP forums are not there to be used for advertising content RFCs. Only RFCs that are "related to" the particular forum should be posted there. We have a feedback request service for advertising RFCs, not every other forum that people think they want to clog up once, let alone twice. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't really have an opinion on RFC notifications at VPR. Levivich (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Use of Village Pump Proposals
Back to the concern about how to publicize RFCs, and whether Village Pump Proposals is best used for meta-issues, or should be used for individual article disputes, and why the approach taken here seemed to breach the spirit of the canvassing guideline. If publishing RFCs to VPR is to become the accepted norm, it could overrun Village Pump Proposals when there are other options available to more directly engage editors knowledgeable in a specific content area. WP:RFCTP mentions that RFCs can be publicized on talk pages of relevant WikiProjects.
Nemov you have notified VPR of five infobox discussions on four Featured articles, but have never once notified the relevant WikiProjects, which is the place where (theoretically) editors knowledgeable about that specific content area are more likely to congregate, follow or respond. The four FAs all passed FAC without infoboxes. The five articles are:
- FA Rod Steiger, 21 March, which 3 WikiProjects have tagged, in addition to WT:FAC which could have been notified
- Colleen Ballinger, 27 April, which 5 WikiProjects have tagged
- FA Richard Wagner, 11 July, which 6 WikiProjects have tagged, and FAC could also be notified
- FA Felix Mendelssohn, 17 July, which 6 WikiProjects have tagged, and FAC
- FA Georges Feydeau, September 30 and again on October 30, which 5 WikiProjects have tagged, and FAC
If WikiProjects and other more directly involved pages were approached first, this whole matter would seem much less like a problem waiting to happen, where key pages and players weren't notified, and more like an attempt to reach those editors most likely to understand the content issues, rather than appear only because of a stance on infoboxes. I hope we can agree that moving these acrimonious discussions into the realm of what a useful infobox would convey on a given topic-- rather than just IB yay or nay-- would benefit both the articles and the participants, and that one goal should be to engage those who best know the content and sources. Absent that, it still seems to be that the approach taken on those five articles is more likely only to pull in editors who have strong views about infoboxes, which is likely to continue to result in heated discussions along the lines of yea or nay on IBs, rather than specific benefits to specific articles.
My suggestion continues to be that this was not an appropriate use of VPR, which should be reserved for meta issues; if it is an appropriate use of VPR, then we should expect to see all RFCs posted there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- As others have mentioned, this isn't an issue and neutral worded notices that encourage more feedback are good. I will continue to do so when it's necessary to help find consensus. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've always seen neutrally worded notifications of a discussion to WikiProject talk pages, noticeboards, or village pumps as best practice and not canvassing. I think canvassing only comes into play when you start going offwiki or you give notifications to individuals (rather than groups). I appreciate that others may have a different interpretation of WP:CANVASS, and I have been surprised in the past at how vague WP:CANVASS is. I think that page would benefit from a bulleted list of allowed notifications and disallowed notifications, rather than its appropriate/inappropriate/scale/message/audience/transparency table. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder if the tension here between general notifications and project specific notifications arises from the fact that disagreements about infoboxes are sometimes between general supporters of infoboxes who believe in good faith that they practically always add value to an article, and specific cases where editors working on an article feel that an infobox is not justified (as I argued in this RfC, for full disclosure) because there is not enough information that is true and not misleading to include in one. General appeals for more participation in an RfC are likely to move the needle away from the subject-specific or article-editor preference. That doesn't mean it's wrong to post these notifications to places like the village pumps, but I think it's likely they'll have that effect, whatever the intent of the notification. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Mike Christie did you mean to include a link on "as I argued in this RFC")? Yes, that is (one) part of the issue. Considering the view expressed here on the use of VPR for notifications, then fora like FAC and GAN should also be noticed in future infobox discussions. And I continue to request that Novem (who as far as I've seen, is the only editor using VPR for infobox discussions) first use the more typical avenue of notifying the WikiProjects tagged on the article page, or at least do both. As Mike says-- to avoid moving the needle away from people who work in the specific content area. Realistically, because FAs have been targeted for infobox inclusion, the FA-process community should have been a bigger part of the discussion all along, and yet were not notified historically. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
No. The Village Pump is called that because it is the place where any and all Wikipedians can come together to discuss anything.
We have some loosely topic-defined VPs simply because having one page would be too long. But VP/Misc does exist for everything else.
Let's not try to hyper-control what should be an open forum for discussion.
If the concern is that VP/Proposals has been getting too long of late, then let's talk about adding another sub-page. not curtailing open discussion. - jc37 15:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- If you think this should be allowable, then WP:RFCTP (which suggests that you can only post RFCs on Village Pump forums "if related to it") needs to be re-written, because this goes in the face of the current guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- First of all, that's an essay, but let's sidestep that as immaterial at the moment.
- I don't see an issue with the text. The sub-pages are topical. And MISC is there for the rest. - jc37 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think there's a natural hierarchy of notifications for content issues. An RfC about how to present Rotten Tomatoes reviews in a film article may only need to be notified to the films project. Some RfCs might benefit from notifications to multiple WikiProjects, and perhaps to FA/FL/GA pages if good/featured content is involved. The broader the question at the RfC (a matter of editorial judgement, of course), the higher up the hierarchy the notifications should go. But I can't see a reason why anyone would want to notify village pumps and not notify the lower (i.e. more focused) levels of the hierarchy. I'd interpret RFCTP to mean this when it says "if related to it". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Getting hung up on controlling the venue of a discussion, kinda gets into WP:CREEP territory. The important thing is that the discussion be somewhere where interested editors may join in the discussion in question. - jc37 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's also true that notifications shouldn't omit appropriate pages, and that doing so can unintentionally introduce biases. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Can and has introduced bias. Many of us who held what are now apparently old-fashioned views of what comprised Canvassing, and followed the spirt of what we believed the guideline meant, never dared discuss an infobox proposal outside of the article talk page, for fear of arb sanction. And yet today, centralized "what was once viewed as canvassing" is allowed, while talk page misbehaviors are the norm. Standards of acceptance have apparently changed, after the horse already left the barn while others were sidelined by previous ideas about (not) canvassing; the guidelines need to reflect the changed attitudes. I can't decipher any useful purpose for escalating to VPR when more relevant WikiProjects are ignored and bypassed. Perhaps we should just have a message board dedicated to infobox proposals if VPR is to be used as a beacon for proponents of one side of a discussion, while bypassing fora where others are present. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- If your concern is notification, then as I mentioned below, Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification, has you covered. The list of accepted options is pretty extensive. And that list has been stable for years.
- But also remember - no one is "required" to notify of a discussion. But if you think an appropriate place should be notified, Be Bold - anyone can presumably notify about a discussion, following those guidelines. - jc37 15:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Can and has introduced bias. Many of us who held what are now apparently old-fashioned views of what comprised Canvassing, and followed the spirt of what we believed the guideline meant, never dared discuss an infobox proposal outside of the article talk page, for fear of arb sanction. And yet today, centralized "what was once viewed as canvassing" is allowed, while talk page misbehaviors are the norm. Standards of acceptance have apparently changed, after the horse already left the barn while others were sidelined by previous ideas about (not) canvassing; the guidelines need to reflect the changed attitudes. I can't decipher any useful purpose for escalating to VPR when more relevant WikiProjects are ignored and bypassed. Perhaps we should just have a message board dedicated to infobox proposals if VPR is to be used as a beacon for proponents of one side of a discussion, while bypassing fora where others are present. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's also true that notifications shouldn't omit appropriate pages, and that doing so can unintentionally introduce biases. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Getting hung up on controlling the venue of a discussion, kinda gets into WP:CREEP territory. The important thing is that the discussion be somewhere where interested editors may join in the discussion in question. - jc37 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
IMHO, WikiProjects that relate to an RFC, is the best place to notify interested editors. The Village Pump pages? are kinda like a dusty attic or basement. Unless you have'em on your watchlist? you ain't gonna visit them much. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification has had this covered for a very long time. - jc37 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it says to use Village Pump "for discussions that have a wider influence such as policy or guideline discussions". However you want to look at this, the guidance is all about only using VP for non-content matters. As I said above, if they are going to be used for content matters in future, then the guidance will have to be re-written, because at the moment the use for advertising individual content discussions on individual pages is inappropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest we say that it's okay to cross-post to the Village Pump but if it's a Featured Article then WT:FAC is a more relevant venue.—S Marshall T/C 19:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I know nothing about FA, but if there isn't already, it seems like there should an FA RFC page that lists all current RFCs on FA talk pages (not just infobox). Levivich (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- These last two proposals still bypass WikiProjects and, for example, GAs. The problem is bigger than just FAs (although FAs seem to have been targeted because ... well, they're FAs, so they're the best place for establishing fait accompli. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I know nothing about FA, but if there isn't already, it seems like there should an FA RFC page that lists all current RFCs on FA talk pages (not just infobox). Levivich (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Closing time?
Anybody wanna close, as this discussion has petered out? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I just read through the discussion with an eye on closing it, but having done so I think I'd rather just let the thread quietly archive itself away. Essentially, I agree with SandyGeorgia and Cullen328 - any discussions about infoboxes are a waste of time, partaking in them is a waste of time, and trying to change the minds of people who oppose your views is a waste of time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is a discussion about whether to close a discussion about whether to reopen a discussion. I think we might have reached peak Wikipedia. WaggersTALK 15:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Good point! I think this calls for a discussion about the discussion about whether to close a discussion about whether to reopen a discussion.—S Marshall T/C 15:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I just figured, it doesn't look like the RFC closure is going to be overturned. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Doesn't have enough subheadings yet. Levivich (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- You spoke too soon; another one needed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Doesn't have enough subheadings yet. Levivich (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is a discussion about whether to close a discussion about whether to reopen a discussion. I think we might have reached peak Wikipedia. WaggersTALK 15:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Does this need a formal close?
I agreed with Barkeep above so I can't close this. But it doesn't meet the threshold for needing a close anyway. Closure is endorsed, no consensus about anything else regarding infoboxes except that everyone agrees there's no consensus on anything regarding infoboxes. Don't need some fancy colored box to spell that out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Closure or archive. The general discussion has moved 'away' from the RFC-in-question, to RFCs on infoboxes in bios over all. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Concrete proposal
[Putting this here because I don't know where to put it now] -- Just another thought while we're talking about ways to manage the conflict: everyone who has found themselves jumping in to opine in infobox debates on at least five articles in the past two years is now topic banned from discussing infoboxes on article talk pages for the next two years. Exceptions only if someone is a major contributor to the article in question. Sort of a shortcut to the sort of thing ArbCom might find through other means. I dare say the reason this turns into a problem is because of entrenched "sides" that turn up every time and resume the same personalized disputes. Does something like this have any chance of finding support? I suspect not, but this has been going on for so many years that it feels like it's time to just thin the number of "[pro/anti]-infobox regulars". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- That would likely solve (most of) the problem, and I think it a proposal worthy of its own section before this is closed. I say "most of" because one of the editors who turns up every time may also be a contributor on some articles, so "major contributor" would need to be more tightly defined. It would also eliminate the whole problem of the Village Pump. @SchroCat:. In fact, considering how game-able "major contributors" could be, if the general idea behind this proposal has traction, it might be more expedient just to list the editors to whom the restriction would apply and be done with this. There are no more than ten. I went through and analyzed several dozen infobox disputes the other day, and the complete list of those who regularly show up is less than 10 editors, but some of them seem to be just editors whose editing habit is to respond to all RFCs (not only infobox RFC), and some are regular contributors in the content area of the article (eg, following article alerts). Would those be included? Additionally, as I've diffed some proxying in the discussions above, should it be user talk pages as well as article talk pages ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Excellent idea. I'd widen it to include all pages except article talk pages and during article reviews (there would also have to be an obvious exception for AN/I, AE, ArbCom, etc if the restriction is breached). It would stop the proxying and other disruption - and I'd make it as broadly construed as possible - including pasting diffs but not specifically mentioning IBs, this sort of thing and anything that can reasonably be considered mischief-making or pointy on the topic. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- That diff occurred during this discussion, to which Gerda was pinged, so it's as if WP:ARBINFOBOX never happened. I've looked further at my notes from the analysis of a few days ago, and if we broadly take everyone out of the game who has opined at five RFCs in two years, that would encompass severl good faith editors who seem to be only routinely responding to (all) RFCs, without any behavioral issues. I suggest for Rhododendrites' proposal to be workable, someone should propose a formal restriction on the editors most prominent in this and recent discussions, who have furthered what continues to be called "infobox wars"; there is an extremely small handful of editors furthering the agida. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
how game-able "major contributors" could be
- I'd probably pick some arbitrary numbers based on xtools, for example "prior to the infobox dispute, a 'major contributor' is someone who contributed at least 5% of the current article (not including an infobox) or made at least 20 edits to the article". The numbers are low enough to include anyone we could reasonably consider to be a major contributor and high enough that any attempt to WP:GAME them should be pretty obvious. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)- This seems like it could work. Sandy, would you be willing to provide the list of RfCs you analyzed and the stats on which editors contributed the most? I think that data would have to form the basis of a formal proposal to implement a restriction like this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- A little reluctant to start singling people out unless the proposal has traction, but I'll put forward (for now), some examples that demonstrate problems in how to frame the restriction:
- PackMecEng has contributed on at least four infobox discussions this year (I could miss some by not knowing where to look). But analyzing their overall contributions, they seem to be an editor who responds to many RFCs on many subjects; it seems unjust to lodge a restriction in such a case. That is, context matters-- they don't seem to be engaging in "infobox wars" for the sake of infoboxes per se. There are several other similar cases-- don't want to single them all out unless we're going somewhere with this proposal-- this is just an example for fine-tuning the thinking.
- Taking another example, what do we do when highly prolific and long-involved FA writers (who are likely to have many FAs watchlisted since the article's FAC) show up in infobox discussions on FAs, which have been targeted? For example, I won't meet the five delimiter, because when infobox discussions start, I (until this recent bit) unwatch the article and leave. But what to do with editors who are our top content contributors in a topic area who would naturally have those articles watchlisted, even if they don't meet a threshhold of percentage contributions as set out by Rhododendrites? Particularly since the method of working at FAC, FAR and on FAs is generally to propose changes at the FAC or FAR or article talk page, and leave the actual changes to the FA nominator? These highly involved contributors won't show as major contributors in the stats, even though they are.
- Another tricky bit for the data: it is abundantly clear that certain content areas have been targeted (and I gave several diffs above for that). So it's to be expected that editors who edit in those content areas are going to show up five times. The goading that has been allowed to go on was largely focused on certain content areas, and specifically on FAs; why would in effect penalize editors whose specialty is FAs in a certain content area (generally performing artists)?
- So, before I start with data (meaning, before I walk myself into a landmine, and before I take the time to convert my scribbled notes to something thorough and in a useful format), how would we handle things like these examples ? I think it fairly clear by now that there are four editors who not only show up regularly, while often being responsible for initiating the infobox RFC to begin with, and whose behavior is less than conforming to the intent of the two arb cases. I think there may be too many other factors to go for a strict five limit, and it would end up restricting good-faith editors who either do or don't agree with certain infoboxes, but haven't done that in a disruptive fashion; the aim is to end disruption, and not all of the editors who show up repeatedly are a) non-contributors by edit count, or b) disruptive "infobox warriors". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
But what to do with editors who are our top content contributors in a topic area who would naturally have those articles watchlisted, even if they don't meet a threshhold of percentage contributions as set out by Rhododendrites?
