Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→I would like to appeal my (User:Jax 0677) topic ban in its entirety: re to ping, to Pppery and Jazz |
|||
Line 1:
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d)
|counter = 373
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=48
|index=no
|numberstart=255
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
}}
--><!--
----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------
--><noinclude>
==Open tasks==
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
{{Clear}}
{{Admin tasks}}
__TOC__
</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->
== Possible disruptive editing by SpaceHelmetX1 ==
<s>I've been in ongoing disputes with @[[User:SpaceHelmetX1|SpaceHelmetX1]] on two articles: [[Silverchair]] and [[Anne's Song]]. The former seems to be under control, as I took our issue to the talk page, and when that did little to change anything, I filed for a dispute resolution. SpaceHelmetX1 denied this, so now I'm requesting a comment.
On Anne's Song, there was a genre dispute that was taken to the talk page. Most recently, they added a genre which fails [[WP:EXPLICITGENRE]], so I reverted it, only for them to say: "take this to the talk page before you get blocked." First of all, I reverted once, that's not breaking the three revert rule. Secondly, I already told them on the talk page the genre was not explicit before making my edit.
I also saw two contradicting edits by them that may fall under [[WP:TE]]. On [[Enjoy Incubus]], they made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enjoy_Incubus&oldid=1304954281 this edit] adding an unsourced genre, while on [[Hate to Feel]], they made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_to_Feel&oldid=1284116317 this edit] removing a genre for being unsourced. [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 01:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)</s>
:An account with a single purpose: genre warring. It seems they've created their account to make only genre changes to album's articles. They don't take kindly to being contradicted. When you point out they're wrong, they quickly deny your reversal, ignoring what [[WP:BRD]] says. IMO, per my experience here, only their block is functional in this case. [[User:SpaceHelmetX1|SpaceHelmetX1]] ([[User talk:SpaceHelmetX1|talk]]) 03:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::Please don't make false accusations. I've made substational additions to [[Concrete Blonde (album)]], [[Tourniquet (Marilyn Manson song)]], [[Dream Into It]], [[Don't Need a Gun]], [[INXS (album)]] and [[Plush (song)]].and created the articles [[Under the Blade (song)]] and [[No Way Out (Stone Temple Pilots song)]]. I've only reverted your edits for disagreeing with your reasoning for me being wrong, and explained so in the edits. I've also been more than open to discussing disputes on talk pages [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 03:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Let other editors see your edit history to see if I've made any false accusations. You've already been alerted by @FlightTime. Your articles may be deleted at any time. [[User:SpaceHelmetX1|SpaceHelmetX1]] ([[User talk:SpaceHelmetX1|talk]]) 03:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Neither of us have an unbiased view on this situation. I brought this to the administrators attention for a reason, and would prefer to wait for what they have to say. [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 03:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm so excited to see what they have to say about you. You've already been warned by @FlightTime. I'd love to hear his opinion about your edit history. [[User:SpaceHelmetX1|SpaceHelmetX1]] ([[User talk:SpaceHelmetX1|talk]]) 04:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm guessing you haven't seen [[Wikipedia:Help desk#Edits reverted with reasoning "consensus is needed"... again|this]] in regards to those warnings. Regardless, I won't say anymore, and recommend you do the same. The administrators will decide. [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 04:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::And, as I can see, they answered you. At [[Every Rose Has Its Thorn]]'s article, you've been warned by them (@FlightTime). They left a warning on your user's talk page. You said I've made "false accusations," so I need to protect myself. One thing you should understand is that, here, when you accuse someone of making "false accusations," you may hear the "real" ones. [[User:SpaceHelmetX1|SpaceHelmetX1]] ([[User talk:SpaceHelmetX1|talk]]) 04:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::They're not an administrator, and again, that's already been settled at the help desk I linked. [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 04:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::You seem to have a high level of ignorance about Wiki rules. First, administrators are important, but Wiki isn't run solely by them. Second, they (@FlightTime) are a great editor, with an extensive experience, and with an account much older than yours. I would listen to them. You've been warned. Your edits were correctly reverted at [[Every Rose Has Its Thorn]]'s article. The issue there hasn't been resolved yet, and, as I've noticed, @FlightTime was correct in that one. If you break the three-revert rule, you may be blocked. [[User:SpaceHelmetX1|SpaceHelmetX1]] ([[User talk:SpaceHelmetX1|talk]]) 05:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::# I don't claim to be perfect. With that said, I'm aware of Wiki rules and would never knowingly go against them.
::::::::::# Wikipedia would not be possible without admins, and they have full control in this situation
::::::::::# I'm guessing you still haven't read the help desk I linked. See what the other two users had to say
::::::::::# I never broke the three revert, but you did according to your block logs, but I won't hold it against you, as I see you've not repeated the mistake since.
::::::::::[[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 05:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Okay. To be brief on this, the Admin's noticeboard doesn't prohibit non-admins from commenting. So, CleoCat16, it is okay that non-admins discuss and participate here. SpaceHelmetX1, regarding your comment below (that has an outdent right after it), this doesn't appear to be belittling, but a misunderstanding. Hopefully this clears things up. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 05:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC) {{NAO}}
:*[[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] and [[User:SpaceHelmetX1|SpaceHelmetX1]], you keep saying you want to hear what admins say but then you keep attacking each other. Your point of view won't hold sway because you are belittling the other editor. You need to argue on the strength of your position, not attack the other editor. That only makes it more likely that you'll receive a block for incivility. You've both had your say and this is the wrong place to even bring this dispute. If [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] brought this disagreement to DRN, [[User:SpaceHelmetX1|SpaceHelmetX1]], you shoud have agreed to have this dispute heard. If you didn't participate in the discussions on the article talk pages, that doesn't speak well of you. I encourage you to return to the article talk pages or DRN to talk this out and not edit war or levy personal attacks on each other. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:*:Thenks and apologies if I came off strongly. I already make a request for comment on [[Silverchair]], but may do one on [[Anne's Song]] too. [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 11:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:*:I. I didn't attack anyone.
:*:
:*: II. The other editor has decided to bring the dispute to here, and as you pointed out, here is not the better place for such.
:*:
:*: III. I never avoided the discussions on the articles talk pages. When I was questioned, I responded to everything. I'm not trying to turn this place in a battlefield. When my user's name is mentioned, I have the right to reply.
:*:
:*: IV. I didn't falsely accuse anyone of anything. What I said is real. The other user has been warned several times on their user talk page, the most recent warning being made by our fellow @FlightTime.