- Same rules as anyone else IMO. If they've a "major contributor" to that article (however that winds up being defined), then go ahead; if not, you can still participate but at some point if you keep showing up to infobox RfC after infobox RfC without being directly involved with the article, you become part of the problem and it shouldn't matter if you've helped with other FAs or have it on your watchlist. Just from a practical perspective, a proposal that creates an exception for a special class of FAC participants even if they haven't edited the article will never find consensus around these parts. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- A little reluctant to start singling people out unless the proposal has traction, but I'll put forward (for now), some examples that demonstrate problems in how to frame the restriction:
- There should also be a method to easily add people to the list (in advance and once it is set up) who breach the restrictions imposed by ArbCom’s ‘Civility in infobox discussions’ ruling, those who ‘soft canvass’ on multiple talk pages about IB discussions, etc. If your analysis picked up some of those too, Sandy, that would be good to see for inclusion. Again, I'd ensure this is cast widely, but I think there would need to be clarity on, for example, where there is already an IB, but individual fields are being discussed (eg, where there may be errors, incorrect/misleading information or whether to include a field at all), rather than whether to have a box or not. (I'm not pushing for or against the point here, just flagging where there needs to be clarity to avoid future problems of editors stepping over a boundary they didn't realise was there. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also to consider is 'wider activity on the article', (similar to Sandy's FA reviewer point above), on activity on article talk (on topics that don't cover IBs). I've left dozens of mini reviews, joined in discussions on points of article development etc, but done very little editing of an article on an article of interest. Should that also be taken into attention? Or is that too easily gamed (or would turn the straightforward basis of the original idea into something too complex to manage in a meaningful way)?I don't think the process will be complicated to police if the individuals are aware of the strictures of the restrictions and have a 'safe place' they can clarify with an admin/responsible person whether they are exempt on an article before jumping in (coming to, for example, Rhododendrites's talk page to say 'I've done x edits, comprising x% of the text, am I OK to join the discussion', etc). SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- You would also have to be clear about the punishments for breaching: clearly defined blocks that lengthen with each occurrence would probably be easiest, but automatic AE provisions too? - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- This seems like it could work. Sandy, would you be willing to provide the list of RfCs you analyzed and the stats on which editors contributed the most? I think that data would have to form the basis of a formal proposal to implement a restriction like this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting idea: exclude anyone who has participated in 5+ infobox RFCs in the last two years, except editors who contributed >5% to the article. Does that mean 5% by edits, text, authorship? However defined, I'd be curious know:
- How many infobox RFCs total in the last two years
- How many editors participated in 5 or more of them (the "participants")
- How many of those editors (the participants) had contributed >5% (however defined) (the "contributors")
- How often do those editors (the contributors) vote yes/no
- I'm going to guess: 10-20 RFCs, 20+ participants, 5-10 contributors, and they almost always vote no. Looking forward to seeing the data! Levivich (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- See my note above about problems determining significant contributors. From my scribbles (which are not in shape yet to summarize), I looked at 16 Infobox RFCs, found repeat contributors going both directions, and found a preponderance of the RFCs started by a small group of editors, who most often had no prior engagement at all at the article. If this analysis is going anywhere, we'd need to figure out how to define major contributors, and how not to penalize the main contributors of the FAs within one or two content areas that were targeted (authors and performing artists). Since I don't use the visual editor, it will take me some time to get this data into a useful table format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'd oppose this because I don't think there's a real problem. Most of the infobox RFCs have found consensus over the past year. This particular RFC was created in a problematic way that was in contentious manner. I believe the editors will behave themselves in the future or there could be actions to remedy it. Most of the other RFCs haven't had that issue. This proposal idea would be super complicated to police and also has WP:OWN/WP:LOCALCON issues. Thanks Nemov (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- First, it is important that one declare one's involvement in proposals like this; I would expect you to oppose the proposal, as it would directly impact (i.e., restrict) your ability (along with Dronebogus and others) to participate in Infobox RFCs. I'm unsure if these restrictions will be necessary even, should some of the frequent participants agree to voluntarily step back.You, Nemov, have participated in or initiated at least nine recent RFCs (this year only) about adding infoboxes to articles (I'm still tallying), including the double post to VPR discussed throughout this AN.
- Talk:James Joyce
- (Where, in terms of declaration, my own involvement was unproductive. The disruption that occurred in that RFC is not evident unless one steps through diff-by-diff, as Dronebogus frequently altered posts after the fact, leading me in exasperation to unwatch an FA I have curated for 17 years.)
- Talk:Jenny Lind
- Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 16
- Talk:Rod Steiger
- Talk:Colleen Ballinger/Archive 1
- Talk:Richard Wagner
- Talk:Felix Mendelssohn
- Talk:Georges Feydeau
- Talk:Fred Sullivan
- Talk:James Joyce
- Second, I don't think it will be "complicated to police" at all; the data is not unclear about which editors have furthered infobox discord (as opposed to simply weighing in on infobox discussions), and once that data is tallied, we can then expect to see diffs for those editors of disruptive or other behaviors not in the spirit of the INFOBOX and INFOBOX 2 findings. Third, per Rhododendrites post at 15:20, the criteria would probably be refined once data is tallied. I am unconvinced that the initial proposal nails down the criteria we'd likely end up with (which is why I floated examples for discussion); more relevant is whether participants are engaging productively in the spirit of WP:INFOBOX and WP:ARBINFOBOX2, or simply following lists of articles to target, proxying for others, or campaigning outside of their normal editing area to get their personal preference installed, often without providing relevant reasoning for an infobox, rather falling back on the general "infobox wars". And finally, I will tabulate the data in sandbox, but I have two full days (Mon and Tues) in medical appt's with my husband, followed by all-day driving Wednesday for Thanksgiving Thursday-- so I'm unsure how quickly I can get that data in presentable format, but surely before this weekend. ARBCOM has visited this area twice, and yet disruption continues: bright line criteria like Rhododendrites proposes may not end up being the final criteria in stemming the disruption; examining in detail the participation of those who have furthered the disruptive elements of Infobox discussions may be more relevant than absolute cutoffs, but I suggest some allowance will need to be made for editors and content areas that have been consistently targeted. I don't expect the community will find the data unclear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should give this a chance. This incivility and disruption has been going on long enough and even ARBCOM action hasn't been able to quell. The community will be involved in every step of the process and many more discussions will transpire over criteria and exact wording of any restrictions but this has got to stop. There is no time limit. Good luck with the DR's appointments, SandyGeorgia. I hope it is nothing serious. Be safe on your travels. --ARoseWolf 16:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thx, ARoseWolf: appreciated. It's been serious for a long time, and will continue to be so, some days I'm grouchier than others (to the extent that some days I don't recognize my usual self in my posts, and have had to apologize). I only raise it as I'm usually quicker at pulling stuff together than I can be lately. I wanted to add that the targeted areas are all artists: composers, musicians, actors, comedians, playwrights, writers. And almost always FAs. And quite frequently as the first foray into that subject by the infobox proposer. I do promise to tally the data into a table, hope we will take our time on this, do believe that the community can have an effect here where the arbs have been unable to stem the disruption, and apologize for not being able to move as quickly as usual on the data; my scribbles are clear to me, but in an indecipherable format for others. I suspect if we can sideline a very few participants, the rest of the community can then peacefully decide on infobox use without so much agida that people who contribute and curate top content feel their efforts futile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sandy, you may want to include Debussy's RFC too. (Another one with many familiar names where there was no previous discussion and a non-neutral opening statement.) It was another closure from 2023. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thx; my scribbles started with James Joyce in January this year, and I haven't even looked at 2022. Honestly, considering restraints on all our time, my hope is that (before I have to spend even more time compiling this data), that we'll see a push here for certain problematic editors to voluntarily step back; that could my old Pollyanna peeking out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Two others closed in Jan 2023: Tchaikovsky and Mackenzie Ziegler (the latter not technically an RFC, but all the hallmarks of one and was advertised from her sister's RFC (closed 32 December 2022), so many of the same attendees); also closed as an RFC by the same person who closed Mackenzie's RFC. I think that's all the 2023 ones, but I don't watch out for them and don't comment on all of them, so I cannot be 100% sure that's all. - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thx; my scribbles started with James Joyce in January this year, and I haven't even looked at 2022. Honestly, considering restraints on all our time, my hope is that (before I have to spend even more time compiling this data), that we'll see a push here for certain problematic editors to voluntarily step back; that could my old Pollyanna peeking out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I commented on a lot of RFCs and since October of 2022 been struck at how passionate people are about the subject. That's why a few months ago I attempted to create a proposal to help move these discussion out of RFC since they getting approved anyway. Those of us who worked on the proposal were mostly editors who were blissfully unaware of this issue 15 months ago. Anyway, the proposal failed to gain consensus, but many editors argued there wasn't a real issue that needed to be addressed and the status quo was fine. Nothing has changed since that was discussed.
- I understand that since a majority of the infoboxes discussions have gained consensus over the past year there's perhaps an urge by some to create more bureaucratic measures to stop this trend. If there's an editor problem there are measures in place to address that. I suggest moving forward with that if you believe there's case. Thanks Nemov (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Rhododendrites what is your reaction to the statement that
"I understand that since a majority of the infoboxes discussions have gained consensus over the past year there's perhaps an urge by some to create more bureaucratic measures to stop this trend"
? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)- I don't have much of a reaction to it, apart from to observe that if one of the relatively small number of people who would be affected by an objective, quantitative measurement of involvement has the initial response of assuming conspiratorial bad faith, I might be inclined to think we're on the right track. If there is indeed a trend that depends on a group of editors with no connection to the articles going around just to support the addition of a kind of template they like, then we can frame it either as coordinated bureaucratic bad faith or as an intervention to ensure that participants are focused on the article rather than advocating for a personal stylistic preference or defending their friends' preferences. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, @Rhododendrites, we agree on a lot of things but characterizing one side as
"advocating for a personal stylistic preference or defending their friends' preferences"
while seeming to imply the other side is doing the opposite is exactly why we are in this position and why there is such an impasse. The other side is doing the exact same thing and their argument against the infobox is purely stylistic. One side says it helps, is beneficial and aids readers who don't want to parse through text while the other says it servers no benefit, is redundant info and does not look good when viewing the article on mobile. The arguments for or against have little to no policy merit and that's why we have this issue. That's why arbcom's solution was no solution. And because there is little to no policy solution to this, editors have resorted to incivility in discussion. This proposal should be about limiting the incivility not determining to choose to accept one style and punish another. If the goal of this proposal is the latter rather than the former then it has already lost my support. --ARoseWolf 20:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)- And for the record, I don't believe either side is acting in bad faith. Are they both passionate? Yes. Do they let their passion rule their judgement in how to communicate with fellow editors? Absolutely. --ARoseWolf 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I read
"since a majority of the infoboxes discussions have gained consensus over the past year there's perhaps an urge by some to create more bureaucratic measures to stop this trend"
as a failure to acknowledge that it's not results that are the main concern, rather the methods and behaviors. I read that statement as an implicit assumption of bad faith. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC) - @ARoseWolf: ?? I didn't characterize one side that way (or didn't intend to, at least). I characterized the parties on both sides whose participation should be limited that way.
The other side is doing the exact same thing
- yes, exactly.The arguments for or against have little to no policy merit and that's why we have this issue.
- Yes, exactly. The distinction I'd like to make is sometimes it's advocacy for a stylistic preference based on investment in the article/subject, and sometimes it's advocacy for a stylistic preference based solely on that stylistic preference or allegiance to a side of a dispute. The idea behind the "concrete proposal" is to try to reduce the number of people in these latter categories. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)- I apologize if I read your statements incorrect, @Rhododendrites. Perhaps I latched on to it because it's usually the characterization made against one side of this argument but it was unfair to pass that on to your statements. From your clarification we agree in principal as I find we typically do. Investment in an article is poor reason for advocacy of certain style. We as editors should be just is dispassionate about others editing articles we create as subjects should be about an article about themselves. Policy based edits, yes. Stylistic edits, no. --ARoseWolf 21:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I read
- And for the record, I don't believe either side is acting in bad faith. Are they both passionate? Yes. Do they let their passion rule their judgement in how to communicate with fellow editors? Absolutely. --ARoseWolf 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, @Rhododendrites, we agree on a lot of things but characterizing one side as
- I read the statement by @Nemov and disagree with this characterization just as much. I do want to know Sandy's proposal and I believe it should be given a chance to be heard. I don't believe Sandy wants to create more "bureaucratic" anything and we shouldn't make assumptions about it until we've heard the details. These discussions have caused enough hurt, damage, and disruption. --ARoseWolf 21:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have much of a reaction to it, apart from to observe that if one of the relatively small number of people who would be affected by an objective, quantitative measurement of involvement has the initial response of assuming conspiratorial bad faith, I might be inclined to think we're on the right track. If there is indeed a trend that depends on a group of editors with no connection to the articles going around just to support the addition of a kind of template they like, then we can frame it either as coordinated bureaucratic bad faith or as an intervention to ensure that participants are focused on the article rather than advocating for a personal stylistic preference or defending their friends' preferences. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Rhododendrites what is your reaction to the statement that
- Of those 9 articles, 7 of them have an infobox. The two that don't are the one that's being appealed here (haha, remember back in the good old days when this thread was an RFC appeal?), and one that is still open.
- So Nemov initiated or participated in 9 infobox RFCs in the past year, 7 of which had consensus for an infobox, one didn't, and one is ongoing. 7-out-of-8 is 87.5%.
- Right 87.5% of the time, and you want to TBAN them for that? lol! Good luck with that. Levivich (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- See my query to Gerda back on 01:53, 7 November; if there really are only a handful of editors who oppose infoboxes, and 87% of the time they will be installed, then theoretically there would be no change in content outcome if the list-keeping, targeting of certain editors/topics, proxying and any other disruption identified were put to end by the community, but there would be a change in how pleasurable we could all find our editing experience to be. As, theoretically, there would be no change in outcome if some editors stepped back voluntarily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should give this a chance. This incivility and disruption has been going on long enough and even ARBCOM action hasn't been able to quell. The community will be involved in every step of the process and many more discussions will transpire over criteria and exact wording of any restrictions but this has got to stop. There is no time limit. Good luck with the DR's appointments, SandyGeorgia. I hope it is nothing serious. Be safe on your travels. --ARoseWolf 16:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- First, it is important that one declare one's involvement in proposals like this; I would expect you to oppose the proposal, as it would directly impact (i.e., restrict) your ability (along with Dronebogus and others) to participate in Infobox RFCs. I'm unsure if these restrictions will be necessary even, should some of the frequent participants agree to voluntarily step back.You, Nemov, have participated in or initiated at least nine recent RFCs (this year only) about adding infoboxes to articles (I'm still tallying), including the double post to VPR discussed throughout this AN.
We must be cautious about limiting editor participation on RFCs about infoboxes on certain bio pages. Suggesting who can or can't participate, based on how much they've contributed to a bio page? might create an WP:OWN situation. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
2,000+ admin actions in violation of WP:BAN
General Discussion
As the dust settles from [29], something has been nagging at me: There are now about 1,000 blocks and 1,000 deletions, plus some other admin actions, that were performed in violation of an ArbComBan. To my knowledge, this is the first time this has happened in the modern era of Wikipedia adminning (i.e. since c. 2012). Now, editors have broad discretion to revert actions made in violation of a ban, and WP:RAAA would not apply here for multiple reasons, but in this case most actions will be trivially valid, anti-vandalism and -spam actions. But not all of them. Some will be judgment-calls, even tough ones, where we deferred to the discretion of a fellow admin, and where that discretion should maybe now be reviewed.
Should there be some kind of review, particularly of the blocks? I could put together a list of outstanding tempblocks and p-blocks, plus indefs of any established users, and admins could reblock in cases where we're willing to assume responsibility. Maybe that's too much, and I'm aware of the WP:DENY aspect here, but at the same time, if I got blocked and then found out the blocking admin was a sock, I'd be pretty damn pissed, and I think we owe it to those people to at least take a look at whether the blocks were any good. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 17:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Are there any actions that stand out to be particularly egregious after a cursory glance? The Night Watch (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Probably, most of the admin actions she did are ones that no admin would have declined. Such actions should be left alone.
- You probably won't get admins to mass-review her actions. Even her deletions, which non-admins can't.
- If you believe any specific action she did was incorrect, feel free to request admin review.
- Any admin may undo her actions without it being wheel-warring.
- Animal lover |666| 18:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reblocking will just give the user a longer block log, which they might not appreciate. I think it would be better to just list the blocks on a page somewhere (akin to a CCI), and have admins tick "yes, reviewed, I would have made that block". The willingness to assume bad faith shown in this thread suggests that yes, there might be some blocks which need to be undone. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Generally agree with above that we should 1) apply the reasonable admin standard and 2) not change blocks or other actions unless they don't meet that standard, which I think leads to 3) probably should only list the "currently active" things, whether deletion, block, or protection (or other action). WP:VOLUNTEER as to the utility/necessity of such work. Izno (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- If someone wants to do the hard work of going through 2,000 actions and bring them up for community review, I guess I can't stop them. But I don't think its necessary. The right thing is to do what we would do with any action committed by an admin removed for cause: review it when it comes up, and add that admin's conduct as a factor to be weighed. For example, ArbCom already does that. We occasionally get appeals from users who were blocked by now banned or otherwise disgraced users. We don't automatically undo the block because of who made it. But we do investigate more deeply than we usually would into whether the block was right in the first place. I would be opposed to unblocking or reblocking accounts sua sponte. For unblocking, we don't allow third party unblocks. Why unblock an account banned 5 years ago if the user is long gone? For reblocking, not only does that consideration apply, but further, reblocking after a long time is inadvisable because you weren't there when the inciting incident happened, and thus might miss something. That would also serve to obfuscate who got blocked by Lourdes in the first place, which might make undoing a bad Lourdes block harder. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know how this slipped through my radar, but that is an absolutely stunning turn of events. My jaw literally dropped reading that diff. It might be worth looking through anything active, but that is a lot of work that might not have much benefit. If there was ever consensus to undo actions en masse, bot ops with admin bots (like myself) could be pinged/contacted to assist. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't this the posterboy for a legitimate WP:XRV use? jp×g🗯️ 23:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I would oppose a blanket reversal (which I don't think anyone has suggested yet, but it seems inevitable) but don't have an issue with more contentious blocks being listed for review. If someone is willing to do the excruciatingly boring work of compiling those, they have my thanks in advance. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't envy the work. This is like when a crooked cop gets caught and then all of the arrests the cop made need to be looked at. Lightburst (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't envy the work, and I've been involved in some of these mass review projects, from GNIS (still ongoing) to the one with all of the sportspeople. This seems worse. CaptainEek, I have sympathies for someone who might have been illegitimately blocked and as a result just walked away thinking that Wikipedia was run by idiots. We cannot necessarily rely on people coming to complain as a driving force. We should at least look. And we should differentiate between blocks to enforce bans (Are there even any?) and blocks that are not part of banning. Uncle G (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
AN/I boards
As Lourdes herself noted, comments given on AN/I also carry admin authority, and randomly scrolling through archives I do see that she was quite active in terms of participating in discussions, threatening (or recommending) admin actions, or closing threads and sending people elsewhere. Is there a point in looking at those actions as well? Fermiboson (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
IP Blocks to review
| ipb_address | actor_name | disposition |
|---|---|---|
| Special:Contributions/65.28.77.182 | Lourdes | removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Special:Contributions/136.34.132.39 | Lourdes | removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Special:Contributions/172.58.63.16 | Lourdes | removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B03E:3864:0:0:0:0/64 | Lourdes | removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 | Lourdes | removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Special:Contributions/2804:1054:3010:0:0:0:0:0/44 | Lourdes |  OK - there's an LTA sitting on this range and major disruption re-occurred immediately that a previous 1-year block expired. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Special:Contributions/49.145.0.0/20 | Lourdes | Only a partial block on four articles, and appeared to be justified. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Special:Contributions/2600:4040:AA53:F500:0:0:0:0/64 | Lourdes | removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Special:Contributions/104.226.30.18 | Lourdes | removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Special:Contributions/86.157.242.237 | Lourdes | removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Special:Contributions/2603:9009:800:B1A7:0:0:0:0/64 | Lourdes | removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Special:Contributions/2600:1700:10E1:1D20:0:0:0:0/64 | Lourdes | This one is good - persistent falsifying of BLP birthdates over a period of months. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Special:Contributions/172.97.45.5 | Lourdes |  This is the Martin Bayerle spammer, also User:Imagixx. Could probably be dealt with via a few pblocks from particular articles. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Special:Contributions/1.152.104.0/21 | Lourdes | Persistent disruption and vandalism over many months, previous blocks. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Special:Contributions/1.136.104.0/21 | Lourdes | As per the entry immediately above. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Special:Contributions/45.237.49.1 | Lourdes | Absolutely good - admins can see why. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Special:Contributions/109.228.71.226 | Lourdes | Probably OK, expires in a couple of days anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Special:Contributions/109.101.69.23 | Lourdes | removed - Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Special:Contributions/182.228.179.154 | Lourdes | removed, and then restored after they began vandalising again. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Special:Contributions/154.180.107.122 | Lourdes | Block evasion, expires in a couple of days. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Special:Contributions/62.4.55.186 | Lourdes | Same user as 109.228.71.226 above, expires shortly - Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
These are the IP blocks made by Lourdes that are still active as of today. I suggest that an admin review each one and decide if it should be removed or kept (I've done some already). This is a very small subset of the above. There were no indefinite IP blocks. — xaosflux Talk 00:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- For anyone interested, here are the username blocks (most are indef): Special:PermaLink/1183546654. — xaosflux Talk 00:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- I looked at two random username blocks. I suppose that a reasonably thorough administrator would not overlook deleting the page User:Journal of BIoresources and Bioproducts (obvious copyvio etc.) when blocking for the very reason of creating such pages. There may be omissions of this type or of some other type. —Alalch E. 00:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Blocks of users with 100+ edits
Without prejudice against looking at the full ~900 account blocks, I've triaged this to a list of users with at least 100 edits. My reasoning is that blocks of low-editcount users are much more likely to be routine vandal/spam blocks, and that a brand-new editor who was wrongly blocked will probably have either just created a new account, WP:SOCK be damned, or been scared away for good.
| Username | Expiry | Disposition |
|---|---|---|
| Amitamitdd (talk · contribs) | infinity | Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs) | infinity | Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Kthxbay (talk · contribs) | infinity | Sockpuppetry confirmed (although not necessarily to master) @ Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat/Archive § 08 May 2020. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Jib Yamazaki (talk · contribs) | infinity | Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Nlivataye (talk · contribs) | infinity | User talk:Nlivataye#June 2023 is not inspiring. Izno (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| AlhyarJy (talk · contribs) | infinity | Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Saucysalsa30 (talk · contribs) | infinity | Had community support at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1130#Block consideration for Saucysalsa30. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Wallacevio (talk · contribs) | infinity | Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| GRanemos1 (talk · contribs) | infinity | Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Donovyegg (talk · contribs) | infinity | Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Chamaemelum (talk · contribs) | infinity | Validly-enacted siteban. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Gbe Dutu (talk · contribs) | infinity | Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Abdel hamid67 (talk · contribs) | infinity | Had community support @ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134 § Unreferenced articles by User:Abdel hamid67. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| DaleEarnhardt292001 (talk · contribs) | infinity | Discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134#User:DaleEarnhardt292001; user did not request an unblock. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Darshan Kavadi (talk · contribs) | infinity |  See below. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| A E WORLD (talk · contribs) | infinity | Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#Mass overlinking and poor grammar 'corrections' by relatively new editor was the report. Whilst I am not convinced that the accountholder can write, at User talk:A E WORLD#August 2023 2, Lourdes and others seem to be putting up more and more hoops for the accountholder to jump through. Exactly how is the person supposed to prove that xe will do something that xe has stated xe will do? Uncle G (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Chuachenchie (talk · contribs) | infinity | See below. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Golden Mage (talk · contribs) | infinity | Not confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Datu Hulyo/Archive, and although the block was for disruption it was for disruption that was the same pattern as that sockpuppteer. Tamzin? Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Ptb1997 (talk · contribs) | infinity |  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#User:Ptb1997 might have been a trigger-happy block, but the rest of the community shares in the shame of this given Special:Diff/1176584689. The accountholder promised to do better back in September, and our collective response to this for two months has been massively bureaucratic, including ignoring that diff twice over simply because it wasn't put in an unblock request box. Uncle G (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Egerer12 (talk · contribs) | infinity | This was discounted as a sockpuppet by Tamzin, but is one of the accounts that has heavily contributed to the fact that Draft: namespace and the article namespace are now full of duplicate Country at the 2024 Summer Olympics articles, e.g. Mozambique at the 2024 Summer Olympics and the identical Draft:Mozambique at the 2024 Summer Olympics. This is a massive waste of AFC reviewers' time, especially as there's a backlog of several thousand drafts to review, and would that there were a speedy deletion criterion for getting rid of all of the duplicate drafts! Uncle G (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| 574X (talk · contribs) | infinity | Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#574X already had support from ScottishFinnishRadish. Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Yafie Achmad Raihan (talk · contribs) | infinity | Non-English speaker blocked for not communicating at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#Concerning page moves by Yafie Achmad Raihan. Account's Indonesian Wikipedia block log is clean for that and more page moves. Uncle G (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Silveresc (talk · contribs) | 20231105051320 | Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141 § Long term POV disruptive editing at Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Not sure the situation was handled optimally, but it's a p-block and expires imminently, so meh. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Sinwiki12 (talk · contribs) | infinity | Not a sockpuppeteer per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinwiki12/Archive, but the block was for repeated whitewashing of Chinese topic articles and diffs such as Special:Diff/1138585762 (Hello, Bbb23!) do indicate that there was a problem here. The account definitely had an article editing agenda that what Wikipedia said about China was all lies put about by American newspapers, and edited several articles in that vein (e.g. Special:Diff/1175736935). See also Special:Diff/1019125984. I suspect that this account would have ended up being blocked in the long run. Uncle G (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
| AbrahamCat (talk · contribs) | infinity | Incivility block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#User:AbrahamCat at Choke (sports). Worth a quick peer-review by someone here, but on its face it's likely good. Uncle G (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Omer123hussain (talk · contribs) | infinity |  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#Omer123hussain: persistent sourcing issues definitely needs peer review. It's in the Indian topics area that Wifione was restricted from. Uncle G (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- I would say that the block on User:Darshan Kavadi (DK) deserves a second look (and possibly reversed for being a bad block). DK was first warned of their disruptive editing behaviour on July 26. DK disengaged and edited other articles on August 1. No other edits were made by DK after August 2. ANI report was filed on August 8 but closed because Lourdes went straight for indef block on first instance. The appearance of non-communication by DK was a self-fulfilling prophecy because DK never had a chance to reply (or saw it too late). It's almost like DK was punished for disengaging from the disputed page in question. No admin would have issued a indef block on a single warning on an account who hasn't edited for a week, which makes Lourdes's actions punitive instead of preventative. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Plus, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136#Requesting advice and suitable resolution was in the area of single-purpose account Indian promotional editing, which Wifione should not have been touching at all. Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Shall we unblock this account as time served and remind them about WP:ROPE? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Plus, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136#Requesting advice and suitable resolution was in the area of single-purpose account Indian promotional editing, which Wifione should not have been touching at all. Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Here's another questionable block. User:Chuachenchie has been editing since November 2020 and had 9k edits. Edits are a mixture of bad (OR, BLP) and good (ITN noms). Lourdes once again went right to indef block and not start off with short blocks and escalate from there. Editor remains active on zh.wp. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- That block was made as a result of this report. That editor managed to make over 9k edits without once talking to anybody or even leaving an edit summary. Communicating with other editors isn't really optional. Lourdes did leave a warning, which was ignored, and there were numerous previous attempts by other people to talk to this editor, which were also ignored. The block doesn't look unreasonable. Hut 8.5 14:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that Lourdes went for an indef block as the first block shows a series of trigger-happy blocks that dish out maximum sentence from the get-go (at least I wouldn't in that circumstance). OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- For a lack of communication I would generally go with an indef since editors who don't communicate will usually ignore a short term block - an indefinite block forces communication. I don't really see an indef as a maximum sentence here, just "blocked until they communicate". Galobtter (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Has anyone tried contacting them on zhwiki in Chinese? I may be able to if someone tells me what to say. As far as I can tell the issue here is language proficiency and CIR, which can be discussed with the editor. Fermiboson (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, looking at their edits on zhwiki, they have no edits outside of template and mainspace there either.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I warned them with {{Uw-editsummary}} on zhwiki. Got ignored there too. NM 02:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Has anyone tried contacting them on zhwiki in Chinese? I may be able to if someone tells me what to say. As far as I can tell the issue here is language proficiency and CIR, which can be discussed with the editor. Fermiboson (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- @OhanaUnited, an indef for refusing to communicate is not a "maximum sentence". It's IMO a completely reasonable way to require communication commence rather than simply allowing someone to wait it out. An indef can be lifted five minutes later by any admin. Many admins are reluctant to lift a timed block, so an indef can actually be much shorter. All it takes is convincing someone the person is able and sincerely willling to address the issue. Valereee (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- This exercise is to review the indef-trigger-happiness by Loudres. We already have two indef-block accounts overturned by other admins (and another two accounts that has the potential to be overturned) because the block length is not in proportion to the severity. And in my opinion, this is more borderline than those cases. But this user continues to edit in zh.wp, which makes a stronger case that we should review the possibility to reattract this editor back into the en.wp project (unlike other dormant accounts) with a clear explanation of communication expectation by the community before being unblocked. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to consider a conditional unblock: the editor agrees to respond to messages on their user talk (which they've never done, not even once, literally zero edits to any talk page including their own, and if I'm reading it right, has also never done on zh.wiki) and to start using edit summaries (which they've done once in 9000+ edits). Valereee (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've left a message at their talk. Valereee (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I am the original author of the ANI discussion. Just for the record, the editor still continues to exhibit the exact same behavior (OR, BLP, no edit summary, never respond to TP messages) on zhwiki that should have got them banned there a long time ago. NM 02:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to consider a conditional unblock: the editor agrees to respond to messages on their user talk (which they've never done, not even once, literally zero edits to any talk page including their own, and if I'm reading it right, has also never done on zh.wiki) and to start using edit summaries (which they've done once in 9000+ edits). Valereee (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- This exercise is to review the indef-trigger-happiness by Loudres. We already have two indef-block accounts overturned by other admins (and another two accounts that has the potential to be overturned) because the block length is not in proportion to the severity. And in my opinion, this is more borderline than those cases. But this user continues to edit in zh.wp, which makes a stronger case that we should review the possibility to reattract this editor back into the en.wp project (unlike other dormant accounts) with a clear explanation of communication expectation by the community before being unblocked. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- For a lack of communication I would generally go with an indef since editors who don't communicate will usually ignore a short term block - an indefinite block forces communication. I don't really see an indef as a maximum sentence here, just "blocked until they communicate". Galobtter (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that Lourdes went for an indef block as the first block shows a series of trigger-happy blocks that dish out maximum sentence from the get-go (at least I wouldn't in that circumstance). OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- That block was made as a result of this report. That editor managed to make over 9k edits without once talking to anybody or even leaving an edit summary. Communicating with other editors isn't really optional. Lourdes did leave a warning, which was ignored, and there were numerous previous attempts by other people to talk to this editor, which were also ignored. The block doesn't look unreasonable. Hut 8.5 14:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- I made the report on Omer123hussain that led to the block above. I think it's justified; there's serious OR issues there; but nobody else seems to want to engage with it. I will not be taking any admin action, though I'm not necessarily capital-I Involved. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that ANI report and didn't have time to look into it, but I was glad someone did and took action (those kind of ANI reports get very little attention). I checked Talk:Hyderabad#Dubious which Lourdes linked to and Omer123hussain's use of a 100 year old source and simple refusal to provide the quote from the source that supports their material looks very problematic. I can look into this more and take over the block if needed, but I don't think this block should be overturned simply because of the situation with Lourdes.