:*:
:*: V. I didn't belittle other users, I didn't diminish them. Unlike the other editor who belittled our fellow editor @FlightTime cause he isn't an administrator (those were their own words, and if you demand it, I can prove it), a behavior I'm not sure if is appropriate here. Again, I have not belittled any editor, quite the opposite, I have only shown respect to other fellows. [[User:SpaceHelmetX1|SpaceHelmetX1]] ([[User talk:SpaceHelmetX1|talk]]) 13:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
{{outdent}} If either one of you want to get anywhere, stop bickering and start providing [[WP:DIF]]s of misconduct. Cleocat, you've provided minimal difs, and SpaceHelmet, you've linked to nothing. Is there anything serious going on here or is it just 2 editors genre warring? I can't tell. Give us something to work with if you want the situation to be reviewed. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 13:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, it's a case of genre warring. Our fellow doesn't handle well when they're reverted. At [[Every Rose Has Its Thorn]]'s article, he was reverted by @FlightTime. They were notified on their user talk page by the same editor. @FlightTime and I have been having issues with such editor. Here, on this page, in this topic, there was a moment when they belittled our fellow @FlightTime because he wasn't an administrator. By my experience here, I know that this isn't the best behavior in the world. Not to mention that they brought the dispute to the wrong place, as another fellow editor has stated. [[User:SpaceHelmetX1|SpaceHelmetX1]] ([[User talk:SpaceHelmetX1|talk]]) 13:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::Again, please read on what a [[WP:DIF]] is. Provide actual links to actual edits and describe what's wrong. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 14:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::OK, I'll provide the links. Here, in the [[Every Rose Has Its Thorn]]'s article, in this [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Every_Rose_Has_Its_Thorn&diff=prev&oldid=1304866314 edit], they added a genre to the infobox, removing a previous one, which is sourced (a common behavior from them), with the following edit summary: "Improved lead and added soft rock. Even with a source, the song is too much of a soft ballad to justify hard rock as a genre." Here we can notice a removal of a sourced genre without first starting a discussion on the article's talk page. Adding a new genre using material (some random website called rewindstl.com) whose quality/reliability hasn't been confirmed, disregarding what [[WP:BURDEN]] says. They later added the same material again, undoing a @FlightTime's edit. Regarding what they said about @FlightTime, the link is not needed, since it is already here in this topic (unless they edited and removed their additions). [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Every_Rose_Has_Its_Thorn&diff=next&oldid=1304866314&diffonly=1 Here], @FlightTime reverted their edit for the first time. They stated in the edit summary: "Doesn't seem like a very reliable source, seems like just someone's personal opinion. Take it to the talk page if you insist." As we can see, for the first time, another editor warned them about the quality of the material they intended to add, and the editor asked them to take it to the article's talk page if they insisted, something they've ignored. Later, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Every_Rose_Has_Its_Thorn&diff=next&oldid=1304869322&diffonly=1 here] they undid the FlightTime's edit with a new argument not used in the first edit when they intented to add the genre in the first moment where they remove the hard rock tag from the infobox. Here they might even have been right, but they were reverted later by @FlightTime. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Every_Rose_Has_Its_Thorn&diff=prev&oldid=1304871340&diffonly=1 Here], they restored the soft rock tag using a website called "I Love Classic Rock" as a source without confirming the quality/reliability of such material as they've been warned about. I really don't know if "I Love Classic Rock" could be considered a reliable source. And lastly, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Every_Rose_Has_Its_Thorn&diff=next&oldid=1304871340&diffonly=1 here] they were reverted again by @FlightTime, who claimed to have left a message on their user talk page. All we can see here is genre warring, change of genres, addition of unreliable material without proving its reliability when it was required... [[User:SpaceHelmetX1|SpaceHelmetX1]] ([[User talk:SpaceHelmetX1|talk]]) 15:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:::If you want another sample, here it is. On [[Silverchair]]'s article, they have been warned about genre changes. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silverchair&diff=prev&oldid=1304727824&diffonly=1 Here], it was stated that any genre change, removal of a long-term genre that has been accepted by other users, needs to be discussed first on the article's talk page. Knowing this, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silverchair&diff=prev&oldid=1304835219&diffonly=1 they later removed the same genre from the article's infobox again], stating that it was added in 2023 by an IP and that its therefore not a "long-term genre", even though it has been accepted by other editors, who never removed it and the main part is: it is sourced in the body of the article. [[User:SpaceHelmetX1|SpaceHelmetX1]] ([[User talk:SpaceHelmetX1|talk]]) 17:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks and apologies for not being specific enough. The first two paragraphs of my comment were both for context. I've put in a comment on [[Silverchair]], and will likely do the same on [[Anne's Song]] in the near future. As pointed out by @[[User:Liz|Liz]], they're not necessary for admin intervention at the moment, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
:The third paragraph is what concerns me most. The article for [[Enjoy Incubus]] looked like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enjoy_Incubus&diff=prev&oldid=1294009145 this] when I first came across it. SpaceHelmetX1 then made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enjoy_Incubus&diff=next&oldid=1294009145 this edit], removing one genre for being sourced by [[WhatCulture]], a good change per [[Wikipedia:WHATCULTURE]], but then they made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enjoy_Incubus&diff=next&oldid=1304953955 this edit], adding an unsourced genre with the reasoning its the same as the band's debut album, [[Fungus Amongus]], which has funk metal and alternative metal as genres for as long as I can tell. This is a failure of [[WP:GWAR]]. They've correctly removed poor sources since then, but in doing so, added a second unsourced genre, by keeping alternative metal, despite getting rid of its source. Not only that, it's in contradiction to their edit on [[Hate to Feel]]. This article looked like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_to_Feel&diff=prev&oldid=903514763 this] when I first came it across it, another user adding a genre with the argument [[WP:BLUE]]. SpaceHelmetX1 correctly reverted this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_to_Feel&diff=prev&oldid=1284116317 here], but this was before their edit on Enjoy Incubus, showing they were aware of genre rules when adding unsourced genres. On a different article, [[Brown (P.O.D. album)]], before I was fully aware of Wiki's genre rules, I added a genre with no source. SpaceHelmetX1 then correctly reverted it for being unsourced in this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brown_(P.O.D._album)&diff=next&oldid=1293875324 edit], but kept two genres that are also unsourced. To me, this seems like [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|WP:TE]], as they were clearly aware of the rule when making these two edits
:I will admit, I started as primarily a smaller, genre editor, but I've grown past that and now prefer to make more substantial changes. I do still make genre edits when I'm shorter on time, but it's not my primary focus anymore. The example of [[Every Rose Has Its Thorn]] that SpaceHelmetX1 s using was already resolved on the [[Wikipedia:Help Desk#Edits reverted with reasoning "consensus is needed"... again|help desk]], with the two other users involved siding with me. SpaceHelmetX1 fails to point out I tried to discuss the changes on the other user's [[User talk:FlightTime|talk page]]. Regardless, the situation is resolved and does not require admin attention from what I can tell, so why it's being brought up here is a mystery. Also I have nothing but respect for the other user, and saying they're not an admin was not an insult, but a factual statement. I'm a little sad the take away they made on the help desk I linked is to stop editing music articles, cause keeping an eye on them is important work I respected them for. As for why I've not readded my changes on the article, I've been involved in larger projects, like expanding [[Phantomime (Ghost EP)]] and [[Tourniquet (Marilyn Manson song)]] and would prefer to wait a few weeks to ensure there's no disagreements left. [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 15:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{tpq|Regardless, the situation is resolved and does not require admin attention from what I can tell, so why it's being brought up here is a mystery.}} Given that an issue between the two of you was brought to this noticeboard, it can be relevant that it got brought up as ''any party to a dispute can have their conduct looked into''. (''As explained at [[WP:BOOMERANG]]''.)
::Regarding the situation as I see it, [[User:FlightTime|FlightTime]] wanted you to discuss this specifically at [[Talk:Every Rose Has Its Thorn]]. Instead, you brought it up at FlightTime's talk page after FlightTime had posted a warning notice to your talk page which asked you to use the article talk page. (It isn't prohibited to do it that way, but it kinda leads to a [[WP:MULTI]] situation.) You then cited an essay in an odd way (as you did get an explanation on your talk page), before going to the Help Desk regarding the situation rather than the talk page. I do get that FlightTime's claim of {{tpq|the help desk has no idea how musical articles work}} is confusing, but we do have article talk pages to discuss edits to an article. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 04:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC) {{NAO}}
:::An important point here is that CleoCat16 seems to be treating the Help Desk advice as some sort of binding decision. It's not. It was just the advice of two other experienced editors. Only one of the editors even said anything suggesting CleoCat16 was in the right, the other just suggested they need to use dispute resolution. FlightTime themselves is an experienced editor. If I was responding I'd have suggested [[WP:BRD]] was more important. Perhaps FlightTime could have explained better but it seems clear that they had decent reasons for requiring CleoCat16 to go to the talk page. Unfortunately CleoCat16 seems to have failed to do that. In the Help Desk case [[Talk:Joey (Concrete Blonde song)]], all they did is to open an edit request which was unnecessary (CleoCat16 could edit the page themselves) and unhelpful (edit requests aren't intended as a way to start discussion). In [[Talk:Every Rose Has Its Thorn]], instead of opening a talk page discussion, CleoCat16 just unhelpfully reverted saying they would. But it's BRD not BRRD and the time to open a talk page discussion was before reverting the revert. Could FlightTime have opened the talk page discussions instead? Sure, they could have and maybe should have. But CleoCat16 is the one here defending their actions. And of course as always it's particularly unhelpful for CleoCat16 to refuse to open a talk page discussion because they expect FlightTime to do it instead. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 08:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I've notified FlightTime of this thread as although they were mentioned several times before me, no one seems to have notified them. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 08:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sorry about that. I had made an assumption that ended up not being true. (I thought that they were already notified, but apparently that was something else from the user who opened this. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 01:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::[[WP:BRD]] is also only an esssay. There's no rule saying you have to discuss on the talk page. I didn't expect anyone else to open a talk page discussion, I used other means of dispute resolution, and in both cases, did just that. I find talk pages get little contributions for debates such as this. Even if suggesting an edit was unnecessary, there's no rule against that. I used it to see if a more experienced editor could implement my changes to more success. Also, the help desk's decision in both cases was accepted by the other editor. I waited some time after both of my edits before restoring them. It's not a "binding decision" but a conclusion in these two instances. [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 14:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Answering a ping; Sorry, I no longer watchlist musical articles. If there is a specific diff that needs my response, please ping me. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:FlightTime|<span style="color:#800000">'''FlightTime'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FlightTime|<span style="color:#1C0978">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 17:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::BRD may be just an essay, but it is one that many of us feel is good advice, and your refusing to follow that advice does not help your position. A good rule of thumb is that if your edit gets reverted, and no one else will support your position after working your way through the dispute resolution methods (including discussion on the talk page), then walk away. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 17:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I followed [[WP:BRD]], it never says you have to take issues of this sort to the talk page. I reverted once after my edits were undone, and after that, I used dispute resolution to get a conclusion. [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 19:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::[[WP:BRD]] says {{tq|If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. Instead, '''take it to the talk page'''}}. The second step at [[WP:Dispute resolution]], under '''Resolving content disputes''', is '''Discuss with the other party''', which specifically says {{tq|Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution.}} [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 19:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Again, it doesn't say you have to discuss on talk pages. I also never reverted my edits being undone since I reimplemented them with different sources and wording. FlightTime, who from his comment doesn't seem to want to be pinged or associated with music articles anymore, reverted my edits the first time on [[Every Rose Has Its Thorn]] for being unreliabily sourced. I did not argue this, and instead, reimplemented my changes with a better source. They didn't say anything about discussing until reverting my second edit, after which I did discuss. I'm happy to end this discussion now since no one's said anything on the points I've made. I'll just try to stay away from pages the other user frequently edits on. [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 20:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Do you know what the word "prerequisite" means? (But also: the strategy "I'm going to argue with five different people all telling me the same thing, that will demonstrate I'm the reasonable one in the underlying dispute" does not seem promising to me.) [[Special:Contributions/173.79.19.248|173.79.19.248]] ([[User talk:173.79.19.248|talk]]) 23:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::No need to be demeaning. All I've done is calmly defend myself. So far no one's said how I've broken any Wikipedia guidelines. I've already said, I'm fine with nothing being done as all you've done is [[WP:DEFLECT]]. I get [[WP:BOOMERANG]] exists, but no one's even looked into my initial claims. The situations you're using against me don't even involve the other user. [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 00:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::It does seem that this went on a tangent, but it looks like it is related to my explanation of what SpaceHelmetX1 brough up being something that is permitted and it flowed from there. Since we are on a tangent anyways, I am curious about something. In your initial comment you said: {{tpq|I filed for a dispute resolution. SpaceHelmetX1 denied this, so now I'm requesting a comment.}} "[R]equesting a comment" seems to be very close to WP:RFC, Requests for comments. Were you trying to start an RfC here or am I off-base here? --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 01:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes, sorry it wasn't clear from my initial comment. [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 01:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Ah, that clears up quite a few things for me, especially why you wanted to wait for admins. Sadly, AN is not really a place for RfCs (or at least one of this nature.) Per [[WP:RFCNOT]], {{tpq|The use of requests for comment on [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct|user conduct]] has been discontinued. In severe cases of misconduct, you may try [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]. If the dispute cannot be resolved there, then [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|arbitration]] may be warranted as a last resort. You may want to read about other options in the [[WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE|Resolving user conduct disputes]] policy.}} (For an RfC, the best possible venue probably would have been one of the music articles or maybe the WikiProject, but I think we might be a bit past that one.)