- It seems these block reviews are less "that was a bad block" but more some admins think Lourdes should've been more lenient, 🤷🏾♀️. Galobtter (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think the block needs to be looked at. I've raised it with Omer123hussain and I'll see if the is an option that doesn't involve going straight to an indefinite ban from mainspace. I agree that there is an issue with their editing, but with 9000+ edits and multiple GAs I'd like to look for an alternative solution. - Bilby (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- On the contrary, Lourdes was Wifione and per Wifione's Arbitration Committee restrictions should not have been involving xyrself in this at all. They were Indian topics and at least one was a biography of a living Indian person. This was most definitely bad. Uncle G (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Uncle G:, I believe what Galobtter is saying is that the block stands on its merits. We're not planning (I assume) to revert every one of Lourdes's ~24k contributions; by the same logic we shouldn't reverse a block that another admin endorses. Your logic is applicable to any block Lourdes made, including the obvious vandals, because Wifione didn't have any restrictions that were ARBIPA-wide; just Indian BLPs and educational institutions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, it clearly only extends to topic that Wifione was prohibited from, not any blocks. This block is squarely an administrative action in the prohibited topic area. At least one of the articles in the complaint about Omer123hussain was a biography of a living Indian person, and as it was about more than the specific edits cited but about Omer123hussain's editing history in general, which extends to a lot of India-related stuff, that would have likely touched upon more prohibited Indian topics. Lourdes should never have touched this. Xe was prohibited from it as an editor, let alone as an administrator. Uncle G (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Uncle G:, I believe what Galobtter is saying is that the block stands on its merits. We're not planning (I assume) to revert every one of Lourdes's ~24k contributions; by the same logic we shouldn't reverse a block that another admin endorses. Your logic is applicable to any block Lourdes made, including the obvious vandals, because Wifione didn't have any restrictions that were ARBIPA-wide; just Indian BLPs and educational institutions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Resolved- I'm on the fence about Ptb1997. As is sadly often the case when an admin places a block "Until user resolves issue X", the implied promise there hasn't been upheld in subsequent unblock proceedings. Sadly the accept/decline-focused nature of unblock requests leads to a lot of situations like this, where a user has said most of what they need to say but maybe needs to go into a bit more detail, and instead just gets declined on with little explanation. So with all that in mind I'd tend toward an unblock, with a warning about communication. However, there's also the matter of Ptb19975555, their sock. Evading a block imposed by someone who was in turn evading a ban is not something that WP:SOCK as a policy has ever contemplated, but either way, first offense for socking by an otherwise constructive user is normally 1-4 weeks, so I think commuting to time served, with warnings about communication and socking, would still be reasonable. Or at least I've mostly convinced myself of that in the course of writing this comment. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 06:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm in favour of forgiving the sockpuppetry (which was also handled bureaucratically, with its edits reverted because it was a sockpuppet), unblocking, with a statement that the community expects Special:Diff/1176584689 to be made good on, and will be found a more welcoming place for editors who talk to other editors. Especially as the warnings going back "8 years" turn out to be disambiguation 'bots, bracket 'bots, people talking about where punctuation goes in lists, why not to boldface things, birthdates in biographies, and which sportsperson gets player statistics. Only 7 of the warnings/requests were over the whole of 2023, and 3 of those were 'bots. And clearly the accountholder does communicate on occasion: Special:Diff/841858412. Hence why I think that it was a trigger-happy block. Uncle G (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- This seems a case of someone who genuinely wants to contribute but made some communication errors. I'd favour unblocking, at least as a trial. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Espresso Addict. I think we can unblock and keep an eye. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Unblocked with warnings for non-communication and sockpuppetry. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 16:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Resolved- I am involved with this in the sense that I raised the initial discussion about this user. Luck has it that they have just requested an unblock on promise that they will not do any more wrong page moves. There is something weird with their usage of the unblock template so it may not have turned up on any admin's radar yet. – robertsky (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- The problem was that it was in a <nowiki> section. Animal lover |666| 19:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Restricting someone editing from article space just because they messed up on moving articles appear to be unproportional response. This is another case of using the sledgehammer-size block on something minor. Could have simply impose a "don't do any more moves or you will be blocked" warning. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- The block served its purpose; the editor has acknowledged it and promises to avoid the disputed behavior. I'll unblock. Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I realise I'm not an admin, but would it be of help if I was the one to go through the 900+ other account bans and raise anything that I find here? I want to help to clean up the mess in any way possible. Fermiboson (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Fermiboson Yes please. That will be appreciated. Most of the activities that resulted in blocks can be viewed by anyone. It'll benefit from more lights shining onto this issue. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Blocked accounts with 100- edits
A non-admin review of the rest of the blocks which could potentially be mistakes. The log has been reviewed up to the date of 19 March 2019. There are also a number of promotional userspaces which were not deleted, which I have CSD tagged on my own.
| Username | Expiry | Concern |
|---|---|---|
| Anarkaliofara (talk · contribs) | infinity | Edits were in the area of Indian castes, and not much community input appears to have happened at the AN/I thread, although there is undoubtedly some form of incivility/personal attack at minimum going on. Fermiboson (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC) |
| A Big Cold Moon (talk · contribs) | infinity | Single revdel'd edit. Appears to be in relation to Esomeonee7 (talk · contribs), a Saudi POV pusher/vandal. Fermiboson (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Thegreatbooboo! (talk · contribs) | infinity | Does appear to be a nonsense-only account, but it would be better if someone checked the deleted contribs. Fermiboson (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC) |
| TheSharpBlade (talk · contribs) | infinity | Nothing at all in the logs. Revdel'd BLP? Fermiboson (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Germanicus44 (talk · contribs) | infinity | Block for disruptive/POV editing w/r Ottomans, but nobody except WP:INVOLVED editors seems to have taken a look.
Given editing area is CTOP, probably best to confirm. Fermiboson (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Sequel5 (talk · contribs) | infinity | No controversy, I think, on the block itself. Having looked over the history though, should the block reason instead be something like undisclosed COI, incivility or WP:ASPERSIONS? Fermiboson (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Wfynde (talk · contribs) | infinity | Account does appear to be promo, but should their talk page entries be treated as COI edit requests? Also, sounds similar to Wifione, though I don’t doubt that’s just a coincidence. Fermiboson (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC) |
| KG IT 7143 (talk · contribs) | infinity | Block for sock but nothing in logs. Evidence on deleted page? Also, edits relating to Indian (Nepali?) company. Fermiboson (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Timfoley50 (talk · contribs) | infinity | Courtesy ping to original blocking admin @Star Mississippi - while I think that the user has clearly been incivil on the user talk page, there appears to be genuine objection to the indef applied by SM at AN/I which was cut short by Lourdes' block. Lourdes' interpretation of the quoted sentence as a legal threat I feel is borderline, so err on the side of putting this here for review. In addition the block reason should also be changed from WP:NOTHERE to WP:NLT, if it stands. Fermiboson (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Searchingforaground (talk · contribs) | infinity | Block reason is promotional, but the user appears to not have made any obviously promotional edits (or any edit at all), nor is the username obviously that of any group or company. Fermiboson (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| Multimilkp (talk · contribs) | infinity | Incivil, I suppose, but an immediate indef seems even more unnecessarily inflammatory? (FTR I haven't been able to find the AN/I thread in question so maybe there is something there which justifies it.) WP:ASPERSIONS of socking of the editor this person is in conflict with also appears to not have been dealt with, excepting a sock ban. Lourdes then claims on another user's talkpage that this account is a sock as well. Ultimately, it's not clear at all what the block actually is for. Fermiboson (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Experiment77 (talk · contribs) | infinity | Hints of WP:ASPERSIONS but, looking through contributions, nothing that could come close to an immediate indef block. The editor does appear to have left, and Lourdes cites that as her rationale for an indef, so maybe slightly moot at this point. Fermiboson (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC) |
| Riteinit (talk · contribs) | infinity | Appears to be a WP:BITE block. Editor was given no warning before the indef, and while I can see the case for incivility, I can also see the case for an excitable Midlander who's had a pint. Editor has also left TP message that could be interpreted as remorse/unblock request (although possibly WP:ASPERSIONS?) that should probably have been engaged with, in my opinion. Fermiboson (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
Anything beyond that is probably very, very moot. Fermiboson (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how [30] counts as an attack page or is a negative unsourced BLP. Perhaps I'm missing some context here, though I'm also not sure if this user should be unblocked. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I wouldn't have deleted that as a G10 either. That said, it appears to be a hoax (unless anyone else can find evidence of a landscape architect named Donald J. Guest), and with the account's only other edit being this, I'd say it'd be best to let sleeping dogs lie at this point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have deleted it G10, but I see what Lourdes meant in terms of the tone of the second paragraph. I sometimes delete things G11/G10 where there's a mix of adulation with "struggled with drug abuse"/similar without any reliable sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- This may be borderline on the attack aspect, but it's very clearly not a serious attempt at an encyclopedia article; it's a joke at best and is probably trolling. I might not have blocked immediately, but I'd have given a 4im warning at the very least. There are multiple real-world people named Donald Guest, FWIW. I would not reverse this block. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- +1, not an obvious attack page afaics; block can stand. Lectonar (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
The deleted edit, from 18 October, is basically identical to User:Thegreatbooboo!/sandbox. I don't understand why Lourdes blocked more than three days after the last edits, but the account is obviously WP:DISRUPTONLY and there'd be no benefit to unblocking. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have deleted the sandbox too; block can stand. Lectonar (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
The account's sole comment can be read here (it was just caught up in oversight collateral): Support Clearly a bad actor bad faith etc.
Does this ring any bells in terms of sockpuppetry? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say almost definitely. I've done a CU and it's exclusively on proxies with another single edit account that's been blocked by another admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse, received email harassment from the account. Not sure if that appears in the CU logs, but the block is good. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
That's where three single-purpose accounts intersect, only one of which was blocked. The second is named after the article subject, and is a very clear conflict of interest editor. The third is a simple partial-blanking vandal. There's an acknowledgement of multiple accounts on one of the first two's user talk page.
Draft:Himalaya Jet is a different situation, and clearly the single-purpose account that did it, taking over almost immediately (which is highly suspect), is far more experienced with editing a wiki. The edit summary (non-)usage is very different, too. A cynic would no doubt say, given how quickly the second single-purpose account took over, that someone else picked up the undisclosed paid editing gig. ☺
Uncle G (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
This might well be one for the Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. This is one of those what-you-are-saying-about-me-without-any-sources-is-wrong-but-I-cannot-edit-a-wiki-for-toffee situations. The article discusses 2020 and one of its only two sources pre-dates that by quarter of a century.
It's also one of those which-band-members-are-the-"real"-band situations. ☺ Clearly the account is named after the band. We should regard this as an attempt to challenge unverifiable content, for which the rationale on User talk:Wfynde should not be overlooked, and the onus is on the people wanting to claim events happening in 2020 to provide some actual sources from the current century.
Uncle G (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up @Fermiboson:. While I stand by my initial block and don't think he'll be a net positive, I reiterate what I said then, that I welcomed any additional input. If editors, admin or otherwise, feel it should be lifted, that's fine with me especially with so much time passed. That talk page got unecessarily ugly and I'm not going to engage with Foley directly as he asked me to stay off his Talk, and I'm happy to respect that. His immolation was a good example of why it's hard for editors to work in areas with which they have a COI. Star Mississippi 14:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I find BrownHairedGirl (BHG)'s initial complaint on ANI that led to Timfoley50's block flawed at best, disinformation and misleading at worst. So many things were wrong in the initial report (characterizing someone as SPA, making it sound like someone with COI didn't declare), spinning "part truth" into a narrative that suits her goal (suggesting that Tim was forumshopping when it was spread out over 5 years) or coming up with her own metrics about talk page discussion length which is not backed by any policy (very similar to ArbCom's portal case). IMO this looks like a bad newbie-biting block. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- My first-impression 0.2c is that, while the editor in question is clearly incivil, the BDP issue could very much hvae been resolved with methods other than a block. No comments or opinions on BHG's behaviour, and I haven't delved into the content dispute itself. Is reopening the AN/I thread a good idea? My main concern here in the context of this mass review is the fact that Lourdes stepped in in the middle and cut short a developing AN/I discussion, even if there is a case for NLT, and had Lourdes not done that AN/I may have reached a different conclusion. Fermiboson (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Having seen no end of this sort of stuff over the years, that has escalated to Arbitration, full-blown user RFCs, and banning discussions, this does seem to have all of the makings of yet more of the same, and I echo Star Mississippi's prediction that this will not go well. Would Star Mississippi's block have been overturned had discussion progressed further? It possibly would have, although that's not a certainty. There's not much to fault about Star Mississippi's offer at the end of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#User:Timfoley50 and the explorer Tom Crean and it might have been taken up.
Wifione/Lourdes's legal threat block did rather curtail that possibility. I agree with you that it's a bit borderline. I don't think that we need to re-open AN/I, though. After all, here is the Administrators' Noticeboard. ☺
- Having seen no end of this sort of stuff over the years, that has escalated to Arbitration, full-blown user RFCs, and banning discussions, this does seem to have all of the makings of yet more of the same, and I echo Star Mississippi's prediction that this will not go well. Would Star Mississippi's block have been overturned had discussion progressed further? It possibly would have, although that's not a certainty. There's not much to fault about Star Mississippi's offer at the end of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#User:Timfoley50 and the explorer Tom Crean and it might have been taken up.
- I'm probably not going to have much on wiki time this week so if you (collectively: @Fermiboson @OhanaUnited @Uncle G) think an unblock is the best way forward, feel free to do so. I'm never attached to blocks should they no longer prove necessary. Whether it needs to be here & ANI, I agree with UncleG. I feel like it can be handled here after or in conjunction with extending an offer of unblock to Timfoley50 and semi independent of the Lourdes block since mine was the basis. Star Mississippi 03:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- What about status quo ante? We can restore TP access, and if the user continues down the path they are continuing down, we can reblock per NLT or civility; and if they don't, we continue the conversation as a standard unblock appeal. If they don't say anything, they don't say anything. Fermiboson (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- My first-impression 0.2c is that, while the editor in question is clearly incivil, the BDP issue could very much hvae been resolved with methods other than a block. No comments or opinions on BHG's behaviour, and I haven't delved into the content dispute itself. Is reopening the AN/I thread a good idea? My main concern here in the context of this mass review is the fact that Lourdes stepped in in the middle and cut short a developing AN/I discussion, even if there is a case for NLT, and had Lourdes not done that AN/I may have reached a different conclusion. Fermiboson (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
There are warnings on this user's talk page, albeit relating to edit warring not incivility (which is what the block was for). The incivility in question was very mild, so I agree it should have been met with a (further) warning instead of a block. However it's from so long ago that I suspect their interest in Wikipedia has long since waned. If they request an unblock I think it would be looked upon favourably but I don't see much merit in unblocking an account that's going to remain dormant anyway. WaggersTALK 11:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, the account is a suspected sock, which would make an normal unblock moot. – robertsky (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Topic unban request
I'm asking the admins to please consider removing my Syria topic ban. I know what I was banned for, edit warring, causing disruption, not using a civil language with other users, sockpuppetry, and failing to reach an agreement through discussions. and I apologise to all of the Wikipedia community and promise that I will never engage any any disruptive activity again. During my topic ban ( more than 1 year ), I contributed so much to the community portal by fixing hundreds and hundreds of grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes across many articles Whatsupkarren (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- The topic ban was applied here on 2022-08-11 and reads, "The community imposes an indefinite topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed; this ban may be appealed after 6 months (and every 6 months thereafter)." This ban was logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Active_editing_restrictions. I have not verified that Whatsupkarren has avoided editing about Syria-related topics. --Yamla (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- From what I found, it seems that, at least on this wiki (hint), they didn't edit Syria-related topics. Nobody (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- They seem to have skirted the edges with a series of edits on people of Kurdish ancestry in October last year (example) but appear to have stayed very clear on en:wp since. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just to add to the info, the topic ban was a step-down restriction from a full block/ban as a condition of a successful unban request. I've looked through their contributions and agree with the others, they seem to have abided by the terms of the ban and have edited constructively and without controversy. I'm all for rehabilitation so I'm minded to support the request. I'd be interested to know what kind of editing they plan to now do within the Syria topic area, but my support isn't conditional on an answer to that. WaggersTALK 15:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Waggers There are so many notable Syrian figures that do not have articles on English Wikipedia, to name a few: Paul Daher, Farid Boulad Bey, Benedicto Chuaqui. I’ll work on creating many of these.
- I will also work on expanding articles such as, palmyra, Ebla, Ugarit, Umm el-Marra, and Tell Abu Hureyra
- Wikipedia doesn’t have a lot of active users interested in Syria, I believe I can add so much value Whatsupkarren (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just to add to the info, the topic ban was a step-down restriction from a full block/ban as a condition of a successful unban request. I've looked through their contributions and agree with the others, they seem to have abided by the terms of the ban and have edited constructively and without controversy. I'm all for rehabilitation so I'm minded to support the request. I'd be interested to know what kind of editing they plan to now do within the Syria topic area, but my support isn't conditional on an answer to that. WaggersTALK 15:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Close challenge: Required disclosure for admin paid advising
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC: [31]
Preceding discussion and closing statement: [32]
Discussion with closer: [33]
Notification will immediately follow this post.
I am challenging the closing statement that: There is consensus that the policy on WP:COI should be widened to include off-wiki paid advising for promotional purposes
.
It's a closing statement concluding something that was never proposed, which most people did not address, about modifying a different policy from the one the RfC proposed. Per the closer, it puts more weight on the discussion preceding the RfC (the mechanism we rely on to solicit additional voices and structure discussion) than on the actual RfC, for which there was no consensus, and does so with the effect of radically transforming one of our central policies (changing WP:COI from a policy about conflict of interest editing into something that applies to activities that take place entirely outside of Wikipedia). At the most fundamental level, we should not be transforming policies based on informal, unstructured discussions, especially while an RfC on the subject fails.
Secondarily, the closing statement hinges on "promotional purposes", which isn't defined but seems to boil down to something we all already agree on: that it's unacceptable to advise people how to violate Wikipedia's policies. I don't think that's in dispute, and we already have the tools to take action against someone found to be doing that via WP:NOT and WP:TOU, etc. (and those can be modified accordingly if there's any doubt). What we disagree on, and what the discussion was about, concerns monitoring and disclosure requirements. It seems like there's an extracted notion that we indeed all agree on, but it's accompanied with a remedy there's absolutely no consensus for (the transformation of WP:COI rather than the many other tools that aren't explicitly about on-wiki activities). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Bad close, well outside the scope of the RfC. —Kusma (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- (I was fairly heavily involved in the discussion and was unaware that this was even a potential outcome. So unaware, in fact, that I do not have a fully formed opinion on the quality of the closer's policy proposal. It is a new policy proposal, not a possible reading of this RfC). —Kusma (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I was heavily involved in the RFC and so am far from neutral, but I agree with this challenge. Given that there was (correctly imo) no consensus found for the question asked in the RFC I don't understand (even after reading the discussion on the closer's talk page) how consensus was found for something broader that most participants didn't speak about. There may or may not be consensus for such a change to the COI policy, but there is no evidence (either way) in that RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Bad close It was not within the scope of the RfC. Agree per Thyduulf and Kusma.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- With all due respect to the closer, I do not think this is a type of RfC when a non-admin closure is a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- The RfC was originally about a change affecting only admins. It makes sense to have a non-admin close such RfCs, as admins could be perceived as self interested. —Kusma (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- In Steelpillow's defense, a non-admin was explicitly requested below the RfC. Whether that request is a good idea is debatable, of course. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Bad close. There's clearly no consensus for any such thing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also, "My recommendation is to expand WP:COI to cover all activities..." caused me to raise at least one eyebrow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Closer here. The RfC formed only a part of this wider discussion. At the end a new subtopic, outside the RfC, was opened to discuss closing the discussion. That was what I did, and the RfC got swept up with it. Very little of my closing remarks addressed the RfC directly; those being objected to here were unrelated to the RfC, so folding them together here like this, after I had already stated as much on my talk page, seems a bit strange. Also I am unsure why the OP here did not post a link to this challenge in the post-closure comments immediately below it. If there was anything bad about the RfC close, it was inviting someone to close the whole discussion without considering the effect on RfC embedded within it. If I did wrong to follow up that invitation, I can only plead ignorance. So what we need here and now is those "bad close" judgements to clarify which bits refer to the RfC, which to the discussion as a whole, and what exactly did go wrong where. I know I shall learn something from that, but so far this discussion has been a mess of misunderstandings about what I actually closed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- You state "The main discussion shows a clear consensus that anybody, be they admin or not, should declare a COI where paid advising off-wiki, for promotional purposes, relates to their activity here." The main RfC question was whether "Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage". There was no consensus for this in the RfC (it was 38:55 against). So clearly there is no consensus that paid-advising admins should disclose their clients, yet you say there is consensus that they should declare their COI. Do you suggest that people should declare "I have a COI" without disclosing what that COI is? That would make no sense. I suggest you undo your closure. —Kusma (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- You are doing it again. My remark that "The main discussion shows a clear consensus that anybody, be they admin or not, should declare a COI where paid advising off-wiki, for promotional purposes, relates to their activity here" referenced the wider discussion raised by its OP, and not to the RfC. If you read down the close, you will see that I agree entirely with you that the RfC had no consensus. Please do take this on board and stop conflating the question asked by the OP with the question asked by the RfC. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I applaud you for trying to close it, but I really think closing an RfC should address only the RfC question and any consensus (or lack of) relating to it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- If you are willing to close a "discussion that has an embedded formal RfC" in a way that is diametrically opposed to the answer of the embedded formal RfC, then you're doing it wrong and should not be closing any RfCs. You can't override the formal RfC by the "wider discussion". Formal RfCs are serious business, and people expect them to count. —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Read my close again - all the way down. I reference the RfC in bold so everybody can see where I do so, like this: "
3.
RfC: Required disclosure for admin paid advising' has no consensus for change." What part of that is claiming a consensus for the time of day? So please, please, where I specifically reference "the main discussion", why do you persist in conflating this with the RfC? And where I make a clear finding on the RfC, why do you guys not see it there? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)- @Steelpillow, ok, if I follow your argument, then it means that admins who do paid advising do not need to declare who their clients are, but anyone (including admins) who does paid advising needs to declare their what their advising-related COI is (or is this only if you have told your client how to self-promote? Or if they later self-promote although you told them not to??) If that isn't what you mean your closure to say, please clarify it; I don't understand how you can disclose COI without disclosing the clients. If it is what you mean your closure to say, I can't help reading this as overruling the results of the RfC, which opposed additional disclosure requirements. —Kusma (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Nothing like that, I aimed to be as non-specific as possible because there was consensus for the square root of naff all in the main discussion and none at all in the RfC. If you have to go through all those convolutions to try and justify a conflict with the RfC outcome, boy do you have a weak case! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- If you're claiming now that there wasn't a consensus to do anything, why on earth did your close say that there was? —Cryptic 22:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Nothing like that, I aimed to be as non-specific as possible because there was consensus for the square root of naff all in the main discussion and none at all in the RfC. If you have to go through all those convolutions to try and justify a conflict with the RfC outcome, boy do you have a weak case! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Steelpillow, ok, if I follow your argument, then it means that admins who do paid advising do not need to declare who their clients are, but anyone (including admins) who does paid advising needs to declare their what their advising-related COI is (or is this only if you have told your client how to self-promote? Or if they later self-promote although you told them not to??) If that isn't what you mean your closure to say, please clarify it; I don't understand how you can disclose COI without disclosing the clients. If it is what you mean your closure to say, I can't help reading this as overruling the results of the RfC, which opposed additional disclosure requirements. —Kusma (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Read my close again - all the way down. I reference the RfC in bold so everybody can see where I do so, like this: "
- You are doing it again. My remark that "The main discussion shows a clear consensus that anybody, be they admin or not, should declare a COI where paid advising off-wiki, for promotional purposes, relates to their activity here" referenced the wider discussion raised by its OP, and not to the RfC. If you read down the close, you will see that I agree entirely with you that the RfC had no consensus. Please do take this on board and stop conflating the question asked by the OP with the question asked by the RfC. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- You state "The main discussion shows a clear consensus that anybody, be they admin or not, should declare a COI where paid advising off-wiki, for promotional purposes, relates to their activity here." The main RfC question was whether "Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage". There was no consensus for this in the RfC (it was 38:55 against). So clearly there is no consensus that paid-advising admins should disclose their clients, yet you say there is consensus that they should declare their COI. Do you suggest that people should declare "I have a COI" without disclosing what that COI is? That would make no sense. I suggest you undo your closure. —Kusma (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Can I (as a non-admin) note that this is a difference that makes little difference, that COI already covers entities that one did paid advising to, as either an "employer" or a "financial interest"? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Bad close in that it addressed things that weren't seen as problematic originally; even if the result was correct, it was not for the reasons presented. ——Serial 21:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Impossible Close IMO there was no way to close that discussion without a reasonable challenge being brought. It was an extraordinarily disjointed and run-on series of discussions which touched on a number of related and often overlapping but still distinct topics... Arguments ran the gamut from the strictly personal to the purely philosophical with no two editors seemingly making the exact same argument. We can't even all agree on whether the closer must be an admin or absolutely should not be an admin... I think Steelpillow did a good job all things considered and I appreciate them offering themselves up on the alter of public opinion (I will note that the other closer who was suggested on the talk page more or less endorsed Steelpillow's close). TLDR its easier to yell bad close than it is to make a hard close. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it was hard at all - it looks like a clear "no censensus for anything" to me. And that's all an RfC closer should do - assess any clear consensus that arises, or state that there isn't one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not certain that a "no consensus" close wouldn't have been challenged. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding Boing! said Zebedee's point regarding how difficult this closure actually was -
TLDR its easier to yell bad close than it is to make a hard close.
Of course it is, because as you said, hard closures are hard. A strong and experienced understanding of how to assess and implement consensus for a large-scale multi-faceted discussion is not something that every user has, nor is it reasonable to expect that they would. We can applaud someone for their best efforts in tackling a tricky subject, but in the end, we weigh the outcome rather than the intentions. You still have to get the close right. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it was hard at all - it looks like a clear "no censensus for anything" to me. And that's all an RfC closer should do - assess any clear consensus that arises, or state that there isn't one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Questions for the closer: in the wider discussion, not just the RfC, could you point to four or five comments that pushed you toward your consensus determination, specifically the one that WP:COI should be widened? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- So here's what I found before I ran out of caring, and I was only a fraction of the way through it all.
- "What most people seem to agree on is that it's not banned by the existing policies and guidelines, since WP:COI's language is very clear about its application to edits." - Mike Christie
- "Any editor being paid to advise others on Wikipedia editing must disclose their conflict of interest and the name of their clients." - A. B.
- "I agree with the 3 choices @A. B. laid out" - Pecopteris
- "I agree our policies don't currently apply to paid advising. I am suggesting that we need some new policies or guidelines, at least for admins, when it comes to paid advising." - Barkeep49
- "This is very simple… if you are paid to edit WP, disclose it. If you are paid to advise someone else about editing WP, disclose it. If you are paid to do anything related to WP, disclose it." - Blueboar
- They do not all specifically mention WP:COI, but they all mention stuff covered by it and they all want to see advising covered as well as editing. So if you can figure how we can meet that consensus without widening WP:COI, then please suggest a better phrasing and I will make the change to my close. Meanwhile I am off to bed now and busy tomorrow. So when I get back here the shape of the world will have changed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Mate, let's perhaps dwell on those words for a second. You say you only got a fraction of the way through the discussion before you "ran out of caring". And yet you decided to go ahead and close based on the fraction you had read? That's ... not a good look. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% sure what SP is saying here. They could be saying that they started re-reading the discussion to pick out examples to answer my question, and they got as far as Blueboar's comment before they stopped caring to look for more. Or they could be saying what you think they're saying. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- My comment, quoted above, doesn't indicate that I believe the COI policy should be broadened. Steelpillow quoted it in response to Firefangledfeathers's request for examples of comments that said it should be broadened, but mistook my meaning, which I think is clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Mate, let's perhaps dwell on those words for a second. You say you only got a fraction of the way through the discussion before you "ran out of caring". And yet you decided to go ahead and close based on the fraction you had read? That's ... not a good look. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- So here's what I found before I ran out of caring, and I was only a fraction of the way through it all.