:::::::::::::The best explanation I got for what discussion you started is by pointing back to DISCUSSCONSENSUS: {{tpq|When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building ([[Wikipedia:Third opinion|third opinions]], [[WP:DRN|dispute resolution noticeboard]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment|requests for comment]]), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|administrator intervention]], [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|arbitration]]).}} It seems that by accident, you might have asked for a more extreme process than what you were intending to do. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 01:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yeah, outside of the final paragraph of my initial comment, I don't think anything here needs an administrator, and even that's debatable. I've made a request for comment on one of the articles I've had issues with, [[Silverchair]], and that's already been belpful when it comes to forming a conclusion. Thanks! [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 02:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::It seems like you are trying to invoke [[WP:WITHDRAWN]] or a similar policy. (WITHDRAWN is for deletion discussions, but it seems you want to do something similar here.) Personally, I don't believe it will be that simple as it is possible that a party might want to continue this here or elsewhere. However, if you want to try, you should {{template|strikethrough}} your original comment that started this discussion.
:::::::::I went looking and we don't seem to have a policy or guideline that fully explains things, but the closest would be a combination of [[WP:STRIKE]], [[WP:REDACT]], and WP:WITHDRAWN. STRIKE explains how to apply strikethroughs, where they can be applied, and why someone would do so. REDACT goes into more detail about STRIKE. And while WITHDRAWN is intended for deletion discussions, it doesn't seem like there is a rule that restricts the original comments from attempting to withdraw a discussion here. (In fact, the archives suggest that a user did this back in January and the discussion they started was closed as withdrawn.) --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 01:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I'll likely add a strikethrough, but it seems this page is getting more attention again, so I may hold off to tomorrow. [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 02:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Well if you want policies only, [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS]]: {{tpq|When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] and try to work out the dispute through discussion (...)}} But it does seem possible that you were not been aware of this, so hopefully this helps out for the future. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 01:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I was not. I prefer user talk pages, but I'll make sure to use article talk pages in the future for this. As I said, contribution on talk pages can be slow, so I'll probably ping users (such as recent editors on the page) going forward. I assume there's nothing against that. If not, feel free to inform me. [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 01:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::<p>Using user talk pages to resolve content disputes is rarely a good idea. Plenty of us ignore user talk page discussions about content disputes. If you bring up something on one of the administrative noticeboards and there is no article talk page discussion, from our point of view you've refused to discuss the dispute which is generally a very bad thing. </p><p>Also especially for something like this there is absolutely no urgency. It's perfectly fine if it takes a week or two to resolve and it's perfectly reasonable if editors take a few days to respond. If this doesn't work for you then Wikipedia unfortunately isn't the place for you since we're a volunteer collaborative project and editors aren't expected to respond urgently to stuff that has zero urgency. It's generally fine to ping editors once when you reply to them or when you initiate a discussion but stop if they ask you not to. </p><p>BTW, insisting editors need to prove your violated some guideline when you came to AN to complain but in the process demonstrated you're behaving poorly e.g. refusing to follow BRD, is rarely good sign for editors who want to be able to contribute successfully here. </p><p>As for your opening complaint, while it would have been good for SpaceHelmetX1 to participate in the DRN ultimately it's a voluntary process. They've clearly discussed their reasons for disputing your edits so I don't see any indication their behaviour has been poor enough to justify any sort of administration action or even a warning so there was no reason to open this thread. The ANs are not for content disputes. And since your behaviour has also been poor, you shouldn't be surprised this thread was so poorly received. </p><p>If you can't resolve the dispute between the two of you and since the DRN has unfortunately failed, you need to use some other method of dispute resolution. If you want to open an RfC then go for it, it should have nothing to do with AN unless behaviour in the RfC by one or more parties ends up so bad to justify it. Alternatively it's likely there's some relevant Wikiproject where you can seek more feedback. I'd also note that AFAICT in [[Talk:Anne's Song]] there's only two of you so [[WP:3O]] is probably still an option. </p><p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 01:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)</p>
::::::::{{tpq|If you want to open an RfC then go for it, it should have nothing to do with AN unless behaviour in the RfC by one or more parties ends up so bad to justify it.}} Based on a comment they made within the last two hours, they were trying to start an RfC here and didn't realize that RfCs are not done here for content like this. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 03:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Oh, I started a RfC before this. Outside of the points in my initial comment and only the final paragraph, this discussion did not go in the direction I expected, and as you can probably see, I've striked through it, as you showed me. [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 03:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] has politely told me what I've done wrong. I know you're probably trying to help, but you're making it sound like I'm a disruptive editor who Wikipedia is better without. I've only been here five months, I'm not an expert, nor do I claim to be. I don't see how I refused to follow [[WP:BRD]], when I was told I needed a better source on [[Every Rose Has Its Thorn]], added a better source and didn't revert again until discussing, but I'll do differently in the future. Thank you, but this has been stressful, and I'm taking a break from Wikipedia as a result. [[User:CleoCat16|CleoCat16]] ([[User talk:CleoCat16|talk]]) 14:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::[[WP:BRD]] is an essay, but it shouldn't be ignored. Many editors here follow it cause it's recommendable. What WP:BRD states is that when your bold edit is undid by an editor, you shouldn't revert to your version again, but rather, take that dispute to the article's talk page. In [[Every Rose Has Its Thorn]]'s article, our fellow @FlighTime asked you to create a thread on that article's talk page. As I could see, no thread has been created there. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Every_Rose_Has_Its_Thorn&diff=prev&oldid=1304867537 They challenged the reliability of that ref you've added], a website called "I Love Classic Rock", created in 2019. [[WP:BURDEN]] states that the burden of proving the reliability of some material falls on the editor who intends to add/restore such content every time its questioned, and such thing didn't happen. [[User:SpaceHelmetX1|SpaceHelmetX1]] ([[User talk:SpaceHelmetX1|talk]]) 17:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::This discussion can probably be closed; Cleo has announced that they are abandoning their account for a "clean start".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CleoCat16&diff=prev&oldid=1305709064] [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 20:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::(Just to note, we already discussed above that DISCUSSCONSENSUS is policy and covers a good chuck of BRD.) Regarding BURDEN, [[WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM|it goes both ways]] and I think I am seeing why FlightTime said what they said. Having gone through page after page of results more than once, I literally could not determine if the song should or should not be soft rock or not. I found a lot of what I would describe as noise, but nothing definitively for or against it.
::::::::::In any case, CleoCat16 has indicated that they are trying to withdraw from this discussion, so it might be best to let this AN discussion end. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 20:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Since CleoCat16's retirement seems to be conditional I might as well mention one thing I forgot to make clear above. While BRRD isn't generally a good thing, frankly I'd have less concern if CleoCat16 did at least initiate a discussion when they reverted the revert. But as I did say above, they didn't. Instead they just reverted and left the discussion for sometime in the future, perhaps hoping FlightTime would initiate it. So what we ended up with isn't even BRRD, it was BRR. That's exceedingly unhelpful. As I said, it helps no one when two editors refuse to discuss something because they're waiting for the other party to initiate discussion. One of them needs to just be the better editor and start the discussion and not worry about who should. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{tpq|q=y|Since CleoCat16's retirement seems to be conditional}} Ugh, I hope they actually read [[Wikipedia:Clean start|Clean start]] before doing it, but whatever. They were moving so fast that I don't think I kept up on things.
::::::::::::Anyways, hopefully whatever they do, they do start following DISCUSSCONSENSUS and BRD. Though their statement that {{tpq|I don't see how I refused to follow WP:BRD}} is making me doubtful, but it would be great to be proven wrong. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 12:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Please check out this fellow here: @[[Special:Contributions/Uncountableinfinity|Uncountableinfinity]]. That account was created nine days ago, on August 8 or 9, around the time content disputes began on articles like [[Silverchair|this]]. They simply appeared yesterday on that article's talk page only to share their views on an RFC that was started a few days ago by @CleoCat16. This seems a bit odd to me, as it coincides with them announcing their retirement. It was clarified here that editors cannot announce their retirement and then returned with a new account (a sock) to edit on articles where they entered into disputes. [[User:SpaceHelmetX1|SpaceHelmetX1]] ([[User talk:SpaceHelmetX1|talk]]) 15:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::If you're looking for CleoCat16's new account, here it is. I check Wikipedia periodically, but no longer make edits. I didn't want to comment here, but I also don't want another user getting in trouble for no reason. [[User:TheWizard70|TheWizard70]] ([[User talk:TheWizard70|talk]]) 19:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::...announcing "I was formerly X" is a violation of [[WP:CLEANSTART]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Where does it say that? I read [[WP:CLEANSTART]], but it seemed more a recommendation than a rule. Still, it defeats the point of clean start, and I only did it because I didn't want another user to get in trouble, and decided I have no more interest in editing. [[User:TheWizard70|TheWizard70]] ([[User talk:TheWizard70|talk]]) 17:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::[[WP:CLEANSTART]] is a policy, so yes, it's a rule, not a recommendation. Even when it is a recommendation (not the case now), it shouldn't be simply ignored because of that. But, especially in the case of WP:CLEANSTART, it's a rule. Breaking such a rule may result in a block. Regarding other users... that account I've cited has been created 11 days ago. Who's to say you didn't create another account in the meantime too? I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but I found the fact deeply strange, so I think it should be investigated. [[User:SpaceHelmetX1|SpaceHelmetX1]] ([[User talk:SpaceHelmetX1|talk]]) 17:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::SpaceHelmetX1, if you believe that someone is a SOCK and wish to, you can then report them at SPI with evidence per [[WP:HSOCK]]. Claiming that another user's behavior is suspicious without good evidence does not align with [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]]. (It also wasn't good that you didn't notify the other user.) --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 14:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::{{tpq|Where does it say that?}} Here is a list:
:::::::::::::::::{{Collapse|title=Every (or almost every) spot where "I was formerly X" would be seen as a violation of [[WP:CLEANSTART]].
:::::::::::::::::|<blockquote><poem>
:::::::::::::::::The old account must be clearly discontinued and the new account <u>must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account.</u> It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, <u>will avoid old disputes,</u> and will follow community norms of behavior.
:::::::::::::::::However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will [[WP:SOCK|<u>probably be recognized (as a "sockpuppet") and connected to the old account]], and will be sanctioned accordingly.</u>
:::::::::::::::::Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as [[WP:Sock puppetry#SCRUTINY|evading scrutiny]] and may also lead to additional [[WP:Sanctions|sanctions]]. The behavior of the new account determines whether it is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny. A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks, or sanctions (including but not limited to those listed [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions|here]]) in place against the old account. (''Sgv: Adding this in as I would have advised against a CLEANSTART to begin with.'')
:::::::::::::::::If you attempt a clean start <u>but are recognized, you will be held accountable for your actions under ''both'' the old and new accounts.</u> The fact that you notified someone of the change will not excuse you from the consequences of your actions or protect you from recognition.
:::::::::::::::::It is best that you completely avoid articles or topics that you previously edited, especially if you were involved in a dispute with another editor(s). If you do not make positive changes in your behavior, <u>you may be recognized and held accountable for the actions of your past account(s).</u> Likewise, if you want to make a clean start because of harassment from other editors, you should avoid editing articles that may place you in conflict with the same editors, <u>because they will probably recognize you.</u>
:::::::::::::::::However, returning to a favorite topic after a clean start carries a substantial <u>risk that other editors will recognize and connect the old and new accounts. This can result in</u> arguments, further loss of reputation, and <u>blocks or bans, ''even if your behavior while using the new account was entirely proper.''</u>
:::::::::::::::::These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start. Even if the original account is not under a formal [[WP:Editing restrictions|editing restriction]], changing accounts hides the editor's past relationship to the disputing parties, and interferes with the community's ability to monitor the dispute. It is not an appropriate use of clean start to resume editing contentious or scrutinized topics with a new account. Changing accounts, and then resuming to edit in a contentious area, carries a substantial <u>risk that other editors will recognize you and connect your old and new accounts. You may be viewed as [[WP:Sock puppetry#SCRUTINY|evading scrutiny]], which carries a risk of long-term blocks and bans.</u></poem></blockquote>}}
:::::::::::::::::For what should have happened, you should have let SpaceHelmetX1 take Uncountableinfinity to SPI, which would have come back negative based on this discussion. Uncountableinfinity would not have gotten in trouble from my point of view.
:::::::::::::::::So, what happens now? Well, the good news is that if you don't want to make edits, then you won't see much change. There is a decent chance here that both accounts (CleoCat16 and TheWizard70) get a block, potentially indefinitely. (I am not sure here, but there is a chance here.) To make sure this is said, an active block would prohibit another attempt at CLEANSTART. If I am correct to this point, your best bet for editing in the future (if it interests you again) would likely be to wait down the road and ask for the CleoCat16 account to be unblocked while following what is said at [[WP:UNBLOCK]]. (UNBLOCK is a guideline, but guidelines are recommendations and this is a recommendation you should follow if you are blocked indefinitely.) If you do make an UNBLOCK attempt, I would advise waiting a few years for this to settle. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 14:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::{{reply|SpaceHelmetX1}} Ignoring what is going on in the other reply, I did indicate what could happen if this was closed. (Though, it seems maybe it was an implication only.) Regardless, if you did want this to continue, my suggestion was going to ANI regarding CleoCat16.
::::::::::::::As for why I am not addressing your claim despite that I said I was going to be ignoring the other reply, it is because you didn't notify Uncountableinfinity of this discussion. (I know the edit notice says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you <span style="text-decoration:underline;">must</span> notify them <span style="text-decoration:underline;">on their user talk page</span>" and not "When you bring up a claim about an editor..." However, the intent of the notification is so that people can address claims that are made against themselves.) --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 07:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
==RfC closure review request at [[:Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM]]==
:{{RfC closure review links|1=Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Post-nominal letters|rfc_close_page=Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM}} ([[User talk:S Marshall#User talk:S Marshall#POSTNOM close|Discussion with closer]])
'''Closer''': {{userlinks|S Marshall}}
'''User requesting review''': {{userlinks|The ed17}} at 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
'''Notified''': [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S_Marshall&diff=prev&oldid=1305578828]<!-- Template:RfC closure review -->
'''Reasoning''': In 2023, a RfC found consensus to modify [[MOS:POSTNOM]] so that [[post-nominal letter]]s would be disallowed in lead sentences. This year, another RfC was opened ostensibly as a referendum on the previous RfC. The latter is the closure I'm appealing today.