- As above, inappropriate close by an editor who had not read the entire discussion, and which should be procedurally reverted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I was expecting a no consensus close, based on the parts of the discussion I had read (and admittedly I haven't read it closely after the first couple of days and haven't done more than skim after hte first week). I am astounded that something broader than the original question was found to have consensus. I had hoped for a well written closing statement that might give some sense of what the community thought, which has its own use, but to find consensus for something so broad boggles my mind. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't participate in that discussion. I didn't even read it. And I'm not an admin. Does anyone want me to close it? I think that generally speaking I can summarize things fairy well. Won't be offended if my close wouldn't be accepted either. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is what WP:DfD is for Mach61 (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Since a comment I made was apparently influential to the close, I do want to clarify something: I Don’t think paid advising is a WP:COI issue… I think it is an issue of ethics. It is ethical to disclose any payment related to WP, even when there is no conflict of interest. This should apply to any editor, not just admins. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- COI disclosure is an issue of ethics, too. So you seem to be slicing that pretty thin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- The question isn't really just whether it is ethical to disclose payment, the question is whether disclosure should be required and if so what needs to be disclosed. In the abstract I don't think you would find anybody who would say that disclosing payment is unethical, however when you ask whether disclosing the personal information of payer and/or payee should be required then you will see a range of views comparable with those expressed in the RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- (non-admin) I can certainly think of instances where disclosing payment would be unethical, at least with a payee attached. A client may be hiring an admin for advice of sensitive matters that they would not want to post to public boards. If, say, a small tech company wanted to figure out how to deal with someone who was putting sensitive company secrets on the article about them, the admin announcing "I'm being paid by WhateverTech" may well have a Streisand effect, drawing attention to material that the company might want to quite appropriately not want to have seen. There are certain sorts of advisors in this world who are clearly ethically bound not to announce their clients -- sex therapists, for instance. This probably wouldn't apply for most of the cases (well, that's a guess, as we know of very few instances of admins being thus hired), but there are at least theoretically cases where ethics would call for privacy. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, there is a difference between (1) "I was paid to advise about Wikipedia editing", (2) "I was paid to advise about Wikipedia editing by Joe Bloggs", (3) "I was paid to advise about editing the Joe Bloggs article and (4) "I was paid to advise about editing the Joe Bloggs article by Joe Bloggs". I can't, off the top of my head, think of any ethical issues with (1), but all the others do all have potential privacy or other issues. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- (non-admin) I can certainly think of instances where disclosing payment would be unethical, at least with a payee attached. A client may be hiring an admin for advice of sensitive matters that they would not want to post to public boards. If, say, a small tech company wanted to figure out how to deal with someone who was putting sensitive company secrets on the article about them, the admin announcing "I'm being paid by WhateverTech" may well have a Streisand effect, drawing attention to material that the company might want to quite appropriately not want to have seen. There are certain sorts of advisors in this world who are clearly ethically bound not to announce their clients -- sex therapists, for instance. This probably wouldn't apply for most of the cases (well, that's a guess, as we know of very few instances of admins being thus hired), but there are at least theoretically cases where ethics would call for privacy. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- It goes without saying that an RFC that concerns admins should not be closed by a non-admin. NACs are only for no-brainer, obvious, inconsequential stuff. Overturn the close and warn the editor not to do that sort of thing ever again (unless they pass an RFA). Softlavender (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is a bit harsh. A couple of people had specifically requested a NAC, and Steelpillow offered to close and the offer was accepted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't at all go without saying. Admins are not a privileged class; we are just users with a few more buttons. There is no rule against non-admin closes of important RfCs. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 23:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Softlavender, an RFC that concerns admins should not be closed by a non-admin is...I'm trying hard to find something to say besides that is absolute bullshit. Why in the world would we think only admins can assess admin activity? Or that non-admins can't? Valereee (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Softlavender, as above, this isn't fair. SP only responded to a request for a NAC, whether they got it wrong or not, I wouldn't blame them for failing to accurately summarize a discussion consisting of ~70K words which is too much for a novella.
I started reading it as I offered to write a close myself and I suspect I'll be able to write a better close. I lean towards agreeing that a NAC is preferable as all admins could be argued to be involved. Even assuming an admin would write a perfectly neutral close, it's better to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC) - If anything, Softlavender "should be warned" never to say anything so nonsensical again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think that you're going to get a lot of people disagreeing with this idea. We're the people entrusted with the tools that can do damage in the wrong hands. We're not some kind of ruling class. The whole point of RFCs is to get the editorship at large involved. Yes, even in closing discussions. We were all not administrators once, and for some of us doing this kind of stuff was how we earned the trust of the community to be granted the extra tools. Uncle G (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- For me it goes without saying that a hugely attended RfC like this should only be closed by our most capable closers. Some of those closers happen to be admins, some of them happen to not be admins. As many admins pass RfA with no assessment made of their ability to close discussions (you can be really great with the CSD and the username policy and how to deal with vandals while having no idea about discussions) it is not clear to me at all that admin status is the right thing for this kind of discussion (even without considering the fact that it's about admins which would, on the margin, make me prefer a non-admin closer). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, I don't agree with that either. While I did say above that not everyone has the skills required to weigh and implement closures for complex issues, I also don't think we should be casting a shadow over an entire group of users. Admins don't inherently exclusively possess those abilities over non-admin users, and Wikipedia doesn't need any further class divide. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm going to pile on and disagree here. In fact, I also think it might be preferable for an experienced non-admin to close this one. And I'd say Steelpillow is qualified to do it - I just don't think they closed it right, not that there's insufficient experience here, and they closed it with the best of motives. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Overturn, because that's not what the community said.—S Marshall T/C 00:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Overturn I do not think this needed an "admin only closing". Valereee said it best above. Rhododendrites has called out some of the deficiencies in the close rationale, and I agree. Lightburst (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Overturn (uninvolved), this close appears to entirely disregard OUTING concerns, a primary argument for what the closer agrees was a successful opposition for the RfC. (I don’t care about admin status). Mach61 (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Overturn. Per above. Negligent close which clearly fails to describe the result of the discussion. -FASTILY 03:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Overturn. The closer misinterpreted some statements as support for changing the COI policy, as seen above. Of the many discussion participants, very few mentioned a change to COI as their preferred outcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Overturn. A wrong closure is wrong even if the closer is an admin, while a valid closure is valid even if the closer is a non-admin. The closer of a discussion about a contentious topic should understand that she (generic pronoun) has to demonstrate that she has the competence to close this discussion. QRD (quod remains to demonstrate). Pldx1 (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FYI: That thread is now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Admins and being paid to advise on editing. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is now down to "only" 450 KB of text, aka 10 times the upper limit recommending in WP:SIZESPLIT. That one discussion was more than half the page. Please continue the discussion over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Close appeal of Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#RfC to issue a non-binding resolution to the Wikimedia Foundation
First, Mach61 should not have closed this discussion; they were involved, having participated in the RfC and having voted in a closely related RfC. While their involvement was, in their words, minor, involvement is a bright line that can not be crossed; there is no urgency to close this discussion and they should have waited for a truly uninvolved editor to do so rather than taking it upon themselves.
Second, their close was flawed; they discounted !votes on the basis that support !votes disproportionately lacked rationales, and …many support rationales overlapped with those of resolutions #3 and #1
. The latter reason is flawed in every circumstance; there is no reason why support or oppose rationales can't overlap between discussions, and it is absurd to discount them because they do. The former reason can be appropriate, but isn't in this case; for a discussion like this where policy is silent we seek to determine the level of community support, and !votes without rationales are still relevant to that - and even if we do fully discount them, the support goes from two thirds in favor to three fifths, still a clear consensus in the absence of other valid reasons to discount the !votes.
If this close is overturned, I would ask that the next closer be an experienced closer; an RfC with this level of participation and potential impact isn't a good candidate for an editor's first close.
Pre-appeal discussion on the closer's talk page can be found here. BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Involved discussion (RfC to issue a non-binding resolution to the Wikimedia Foundation)
- Sole comment:
- On the INVOLVED issue, I think the reply to the resolution #3 voter is basically irrelevant; the support:oppose ratio on that was so high that it would have been SNOW closed if the discussion was anything other than an RFC, a given exception to INVOLVED. No further comment on the !vote at WT:VPW
- On the merits of the close:
- It seems logical to me that, if the arguments for resolution #2 with the most support are similarly valid for other resolutions, and arguments that only work in favor of #2 have less support, #2 should be seen as having less consensus than other resolutions.
- I take precisely the opposite reasoning of BM on !votes without rationales. Since the "support" side had the advantage of workshopping this proposal for months and being prepared for when it went live (which I am NOT equating to canvassing), I think it's fair to discount the earliest non-rationale votes as not being representative of the community. And just overall, I think that looking for a diverse array of arguments for a side when gauging consensus for a proposal which necessitates weekslong consultation with the community (unless BM literally wants the resolutions to be posted on Meta immediately), makes sense. You do not want a scenario where a "silent majority" object to the content of a resolution after consensus is supposed to have been ascertained (not unlikely, because even a well-advertised RFC on the VP represents a subset of metapedians.
- Opposing due to my credentials is valid, but please don't link NAC, I read it and chose to ignore the advice there. Since we're stuck in the world where I've already closed this discussion, I suggest focusing on the content of my close, not the process that lead to it. If the content is poor, please say so, this discussion deserves a high-quality close. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
It seems logical to me that, if the arguments for disputed resolution #2 which overlap with those of other resolutions, and arguments exclusively in favor to #2 have less support, #2 should be seen as having less consensus than other resolutions.
- I'm sorry, but I've read this several times and I still can't understand what you are trying to say. Can you clarify? BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- This sentence was rendered ungrammatical when I rewrote it in the draft. It now reads
It seems logical to me that, if the arguments for resolution #2 with the most support are similarly valid for other resolutions, and arguments that only work in favor of #2 have less support, #2 should be seen as having less consensus than other resolutions.
Mach61 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)- Thank you. I understand what you're trying to say now, though the logic eludes me - an argument being valid for multiple resolutions doesn't make it less valid for a specific resolution. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- This sentence was rendered ungrammatical when I rewrote it in the draft. It now reads
- Undo close and get an established closer to close the RfC. Come on. This RfC was closed by an account that is barely a year old and essentially only started editing Wikipedia in earnest after discussions about this RfC started (while the account shows 1,647 edits now, it had barely made 200 when BilledMammal first kicked off discussion about this RfC). That, and the convoluted logic of the close. --Andreas JN466 09:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate on why you think the closer’s logic is convoluted or flawed? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Uninvolved discussion (RfC to issue a non-binding resolution to the Wikimedia Foundation)
- No need for a close A close is useful in RfCs where it is important to distinguish between simple comments and arguments that show understanding of WP policies and guidelines. In this RfC, policies and guidelines are irrelevant—they do not dictate the community's relationship with the WMF. This is shown by the large number of editors who !voted without providing any rationale whatsoever. It is highly problematic to assess "arguments" and "WP-consensus" in this situation, so I advise just ignoring WP:NOTAVOTE, heeding WP:OF and WP:IAR, and leaving it as a simple vote. Any other end to this RfC is logically awkward. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- A close is a summary of the RFC. I think that it could be useful to summarize these RFCs, as they reflect current community sentiment on these issues. Even if the close doesn't result in concrete policy changes due to WP:CONEXEMPT and other jurisdictional reasons, it can still be useful to have a statement that the community feels X way about these issues, and requests/desires Y actions in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- They don't actually constitute community sentiment, as the participation is meager. More like, consensus is, 'don't care.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm counting 55 respondents to the first RFC. In my opinion, that is a quorum that most Wikipedians would not question. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- A whole 55 is still a small fraction of the editing community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- The 400+ supports this petition got also represents a small proportion of the community. What number would not? Mach61 (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, historically 55 is quite small, that's my point. 400 is more in line with our historically broader gatherings. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Format is different; that was a petition, this was an RfC. 104 editors is an extremely high level of participation for an RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is a petition too, it's just bureaucracy to say it's an RfC, so that is somehow different. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Structurally, this discussion was very different from a petition, but if we continue we'll derail the close appeal so I won't comment further on this - although I'm happy to discuss on my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, there is an area for dissent, which is nice, but many ivoters just ivoted which is petition like, and not really consensus discussion, especially since there is no policy or guideline to discuss or base discussion or consensus on. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Structurally, this discussion was very different from a petition, but if we continue we'll derail the close appeal so I won't comment further on this - although I'm happy to discuss on my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is a petition too, it's just bureaucracy to say it's an RfC, so that is somehow different. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Format is different; that was a petition, this was an RfC. 104 editors is an extremely high level of participation for an RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, historically 55 is quite small, that's my point. 400 is more in line with our historically broader gatherings. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- The 400+ supports this petition got also represents a small proportion of the community. What number would not? Mach61 (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- 55 for #1, 69 for #2, and 80 for #3, for anyone curious - and 104 editors overall. BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- So not even 104 editors could muster interest in all three questions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- A whole 55 is still a small fraction of the editing community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm counting 55 respondents to the first RFC. In my opinion, that is a quorum that most Wikipedians would not question. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Novem Linguae on this. BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- They don't actually constitute community sentiment, as the participation is meager. More like, consensus is, 'don't care.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- A close is a summary of the RFC. I think that it could be useful to summarize these RFCs, as they reflect current community sentiment on these issues. Even if the close doesn't result in concrete policy changes due to WP:CONEXEMPT and other jurisdictional reasons, it can still be useful to have a statement that the community feels X way about these issues, and requests/desires Y actions in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Modify closure or overturn. Them being involved probably should be grounds for an overturn in this case, if not for any other reason than to actually have someone independent closing the proposal. Heck, even a user on their first edit, would still be less involved. As for the merits, from a bit of a review of the RFC, while I would absolutely stay away from closing an RFC of this magnitude with a 10-foot pole, I see consensus broadly for 1 and 2, and overwhelmingly for 3. Even with the closer's statement, I'm not entirely sure on their reasoning for closing 2 as no consensus. I do think this probably should be formally closed, though. It is likely beneficial to have at the least an impartial summary of the discussion for anyone in the WMF who gets to review the discussion, or anyone in the community who is interested as well. A small tidbit I'll mention, I'm not exactly satisfied with the closer's response to questioning of their close. Their response reads as somewhat sarcastic and borderline patronizing, and it's not the best type of response to give to someone questioning your actions. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with no close is needed per above, just send it on to the WMF, as is. And see what the response is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- They have already issued a response to resolution #2 which isn't getting much consensus along with a link to discuss it further. The rest will be passed on regardless. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, they have been generally good of late entertaining and issuing responses. I think that is likely to continue in the manner of dialogue. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- They have already issued a response to resolution #2 which isn't getting much consensus along with a link to discuss it further. The rest will be passed on regardless. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Their involvement on the issue was minor: they argued against someone opposing #3 for a fairly obscure reason and didn't elaborate (plus SNOW stuff), and the "behavior" rfc shouldn't be relevant as its contents are quite different. Secondly, we're issuing a resolution on behalf of the broad community, so we need even more consensus, not just votes. Thirdly, for resolution #2, after you eliminate all votes without a rationale, you get 58.3% support. This, combined with the clsoer's summary of the discussion which I mostly agree with, IMO lands a result of no consensus mainly thanks to wording. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Overturn close User in question was involved and has little to no history in the area of closing RfCs. Their close, on top of this, contradicts clear consensus, especially in the first discussion (where comments were 68%, or 2:1, in favor of the proposal; the second was still 62% in support). The reasoning they gave simply doesn't explain closing against such wide numerical majorities; the arguments for the oppose side would need to be clearly superior, and as far as I can tell, they aren't. This close should be overturned. I take no stance on whether or not a close in general is warranted, but this ain't it. Toa Nidhiki05 19:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- The first discussion? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they find
consensus in favor of this resolution
#1? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)- The closer introduced their own idea for what would satisfy the first discussion which would utterly gut it. That's why I counted it. Toa Nidhiki05 13:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I’m still not sure what you mean. If you’re talking about removing
a sentence which would have asked the WMF to halt relevant grants not approved by the enwiki community
, that was removed by BilledMammal, the proposer, not the closer. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I’m still not sure what you mean. If you’re talking about removing
- The closer introduced their own idea for what would satisfy the first discussion which would utterly gut it. That's why I counted it. Toa Nidhiki05 13:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- The first discussion? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they find
- Overturn close, and get a 'crat in here While the closure not being an admin in and of itself is not a factor in determining whether to overturn a close, on a controversial, highly participated RfC purporting to make a statement representing the community as a whole, we should be observing the rules and procedures to a T. Nobody was going to die if the closer, however uninvolved or involved, waited for someone more experienced in reading walls of text and less likely to raise controversy to come along. Since we're here anyways, let's just pass the ball to someone whom the community has explicitly stated its trust in for determining important community consensus. Fermiboson (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Anyone experienced may close a controversial or difficult RFC, including non-admins and non-crats. The custom for the most important and controversial RFCs is to request a panel close (multiple people). I've never seen a "crat must close this" request for an RFC closer, so in my opinion this is non-standard and I do not recommend it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Request for deleted revisions for research on Wikipedia history
Hello, I am doing research on the history of Wikipedia in my country. Unfortunately, the page Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Czech Republic was deleted during a reorganization in 2007, which prevents me from finding out who the self-reported Czech editors of English Wikipedia were in the early years of the project. Could an administrator please recover the deleted revisions of that page and share them with me (date and page content for each revision) in some practical way (can be email)? Thank you. --Blahma (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Please see the deletion message: CSD G6: Housekeeping (outdated project page), content was: 'This page has been replaced by Category:Wikipedians in the Czech Republic.'