The new RfC was closed by {{u|S Marshall}} as having no consensus to proceed with any of the presented options. I agree on that point. However, S Marshall's close found that 'no consensus' in this case meant that the current consensus is invalidated.
Putting that more simply, the proposal was to change a guideline's ''status quo'' wording. It ended in both no consensus and changing the wording.
S Marshall pointed to [[WP:BARTENDER]] as their reasoning for closing the RfC in this way, which {{u|HouseBlaster}} has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S_Marshall&diff=prev&oldid=1305556532 separately questioned], as well as what he saw as a weak consensus in the 2023 RfC.
COI note: I have an explicit viewpoint on this topic, as I proposed the 2023 RfC and participated in the new one. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
===Closer ([[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]]) ===
*Well of course I hadn't predecided the issue, no matter what Alanscottwalker thinks. The absolute worst thing about closing the contentious stuff, on Wikipedia, is the constant accusations of misconduct and supervoting as soon as people don't get their way. It's not OK.
:Of course, it happens because "I think you're wrong" always fails, but "You're INVOLVED" or "You're in bad faith" sometimes succeeds. We need to find a way to make close reviews better. It's got to be ok to say "Wrong outcome" (which is about the issues) and not ok to say "Wrong closer" (which is ad hominem).
:At issue here is the question of whether the rule currently written in the MOS should stand or fall. I noted that the previous discussion close was marginal, and I noted the number of experienced editors who were saying that the rule isn't working for them or is causing more strife than it prevents, and I noted the relatively low level of support for Option 2.
:We need to decide whether the community ''really'' thinks "No postnominals in the first sentence" is the right rule. If the community doesn't think that, then it shouldn't be the rule.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 22:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
[Much later] And here are my two questions for the closer of this close review.
# Across all of the discussions we've had, I see a slight and tepid majority for "no postnominals in the first sentence". Significant and quite impassioned dissent from experienced editors exists (reading Peacemaker67's "overturn" as an "endorse", which seems to be a widespread approach among those who've analyzed this debate). I've taken the view that this slight and tepid majority doesn't amount to a consensus, and after all this debate, I still think it doesn't. Was I wrong? Where is the threshold of consensus?
# When closing a RfC, is the closer confined to the one debate they've been invited to close, or should they read around and across other related discussions including historical ones to try to understand the community's view as a whole? I'm really bothered by this question because if it's the former, then everything in [[User:S Marshall/RfC close log]] about Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, and post-1932 US politics is potentially unsafe, so I'd appreciate the clearest and most specific answer you can formulate.
Thanks in advance for taking this on.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
===Non-participants (POSTNOM)===
*'''Overturn''' Having already reviewed the closers talkpage and the RfC, I feel I can stick my oar in now. I agree with the objectors. I also note, that the closes, "our society can convey" gives the appearance of impropriety, as a thumb on the scale of a partisan who already pre-decided the issue. I also think it is improper to use a close to in effect be a review of the prior close. The closer should have brought personal concerns about the prior close to review. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 22:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
**In response to the closers new comment, above: No. SMarshall nothing I wrote is ad hominem. Having endorsed your closes before, I can assure you, I reviewed and commented on your close not you, and this is review of your close, so it invites me to say what I think of it, whether you care, what I think, or not. --[[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 23:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
**Adding, and whatever you don't like about what I said, see the Dan Leonard comment below[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1305582289&oldid=1305582241], it is your close that is the problem, because it chose to view it through some kind of "nationalist" cast, which was completely unfair to serious consideration of the participants statements and analysis. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 23:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*My understanding is that Mr. Marshall finds that no possible MOS guideline on postnominals can enjoy community support at this juncture and is therefore scrapping it. This devolves the question of what to do about postnominals to local consensus at individual articles. This is gutsy (one might even say [[WP:BOLD|bold]]), not what I would have done, and will probably exacerbate tensions in the short term, but will (one hopes) push editors to agree on ''something'' to get it back in the MOS. Honestly, I like it, but I've not yet decided whether I can endorse it. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]] <sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 23:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' the quashing of the previous RfC - I became aware of the close last night, when I saw a string of edits citing [[MOS:POSTNOM]] in the edit summaries and so I went to read the RFC to see what happened. My view is that the close overstepped the mark when [[WP:DETCON]] to determine that no consensus in that discussion overturned consensus in a previous discussion. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 23:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' - A finding of no consensus in a new RfC means the ''status quo ante bellum'' is maintained. It does ''not'' mean that a previous RfC's consensus is overturned or invalidated; to do that you'd need a ''new'' consensus, which a finding of no consensus is, explictly in its very definition, not. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
* A bartender argument is theoretically fine: if there's explicitly a consensus against the existence of [[WP:POSTNOM]], even if no agreement on what should replace it, then it's within closer's discretion to say that section of the guideline is vacated as not having community support. IMO that'd be the correct close. I don't know whether that applies to the discussion.{{pb}}Respectfully, IMO SM's closes are long but the bulk of them is a summary of what the RfC question was, what policies are relevant to consensus-decision-making on Wikipedia, etc. It makes closes accessible to non-Wikipedians, but there tends to be little detail on how the consensus determination was actually made (which is typically only about two sentences of the multi-paragraph close). So it's hard for me to assess, just reading the close, how SM came to the determination he did. I presume by default that he saw all arguments as equally valid, and that option 1+3+4+5 editors collectively had a consensus. If that's the case, then I'd stay this close is correct and should stand. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 01:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
* I hate most close challenges; they have a way of becoming RFC 2.0 with a side of ganging up on the closer. I can recall many vexatious challenges of S Marshall's closes. That is not okay. I am really sad that I find myself on this side of the close review. But in this one instance, '''overturn''' the quashing of the previous RfC, keeping the rest of the close intact, per The Bushranger. <span style="display:inline-block;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contribs/HouseBlaster|'''Blaster''']] ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] • he/they)</span> 01:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. The no-consensus close of the most recent RFC seems reasonable enough. That doesn't mean the result of the prior RFC gets quashed; instead the guideline should stay as it was before to the most recent RFC. ~~ [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 14:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' The question of whether or not to retain the the existing wording was clearly implicitly on the table. RFC's with more than two choices are problematic unless you also understand and recognize the common themes of the various options and the input on them. IMO the closer did this and the result was to not keep the current wording. This is also observed by the bartender essay but the essay itself was not the basis, it merely observes & discusses the logical principle. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 19:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*Reluctantly '''overturn'''. I do agree with S Marshall on a ''theoretical level'' regarding the contentious 'no consensus overwrites previous weak consensus' (to paraphrase), but this isn't how STATUSQUO works (somewhat unfortunately). Ie I agree that previous weak consensus transforming into no consensus should result in no consensus (as SM described); but this isn't how our policies work, and that would be another discussion to amend STATUSQUO, rather than this close setting a precedent to do so. Had SM elaborated on the consensus to no longer maintain the status quo, per BARTENDER and as ProcrastinatingReader describes, then I would instead likely endorse. But this did not occur, not in the close nor on the talk page (as far as I understood). Therefore I am unable to endorse for that reason alone, but it's a very close call. I otherwise entirely reject accusations of a super vote or otherwise, this close was clearly in good faith with good rationale, but has slightly strayed from policy being the only issue I see. Overall I find SM's closes well structured and complete, have learnt a lot from them, and has inspired me make closes myself. So to !vote overturn here is very much based on putting my positive biases towards the closer aside, similar to others it appears, and I hope this won't discourage them from further closes. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 11:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. No policy-based rationale for unilaterally voiding the previous RfC. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 14:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' If there's no consensus for any of the options, but there is a consensus for "current wording shouldn't stand", you have to make that call. (See also [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Rename through protection]].) --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 20:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' [[WP:BARTENDER]] closes are for when there is a strong majority in favour of making a change, but no consensus on precisely what that change should be. They are not for cases such as this, where there seems to be a large number with a stronger argument based on [[WP:PAG]]s arguing for no change, and an overall numerical majority arguing for some change. This didn't come through in the close, because it doesn't appear that the closer analysed the strength of arguments at all. I applaud that the closer had the guts to attempt such a BARTENDER close, but in my judgement, in this situation, a no consensus decision must retain the ''status quo ante bellum''. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 18:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Overturn''' narrowly the section voiding the previous RfC. Status quo means status quo, not a repeal of a prior existing RfC. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 15:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. If we were talking about an article, then the overturns would be correct; the result of a no-consensus outcome in an article is to retain the previous wording. But I believe PAG pages are different. A PAG page isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's a summary of the community's consensus on a topic. When there is no consensus, a PAG should say nothing. Therefore, I've always been of the opinion that a lack of consensus in an RFC on a PAG page should result in removal, unlike on an article - the MOS requires ''active'' consensus. The alternative would cause chaos. What happens when someone attempts to implement this recommendation on a talk page where it has not previously been implemented, and another editor objects? The discussion will likely reach no consensus (since there is, in fact, no consensus supporting that entry in the MOS), and their attempt to implement it will fail, leading to inconsistency, frustration, and conflict between people who believe they have a consensus to continue implementing this in articles and people who oppose them and can clearly demonstrate over and over that they ''don't.'' For articles, our primary concern after a no-consensus RFC is stability, leading to [[WP:QUO]]; but PAGs are different - for the encyclopedia to run smoothly, they need to reflect actual consensus and practice. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 13:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Makes sense. This reminds me of [[WP:NOCON]] for BLPs which goes against QUO. Ideally this should formally include PAG pages based on the same logic that if it is controversial, it shouldn't be included without consensus. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 13:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Sure, this is a valid interpretation of how Wikipedia PAGs should work. But this would imply removing [[MOS:POSTNOM]] entirely from the MOS, or perhaps stating that there is no consensus on whether they should be included and it should be decided on an article by article basis. The close effectively introduces a guideline which, as you say, does not have firm consensus. <span style="display:inline-block;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contribs/HouseBlaster|'''Blaster''']] ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] • he/they)</span> 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*::That's the exact opposite of what it does. It ''deletes'' a guideline that does not have firm consensus, and replaces it with no guideline.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 21:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Option 1—that they may be included—has no consensus. The forced-compromise guideline says they can be included if they are used by the subject, which was found to have no consensus in two RfCs. Being silent would entail removing that from the guideline (which would be silly IMO, but being silly is not a reason to supervote). <span style="display:inline-block;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contribs/HouseBlaster|'''Blaster''']] ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] • he/they)</span> 23:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' The way this RfC was framed invited the review of the prior RfC by asking whether the language should be overturned, maintained or revised. As there was no consensus there was also no consensus to maintain the text in its initial form. I will note that, had I participated in the RfC, I likely would have !voted to maintain the text as-is since I do think postnominals in the lead sentence do introduce clutter and may have problems with creating arguments from authority on controversial BLPs however I didn't participate and all I can really say is, based on a review of the close, the arguments made in the RfC and the original framing of the RfC, this was a good close, even if I personally disagree with the implications of it. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. The RFC was well attended and although the status quo was presented as an option, it failed to get majority support with 55% of participants supporting options that would weaken the current no-exceptions bar to postnominals in the lead sentence. The overwhelming majority of those supported either a total or near-total repudiation or taking it case by case. Both sides made well-reasoned points, but if we did have to weigh arguments, I think the position that there are ''never'' any situations that postnominals can be helpful for readers is a weaker position than one that accepts that some such scenarios exist. In any case, there is still guidance warning against adding lesser postnominals and that concision is a guiding principle. I think the close elides the difference a bit between there being a consensus against the status quo and there being no consensus for a specific replacement. It's within acceptable [[WP:BARTENDER]] close territory and it's reasonable to choose an option that did have once have consensus (i.e. the pre-2023 version) instead of unilaterally imposing one that never did. However, the best course of action would be discussions and then a new RFC on what uses have consensus as the close suggested. -- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 21:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn quashing of the 2023 RfC''' (so in effect, leave the no consensus close intact but with no change to the prior status quo). My thoughts are largely aligned with the comments made by the nominator of this review, {{u|The ed17}}. The substance of the rfc close was reasonable, in particular the finding of no consensus – given the even split of opinions and an absence of concrete policy/guideline arguments that might cause one or other view to be given more weight. But the conclusion from that no-consensus decision that the 2023 RfC should be overturned is IMHO really a case of adding up 2+2 and concluding the answer is 5. To be absolutely clear, the 2023 RfC was the established view of the community before this RfC and, despite some grumbling, there was never a challenge to it and it has now stood for over two years as established guideline. That's the baseline under which the 2025 RfC operated, and revising the 2023 close by the back door was not and should never have been part of the new RfC's remit. Given the absence of consensus, the only option under longstanding Wiki convention is to maintain the prior status quo, which in this case is to keep postnoms outside of lead sentences. So overall, I think there's a concrete case for overturning. Addressing a few of the issues raised elsewhere in this thread, while I have no doubt that the closer here has acted in good faith, and is an experienced and prolific closer of RfCs, I have to say I find some of their conclusions a little strange. Firstly, they appear to have been unduly swayed by comments in the RfC saying the previous consensus was "overreach" or "poorly thought out". No doubt that's how those participants feel, but that shouldn't give them extra weight in their !votes, and it sends a worrying message that you can get your way in future simply by moaning extra hard about the status quo. And secondly, S Marshall had several times said that the prior RfC