You can also see Category:Czech Wikipedians for people who not only live there but were also born there. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)- FWIW, this wayback link shows the page as of 30 January 2005. Fabrickator (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
To make it clear, I am not looking for current Czech editors. I am trying to dig out from historical records who was a Wikipedia editor and at what time. I am mainly concerned with years 2001–2004. I have already seen the 2005 Wayback copy, but it only gives me an "upper bound". I am building a chronology, so I need more exact dates (and some order). I could routinely inspect old revisions of pages such as Wikipedia:Multilingual coordination because they had only been archived, not fully deleted. Also, I am an admin on Czech and Esperanto Wikipedia, so I could access even deleted revisions there; I can't do it here, though. A category, from purely technical point of view, cannot be a full replacement for researchers like me, because it has no trackable history (and did not exist back in the early years anyway). Compare with Wikipedia:Wikipedians which was not deleted and still has searchable history going back to 20 Nov 2001. The page I'm interested grew merely as a subpage thereof. --Blahma (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Blahma, below is the deleted edit history. In short, any edit that isn't in bold is that person adding themselves and themselves only to a list of editors. For the bolded edits, I have added some italicised notes to explain what these edits were, where the edit summary doesn't exist. I hope this helps. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- (diff) 09:14, 29 November 2006 . . Malyctenar (talk | contribs | block) m (cat has long been replaced by Category:Wikipedians in the Czech Republic (to hell with these bothers, Czechia rules!))
- (diff) 09:21, 17 August 2005 . . Rmky87 (talk | contribs | block)
- (diff) 09:18, 17 August 2005 . . Rmky87 (talk | contribs | block)
- (diff) 09:14, 17 August 2005 . . Rmky87 (talk | contribs | block) (Removed and redirected as part of Wikipedia:User categorisation)
- (diff) 16:22, 10 August 2005 . . Icairns (talk | contribs | block) (categ Wikipedians by country -> Wikipedians in (country))
- (diff) 10:51, 20 July 2005 . . Qertis (talk | contribs | block) (Qertis is Czech (or Bohemian?:))
- (diff) 14:56, 30 June 2005 . . Netvor (talk | contribs | block) (Adding myself)
- (diff) 18:10, 14 April 2005 . . Darwinek (talk | contribs | block)
- (diff) 07:03, 13 April 2005 . . Darwinek (talk | contribs | block) m -- added "[[Category:Wikipedians by country|Czech Republic]]"
- (diff) 17:53, 2 April 2005 . . Pavel Vozenilek (talk | contribs | block) m (added self)
- (diff) 12:50, 28 November 2004 . . Wikimol (talk | contribs | block) m
- (diff) 20:13, 14 October 2004 . . Mike Rosoft (talk | contribs | block) (Proudly added myself)
- (diff) 23:02, 13 October 2004 . . JohnyDog (talk | contribs | block) (added myself to list)
- (diff) 15:36, 26 August 2004 . . EmilJ (talk | contribs | block)
- (diff) 14:55, 12 August 2004 . . Malyctenar (talk | contribs | block) (adding myself)
- (diff) 01:51, 18 July 2004 . . Kyknos (talk | contribs | block) (adding myself)
- (diff) 07:26, 11 June 2004 . . Zeman (talk | contribs | block)
- (diff) 23:59, 2 March 2004 . . Matt Borak (talk | contribs | block) m (added myself)
- (diff) 15:19, 23 December 2003 . . Guy Peters (talk | contribs | block) m -- added "[[cs:Wikipedie:Wikipedisté]]"
- (diff) 15:16, 23 December 2003 . . Guy Peters (talk | contribs | block) m
- (diff) 05:46, 29 April 2003 . . MarekF~enwiki (talk | contribs | block)
- (diff) 10:30, 11 July 2002 . . Golem~enwiki (talk | contribs | block)
- (diff) 00:37, 28 May 2002 . . Boleslav Bobcik (talk | contribs | block) m
- (diff) 06:25, 10 March 2002 . . XChaos (talk | contribs | block) m
@Daniel: Thank you very much, this indeed helps a lot! Now I can see that there have been multiple Czech contributors in English Wikipedia before the Czech one got started, including the (latest) dates of their arrival. I am definitely going to use this in my study.
Resolved. --Blahma (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Blahma: I've just searched the Nostalgia Wikipedia, a copy of the Wikipedia database from 20 December 2001, for "Czech" and didn't find any users self-identifying as being from there (which surprises me a little, to be honest ... that search picked up all pages because there were no namespaces back then). However, I did find a page now at Wikipedia:Historical archive/Friends of Wikipedia/Technology weblogs--Non-English that leads to a write-up about Wikipedia in Czech from July 2001, which might be of interest. If I'd noticed this request in time, I would've temporarily undeleted the "Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Czech Republic" page, used Special:Export to export the XML of the history, and sent that to you. That would've been another way to get at the info. Graham87 (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Non-EC editor-launched, now closed ARBPIA RM
This RM on a clear ARBPIA topic was launched by an editor with only slightly more than 100 edits amid the swamping of en.wiki with new content on 7 October. If it were an open RM, it would presumably be eligible to be procedurally closed, but it went ahead, and it was closed without comment on the procedural irregularity. Should this still be overturned? And if not, is the procedural irregularity an eligible reason for a procedural move review? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- As a non-admin, I strongly oppose overturning. The rationale is very valid and found consensus, the user was not even alerted of sanctions. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- That is not my point; I haven't suggested this has any bearing on the user, since, as you note, there is no suggestion that any awareness was there. The point is one of procedure, in that the launching of this RM fell outside of the activities permitted under the WP:ARBECR clearly covering the WP:ARBPIA CT area. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The rationale is very valid and found consensus
from many EC users. I was not arguing on any bearing on the user either Aaron Liu (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- That is not my point; I haven't suggested this has any bearing on the user, since, as you note, there is no suggestion that any awareness was there. The point is one of procedure, in that the launching of this RM fell outside of the activities permitted under the WP:ARBECR clearly covering the WP:ARBPIA CT area. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- The RM could been have closed down, but if the editors responding to the RM and the closer are all extended confirmed it seems pointlessly bureaucratic to overturn it now. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, one support !vote was not extended confirmed, but everyone else was. 6:1 should count as a consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter; even if we overturn the RM the title stays the same, as the RM was proposing to reverse an undiscussed move. BilledMammal (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe a new RM, but one with actual participation probably shouldn't be closed. Given that there were !votes in support, it would really just be a fundamental violation of WP:NOTBURO to require that one of the many extended-confirmed supporters re-do the RM just for the sake of ARBPIA rulings. EggRoll97 (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- From the perspective of WP:Use common sense I'd be inclined to treat these analogously to WP:SK4, which is already the way discussions started by topic-banned editors tend to be handled. So if the only participants are ineligible go ahead and speedily close or remove, however if eligible editors have added comments in good-faith then let it run either way, a gentle message on the user talk page of the initiating editor with a brief explanation is advisable. In this specific case luckily it didn't matter since it was simply an attempt to revert an undiscussed move, something that happens routinely and can even be requested at RM/TR. However, much as it pains me to say this, this is really a matter for WP:ARCA. If we were discussing something unlikely to recur I'd probably just say shrug and move on, however this is going to happen again sooner or later, might as well get the arbs to weigh in before it does. (Non-administrator comment) 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Account breached
Very much belatedly I've noticed on my list of contributions an entry that has nothing to do with me. I presume the IP logged will reveal this, but in this digital age there is not much certainty left. Believe it or not, the entry is from 14:38, 12 September 2020. I have not noticed anything unusual recently. Sechinsic (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for reporting this. It's odd because it looks like quite a constructive edit, so doesn't look like your account fell into malicious hands or anything like that. I would of course encourage you to change your password immediately if you haven't already done so. We'll need a checkuser to look into the IP for that edit, it's not something that an ordinary admin like little old me can do. I won't ping anyone as checkusers monitor this page fairly frequently so I'm sure a willing volunteer will turn up. Meanwhile - silly question but I have to ask it - you're SURE it wasn't' you? WaggersTALK 16:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Given that the Foundation's data retention guidelines only allow for non-public personal information (including IP addresses and user agent information) to be stored for 90 days, I am almost certain that even checkusers won't be able to find out anything helpful about an edit from more than three years ago... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Shot in the dark, @Sechinsic, and it probably doesn't really matter 3 years later, but have you ever shared an IP with SquisherDa (talk · contribs)? They'd edited that page before and have an edit-summary style similar to the one used in Special:Diff/978037814. (If answering this question would compromise your privacy or theirs, please don't answer.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 16:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
0RR appeal [restored from archive #2]
I would like to ask the community to remove the 0RR restriction imposed on me. I received 0RR on March 7, 2023 ([34]), this restriction was reduced to 1RR on July 3, 2023 ([35]), for appreciating my trouble-free editing history. On September 27, however, after my 2nd revert on the Povilas Plechavičius article, I received 0RR again ([36]).
I accept the penalty, but as I explained at the time, this second revert was not a deliberate action, nor the result of edit-warring. It simply resulted from my misinterpretation of what a revert is. My previous edit was removed on the grounds of not providing sufficient sources, thinking that it was not making a revert I restored that edit with the addition of new and better sources. At the time I understood it as simply working together on an article, I did not think it could be construed as acting in bad faith. If I thought otherwise, I simply wouldn't have done it. However, I understand that it was my mistake.
I have since tried to continue editing Wikipedia without making reverts. Basically, it seems to me that given my entire editing history since March of this year, I have proven myself to be a user who tries to avoid conflicts, and if they arise resolve them on the talk page. I understand that the issue of the revert on Povilas Plechavičius casts a shadow over my track record. But given that it was an isolated incident I hope it doesn't completely cross it out. Marcelus (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: At this point I understand a revert as any restoration of previously deleted content, even if this restoration is intended to create a third version of the content, it is still understood as a revert. As in the example I gave, my mistake was that I took into account the context of the previous deletion (i.e. undermining the sources), now I understand that the context does not matter at all. What matters is the mere fact of restoring the previously removed content.
- @Grandpallama, that is correct, everything is in the discussion I linked.
- @Canterbury Tail, I invite you to browse through my edits, mainly from March 2023. Initially, I planned to let go of editing because I found it impossible with 0RR. But then I decided to prove that I can edit within the rules. Therefore, in the list of my edits, you can see a much greater engagement on t/p since then. Even on Talk:Povilas Plechavičius and the related Talk:Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force you will notice that I tried to discuss my propositions of the articles and reach a consensus. Hence my mistake of misinterpreting the situation and trying to restore the content with new sources. However this was the only such situation, in my opinion, it should not invalidate several months of hard work, long discussions, and searching for sources. Marcelus (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Szmenderowiecki: could you point out in which articles I removed "Lithuanian" from "Polish-Lithuanian"? Because I can't think of a single instance of that. I only sometimes insisted on taking into account the Polishness of some characters with mixed self-identification. But not by replacing the word "Lithuanian" but by using phrases like "Polish-Lithuanian" or "Polish and Lithuanian" and so on. Even in this example you gave in your 2022 report, you can see the opposite: I didn't want to remove "Lithuanian" from "Polish-Lithuanian," but rather keep the latter form, which I feel much better describes the identity of Antoni Mackiewicz/Antanas Mackevičius. Marcelus (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Szmenderowiecki: these categories were changed over a year ago from Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation to Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation. This was a misguided move that the nominator himself backed out of. A situation arose that we have categories for 18th-century Lithuanian and 18th-century Polish-Lithuanian people, but no category for 18-century Polish people! I have since tried to reverse this, which you can see here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_19#Category:18th-century_Polish_people_by_occupation. Something you present as my obsession with "nationality," or the drive to "polonize" everything, is simply a concern that there should be categories for Polish people in the 18th century.
- Contrary to what you say, I did not propose to remove the "Lithuanian" part, I only proposed to restore the "Polish" categories and make the "Polish-Lithuanian" categories parent categories of the "Polish" and "Lithuanian" categories. So no "Lithuanian" was never to be dropped. It's all in the discussion you linked: Proposed solution: create a separate category tree for Category:People from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, leaving Polish people category tree untouched and I'm advocating restoring previous state of affairs and creating Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation as a parent category for both. Marcelus (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Bot keeps removing thread, for unknown reason to me Marcelus (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Comments by involved editors (Marcelus)
- You've failed to notify Callanecc, but I'll do that for you. I've also separated uninvolved and involved editors, as that distinction matters for appeals of AE actions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 23:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: I waived normal AE appeal rules on my block, in exchange for a 0RR and Marcelus agreeing to mentorship by you. Do you have an opinion on this appeal? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 23:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I was somewhat surprised that at the beginning Marcelus did not seem to understand the concept of a revert well, despite being a moderately experienced editor. I think his understanding is better now, but is it good enough? 1RR would allow us to test it; that said, I'd hate to see him fail this test and get blocked again. But I do not see an alternative, really. If Marcelus says they have learned the lesson(s), well, they are responsbile for their actions and their learning. And we should AGF that editors are trying to honestly improve.As such, I'd support reducing the 0RR (which I consider very tricky) to more regular 1RR and seeing how this goes. In general, surviving 0RR is harder and than 1RR, so I hope things will work out. All that said, I'd caution Marcelus to avoid reverting or ping me on talk page before any revert for double checking, particularly if they made another edit to that article in the prior 24h. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry about that Marcelus (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: I waived normal AE appeal rules on my block, in exchange for a 0RR and Marcelus agreeing to mentorship by you. Do you have an opinion on this appeal? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 23:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I was the user who reported Marcelus to AE for breaking his then 1RR. At this moment I would advice Marcelus to wait longer, preferably 6 or so months before appealing again. It's just too soon at this point. #prodraxis connect 23:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I am involved because I filed this 3RR report from July 2022 against this user, from which moment it seems that they have been accumulating more and more edit-warring sanctions. From their contributions, I see that all they are editing is Central-Eastern Europe topics, with a focus on Lithuania and Poland and some of their edits, including to categories, being removals of "Lithuanian" from "Polish-Lithuanian" as soon as August - the reason their first partial ban was introduced in the first place.
- I understand that this topic is a very heated one and there is a lot of fighting about who belongs to whom (for example, I heard one Polish doctor of history say that the Belarusian state media were spinning such a narrative of Adam Mickiewicz that he was "a Belarusian poet writing about Lithuania in Polish" - which kinda demonstrates the fixation some have about nationality in Central-Eastern Europe).
- I would suggest, as a trial, let Marcelus edit areas outside Central-Eastern Europe without restrictions for now and see if they are fine. European football (I see they actively edit about Legia Warsaw)? Fine for me. History of Italy? OK. Maybe they want to translate an article or two about non-Central European countries? Great. There are a couple of great articles in Polish whose English equivalents are not so great. If they get along pretty well in that process, I think that we can loosen restrictions on Central-Eastern Europe based on good prior record or, if few people intervene in the process, great job on article creation/expansion.
- I sadly see little reason to loosen them now. Sometimes you just need a break from what bothers you, and I suggest Marcelus take one for now. Giving them some rope in this case will probably be a not-so-good idea:
If a user has already been blocked numerous times for the same behavior, they've already gotten all the rope they need; the hangman is just asleep at the lever
(emphasis mine). But there are other areas where you will be more helpful. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)- Marcelus, I was referring to, among other things, your changes to categories on 19 and 20 August of this year where the effect was that you changed "Polish-Lithuanian painters" to "Polish painters". It appears you were reverted after that, because at later dates you started this discussion, also proposing that the "Lithuanian" part be dropped. What I'm saying is that from my vantage point it looks like too much preoccupation about nationalities while what you could do instead was all sorts of things that could have been much more productive.
- You are within your rights to edit in the topic area since you aren't TBANNED, and you are within your rights to propose changes to categories, but I strongly suggest that you consider editing in other areas so that other editors have a record to compare to (e.g. "yeah, I see that they kind of like editing much in these areas and he may be a PITA sometimes, but I saw his brilliant work in, say, 19th century history of Canada and court cases of the High Court of Australia, so I think that he will likely be as productive in other areas, including Eastern Europe").
- 'Cause you know, from your record I think that if you are given another chance and you will still be getting complaints against you at ANI/AN/AE/3RR the next thing they will discuss here is a TBAN. Are you sure you want it? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Comments by uninvolved editors (Marcelus)
- Can you, as completely as possible, describe what your current understanding of a revert is? BilledMammal (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's part of the definition, though not the full definition; the full definition of a revert is that any action that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.
- I wouldn't be opposed to throwing them some final rope - 0RR is very onerous, and if they violate 1RR again with the justification "I wasn't aware it was a revert" I think it would be justified to just block them for WP:CIR, as if they still don't understand it after this point they never will. I am a little concerned by the broader context, but not enough to oppose this appeal. BilledMammal (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just speaking more generally, perhaps part of the problem is exactly the fact that our definition of what a revert is is convoluted, overly bureaucratic, lawyer-speak, run-on sentence upon run-on sentence, written in as confusing way as possible and you need a graduate degree, four years work experience and three reference letters before you can wrap your head around it? I understand very well that the reason it’s that way is because people try to endlessly find ways to WP:GAME it, so with every innovative excuse something new gets added and tweaked in the definition, but at the same time, the nature of the beast suggests that if someone says “sorry, I just didn’t understood what Wikipedia’s definition of revert is” then leniency and understanding is called for? Volunteer Marek 06:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Important detail left out--you were actually blocked on September 15, as a result of a 1RR violation. That block was only downgraded to a 0RR restriction because another editor offered to mentor you, and the enforcing admins accepted that in lieu of a block and removed the block on September 27. Grandpallama (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- So you've been blocked for edit warring 3 times now. Why would we believe that this time you'll never do it again? Sorry but it's hard to accept. I think you should go 6 months on your current restrictions before requesting an alteration in the terms, the community is already being lenient. Canterbury Tail talk 23:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think BilledMammal has it right, a move back to 1RR seems reasonable given the nature of prior violation. I looked at the original case and I feel the sanctions were probably a bit more than would be expected/needed in that situation, so I'm inclined to cut them some rope... Hobit (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'd advocate reducing the restriction to 0RR on pages within the scope of WP:ARBEE only, and 1RR everywhere else.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Looking back, my feeling in the AE thread, based on HJ Mitchell's initial proposal, was that we were reinstating the ARBEE 1RR, not site-wide. Maybe Callanecc can clarify. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 20:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oh... I understood Callanecc's restriction as meaning 0RR everywhere.—S Marshall T/C 21:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's only within the Eastern Europe topic area. The wording of the sanction on Marcelus' talk page is Indefinite 0RR restriction in the Eastern Europe topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Then I'd agree with BilledMammal.—S Marshall T/C 08:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's only within the Eastern Europe topic area. The wording of the sanction on Marcelus' talk page is Indefinite 0RR restriction in the Eastern Europe topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oh... I understood Callanecc's restriction as meaning 0RR everywhere.—S Marshall T/C 21:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Looking back, my feeling in the AE thread, based on HJ Mitchell's initial proposal, was that we were reinstating the ARBEE 1RR, not site-wide. Maybe Callanecc can clarify. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 20:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Like others I'm happy to overlook last month's incident as a good faith misunderstanding. User:Volunteer Marek makes a good point about Wikipedia's definition of a revert being somewhat different to what most people would understand the term to mean. Let's loosen it to 1RR again. WaggersTALK 10:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I too inherently dislike an 0RR restriction. Yes, even in a topic area such as Eastern Europe -- in fact, probably even more so, due to the heightened probability of gamesmanship occurring in that area. To me, with the definition of a "revert" indeed being as nebulous as it is (as Volunteer Marek points out), as well as the inherent desire for editors to after all edit an encyclopedia, such a restriction essentially is lying in wait for the editor to get caught breaking it, whether purposefully or accidentally. 1RR is more reasonable. For one thing, it allows an editor to check through an uninvolved third party as to whether the revert they just carried out is indeed a revert. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Internal project discussions
I was informed on WP:RPP that all non-EC editors are not allowed to participate in internal project discussions (e.g., AfD, RFC, RM)
. Can administrators please share their opinion on this ruling, according to which non-EC users are forbidden on all talk pages even if a WP:RFC/A is ongiong ? 89.206.112.13 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Clarification: that statement was made specifically about topic areas covered by WP:ARBECR. Schazjmd (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Given that IPs cannot become extended confirmed (and regardless, you don't meet the requirements for extended confirmed since you only have 68 contributions, far short of the 500 required across a minimum of 30 days), your only two options would be to request amendment from the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA to the remedy as a whole to exempt you from its provisions (highly unlikely, though I'd be interested to see how it might be implemented), or, open an RFC to overturn the decision of ArbCom, (even less likely, as you'd need to actually convince the community that there is some value in your input and that ArbCom's remedy is, for some reason, a grave mistake that harms the encyclopedia, which I'm not really seeing). EggRoll97 (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- The reason for this restriction is that certain topic areas are extremely controversial and tend to attract bad editors. Requiring a significant number of edits and a significant amount of time serve 3 purposes: They prevent someone from coming just in order to screw up these articles; they guarantee that an editor who edits them must gain some idea of what Wikipedia is; and the amount of investment makes sockpuppetry much less likely - especially given the difficulty in the user in question preventing it's detection while accumulating this level of activity. ARBCOM has further decided that even discussions in these areas became problematic, so they made these restrictions apply there, too. Animal lover |666| 10:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, which is why I noted both of the available options would be basically impossible. Of course, I suppose they're welcome to try, but it'd be far easier to just create an account and get extended confirmed than to go to ArbCom. EggRoll97 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I just realized that this is actively discussed in three different venues now: here, at an AE appeal, and at ACN (two sections). Which seems... inefficient. El_C 15:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, which is why I noted both of the available options would be basically impossible. Of course, I suppose they're welcome to try, but it'd be far easier to just create an account and get extended confirmed than to go to ArbCom. EggRoll97 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- The reason for this restriction is that certain topic areas are extremely controversial and tend to attract bad editors. Requiring a significant number of edits and a significant amount of time serve 3 purposes: They prevent someone from coming just in order to screw up these articles; they guarantee that an editor who edits them must gain some idea of what Wikipedia is; and the amount of investment makes sockpuppetry much less likely - especially given the difficulty in the user in question preventing it's detection while accumulating this level of activity. ARBCOM has further decided that even discussions in these areas became problematic, so they made these restrictions apply there, too. Animal lover |666| 10:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I get this can be a little confusing, however certain WP:Contentious topics now have WP:ECR attached to them, which among other things means no participating in RFCs unless you are extended confirmed. Gotta love how we continue to make internal WP:WIKISPEAK jargon that means something specific and different from normal English.
- Recently, there has been somewhat of an expansion to the restrictions limiting participation from non-EC editors in certain contentious areas, first with RMs and related (though arguably that was simply a clarification), with some of the more recent changes seemingly limiting talk page discussion even further if my understanding is correct too busy too really keep up with things and mostly inactive these years anyway. More importantly, the areas covered continue to grow.
- But the prohibition on non-30/500 editors participating in certain "internal discussions" which was clearly intended to cover RFCs is quite a bit older, and as applied to topics associated with the Israeli–Palestinian conflict predates ECP itself. Even before that, reverts of unregistered users were exempt from the 1RR applied to the topic area.
- There's a certain etiquette that's appropriate when approaching fraught areas as an unregistered user, especially when you don't have too many edits on your current IP. Much of the time when you leave a comment that all users in a dispute will find helpful, especially if couched with careful reference to our policies and guidelines it will be welcomed. However if you are reverted it's usually best to shrug and move on. Of course sometimes we all stumble into theses areas accidentally or without really having thought things through, misunderstandings happen; it's easy to get frustrated over unthinking adherence to procedure. But at the end of the day it's just probably not something worth fighting over.
- One of the advantages of staying unregistered is that page protections serve as automatic guideposts to when you might cross into one of those areas with a poor input-to-output ratio. True, there are some quick fixes you won't be able to make, but for the most part you'll be able to spend your time far more efficiently elsewhere.
- Sorry this got long, I hope you find this helpful. (Non-administrator comment) 184.152.68.190 (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio at ITN RD
Sorry for having to post here. At WP:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted)_RD:_A._S._Byatt I raised concerns about excessive quotations which are integrated throughout the article. Before posting to RD, Stephen removed the tag on the basis that it was a single quotation. This is not the case. This earwig report is very clear cut that there remain too many excessive quotes from the article http://theguardian.com/books/2009/apr/25/as-byatt-interview earwig report for current revision. This is not the only source where quotations are used. The entire article is full of such quotes. Unfortunately my attempts at discussion are resulting in stonewalling. I consider anyone with the authority to post to the main page should at the very least consider all concerns, especially those concerning copyvio, carefully before posting, and not to merely dismiss those concerns as if I'm a pest (at least that's the impression I am getting, I'm a pest for simply raising the issue). Thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- You might want to cross-post this to WP:ERRORS. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Resolved, another admin pulled the article from main page. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just an aside to this, I do find WP:ITN one of the more belligerent areas of Wikipedia. Perhaps understandable because users are passionate about the subjects. But it does mean we need admins there who will respond to requests and who are completely versed in policy. Polyamorph (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
IP Blockage
Hi, I just meant to create an account (or login, as I have an account in mediawiki) but it says my IP has been blocked. From what I can understand, it's due to my internet provider?
Can this block be lifted? Please advise.
Thank you! 190.237.61.121 (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- It seems that there have been persistent long-term abuse from your network which resulted in the IP address range being partially blocked. You can request for an account at Wikipedia:Request an account. – robertsky (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's unusual, or at least usually unintended, to block a handful of pages then block the whole range from all account creation. It's worth checking with the blocking admin Black Kite if that was their intention. To the IP user, I'd imagine if you can log in at mediawiki, then just browse to this wiki, it should create your account automatically. Otherwise, if you want to name your account then we can create it locally for you. The latter option is going to be public, so if you want to do that privately, contact some other admin privately. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
IP block exemption
Hi,
I am a sysop and an oversighter on fr-WP, and I often contribute from my office (pls don't tell my boss...) or in trains, where I have to use blocked IP (VPN or vandalisms). Could you please grant me an exemption on en-WP?
Best regards, JohnNewton8 (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Granted for a year. If you still need it after that, you can ask for it again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ninja! JohnNewton8 (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
New sockpuppets of Holiptholipt
And he is back! @Drmies: @Vif12vf: Holiptholipt (talk · contribs) [37] is once again pushing his edits under the same IP adresses as the protection of pages ran out, in account names such as 2800:2503:2:B9EE:A56B:4DE6:77EC:A46C, 2800:2502:4:47B7:9F98:4960:3E70:933D. He has also registered a new Wikipedia account called AmigodeMassa (talk · contribs) pushing the same edit as he did this summer under the other sockpuppets Juan Carlos de Rsistencia (talk · contribs) and Marcela Ocaño (talk · contribs) [38], [39], [40], why can't he accept a ban? Just look at the revisions under Juntos por el Cambio and Republican Proposal, every month he tries again and again [41], Here are some more revisions exactly the same as before [42], [43], it honestly gets tiring, feels like he won't stop until he gets his edits through, just look how many accounts he had last time around [44]. BastianMAT (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation banner fundraising campaign on English Wikipedia starts next week
Dear all,
The WMF is running its annual banner fundraising campaign for non logged in users in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the US from 28th of November to the 31st of December 2023.
Thank you to everyone who has worked together to prepare the campaign this year! We’ve built up the collaboration process this year on the community collaboration page, at in person events (e.g. Wikimania and WikiCon North America), and in other individual discussions. More information around the campaign, like example banners and messaging, can be found on the community collaboration page. We continue to welcome ideas on the page.
Some more resources around the fundraising campaign:
- Love Wikipedia? Get to know the nonprofit behind it by Maryana Iskander
- ABC for Fundraising: Advancing Banner Collaboration for fundraising campaigns by Julia Brungs
- Preparing Together: Updates on 2023 English fundraising by Julia Brungs
- The Fundraising Report 2022/23
- 7 reasons you should donate to Wikipedia by Lisa Seitz Gruwell
Generally, before and during the campaign, you can contact me directly at jbrungs at wikimedia dot org, or the team:
- On the talk page of the fundraising team
- If you need to report a bug or technical issue, please create a phabricator ticket
- If you see a donor on a talk page, VRT or social media having difficulties in donating, please refer them to donatewikimedia.org
Thank you for the collaborative effort this year,
Julia JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- All things being equal, a banner campaign that told the truth would be more interesting. ——Serial 14:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- @JBrungs (WMF): What do you mean the fundraising is starting next week? Logged out in the U.S., I have been seeing fundraising banners and pop-ups for quite some time. RudolfRed (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @RudolfRed,
- We have been running pre-tests to test both our technical infrastructure as well as messaging that we are co-creating with the community, since July. These have been short 3-6 hours tests mainly, as of next week, we will be running fundraising banners for everyone who is logged out (with an impression cap at 10x). As you mentioned, if you are logged into your account, you will not see the banners. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Blood Red Throne
Would someone be able to restore Blood Red Throne while this deletion review is taking place? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Done. El_C 15:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reply - @El C:, thank you very much for your assistance. However, should the page that existed prior to its deletion (with band members, albums, etc.) not be reinstated? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't follow. The page currently at WP:DRV is the one that I temp undeleted. El_C 15:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reply - @El C:, nvm, the history is all there. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't follow. The page currently at WP:DRV is the one that I temp undeleted. El_C 15:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reply - @El C:, thank you very much for your assistance. However, should the page that existed prior to its deletion (with band members, albums, etc.) not be reinstated? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Extra eyes at AfD
Hi all, I have taken some pretty drastic action at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Porter to reduce the impact of disruptive canvassing and potential sockpuppetry. I don't like restricting access to AfD participation via semi-protection when I can avoid it, but felt like this was so egregious that I had to - open to review of course, and if anyone disagrees please let me know.
Seeking more eyes on the discussion as a whole as well as the talk page of the AfD (when the inevitable edit requests come), I am travelling back end of this week so may not be quite as available to handle. Thanks in advance, Daniel (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
knudW
i was recently banned for no apparent reason by this user. 185.107.13.31 (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- They are not an admin, so you were not banned by them. Also to clarify, you would been blocked, not banned. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- If this is about something that happened on the Danish Wikipedia (where KnudW is an admin), the English Wikipedia isn't the place to address it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Don't Delete the Main Page
Gotta love Twinkle misclicks. Though I'm not sure which is funnier, the actual misclick itself, or the fact that it resulted in such a casual talk page note simply stating "please delete it" as if the Main page is some ordinary page. Can't stop laughing. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Trout OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Twinkle should be aware of a small number of pages which definitely should never be deleted (the Main Page, core policies, major notice boards and complaint boards) and not even give deletion tagging as an option. Animal lover |666| 06:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