was closed incorrectly, calling it "marginal" and declaring without evidence that it "wouldn't have survived close review". That is not only rather insulting to the 2023 closer, but also out of process. If you want a close to be reviewed then review it, don't end-around it by [[WP:SUPERVOTE]]ing a close on a subsequent RfC. As before, this is a comment about the close, not the closer, so I hope it won't be taken as an ad hominem. Anyway, that's probably about all I need to say on this. Anecdotally, as a British person who watches football and cricket and goes to the pub – sometimes even after work – I can honestly say I don't feel strongly about whether letters are included or not included after someone's name, and I concur with the view expressed below that the average British person, even those educated enough to read or edit Wikipedia, would not be too fussed about the issue of letters after someone's name one way or the other. The "transatlantic dispute" angle seems overblown. Cheers — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 13:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*:My position is that this is erroneous. My position is that you absolutely ''can'' have a RfC to review a RfC. Whether you ''should'' depends on how long it's been. If it's been two weeks, then re-running the RfC is likely to be disruptive and you ought to go to close review. But if it's been two years, then holding a close review isn't useful and you ought to run a fresh RfC.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 14:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
===Participants (POSTNOM)===
*I was a bit perturbed by the closure implying this was an ENGVAR issue, of Americans not understanding the concept and Commonwealth editors wanting to preserve their national culture. The best arguments expressed in the RfC were not in that style at all: see for instance Celia Homeford's [[Special:GoToComment/c-Celia_Homeford-20250516081400-Survey_(POSTNOM)|comment]] comparing the styles of many encyclopedic biographies written in multiple English dialects, or the many arguments based on [[Special:GoToComment/c-Mitch_Ames-20250517065100-Survey_(POSTNOM)|due weight]], [[Special:GoToComment/c-Celia_Homeford-20250516081400-Survey_(POSTNOM)|original research]], and [[Special:GoToComment/c-Some1-20250514004100-Survey_(POSTNOM)|clutter]] concerns. I actually see very few ENGVAR-related comments at all. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard">[[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]] ([[User talk:Dan Leonard|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dan Leonard|contribs]])</span> 22:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' If something lacks community support and there is no consensus, then it should not be in the MOS. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 00:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
* While a detailed close is appreciated, and any closure would attract scrutiny as it's certainly true that there's dissension in every direction, and some informality & humor is good even in closing statements... I will echo what Dan Leonard said. Disclaimer: I was and am in favor of the 2023 version ("Option 2" in the phrasing). But I don't think the "There's a tension between some (predominantly American) editors, who seem astonished that anyone could possibly make sense of a long string of alphabet soup after someone's name." line in the close comes across well. Nobody is surprised that ''some'' people can make sense of such alphabet soup. The question is whether this is a good idea to stick in the lead, the most generally accessible part of an article, and the most laser-focused on relevancy. Per Dan Leonard, there was strong evidence provided that the 2023 version was a good idea judging by usage strictly in Commonwealth countries. Not an AmEng issue, in other words. (Maybe the closure should stand for other reasons, but not this one, IMO.) [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 00:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I am not involved in this RfC in question but in another one that User:S Marshall closed and I am not in one hundred percent agreement with his closing statement. [[User:Logoshimpo|Logoshimpo]] ([[User talk:Logoshimpo|talk]]) 01:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' the quashing of the previous RfC. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I agree with everything HB has said. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:No consensus means no consensus. You can't find there's no consensus to change the status quo and then revert back to something before the status quo. The close is internally inconsistent. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 21:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*{{Ping|ProcrastinatingReader}} I might gently point out that options 3 and 4 proposed more restrictive wordings than this close enacted. Even if we ignore that, the closer said nothing about 1+3+4+5 making up a consensus; they instead found "no consensus about what to do" (their words). [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 02:25 and 6:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. The close contradicts itself by saying there's no consensus and then imposing Option 1. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 05:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' The 2025 RfC clearly showed that the community was divided and did not support any one option including maintaining the previous guideline from the 2023 RfC. In that context, I think it was reasonable for the closer to conclude that the earlier consensus no longer stood and overturning the closure decision effectively reinstates a version that no longer enjoys broad support. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 06:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*:The current close effectively reinstates a version which no longer has broad support. Therefore, by Wikipedia convention, we go to the status quo, which in this case was no post nominal in the first sentence. Best, <span style="display:inline-block;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contribs/HouseBlaster|'''Blaster''']] ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] • he/they)</span> 01:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Given that the 2023 RfC was contentious from the outset and its outcome was repeatedly challenged, I’d argue the appropriate status quo is the version prior to that RfC. The 2025 RfC showed no clear consensus for any new direction, and while it didn’t explicitly reaffirm the earlier version, it also didn’t endorse the 2023 guideline as a lasting consensus. In such cases, Wikipedia convention leans towards the last stable version with broad acceptance, which would be the pre-2023 wording. Therefore, I believe reinstating that version aligns more closely with both policy and precedent. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 01:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::"{{green|Repeatedly challenged}}" is a stretch. Certainly there was expressed unhappiness from some folks who fell on the opposite side of the well-attended 2023 consensus—that happens when people's opinions are strong, divided, and numerous. And yet no one ever filed a formal AN appeal (even when invited to), and no one kicked off a new RfC for two full years. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 02:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::But it was hardly a resounding consensus in the first place, was it. That was a marginal call that wouldn't have survived close review, and in closing this new discussion, I took note of the experienced editors who called it "overreach" or who said it was causing problems. The community doesn't love the status quo and it isn't working for us. In those circumstances restoring the status quo isn't the best idea.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::S Marshall: It's not up to you to decide that it {{tq|wouldn't have survived close review}}. When closing a discussion, your job is not to place yourself above the participants but rather to summarize the consensus that ''they'' formed –– and if you think a prior close was done poorly, to follow the guidelines for overturning it. If you felt strongly that {{tq|the status quo ... isn't working for us}} and that {{tq|restoring the status quo isn't the best idea}}, what you should have done was !vote in the discussion and let someone else, someone capable of ''summarizing'' rather than ''deciding'', perform the close. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 14:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Of course it's up to me. That follows inevitably and necessarily from the process.{{pb}}When you close a discussion, you're assessing the community consensus. That means reading the whole matter under discussion including any previous RfCs referred to. And particularly so when the purpose of a discussion is to confirm or refute a previous consensus. When closing, you have to weigh how strong that previous consensus is.{{pb}}Whether that previous discussion was accurately closed or not, it was a pretty marginal call. That's a material fact that a responsible closer of ''this'' discussion would absolutely take account of.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 15:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Your remit as the closer of a 2025 RfC is to determine that RfC's consensus. In the absence of a consensus, there is no leeway given for unilaterally overturning a consensus found in a 2023 RfC. Challenging a RfC closure [[WP:CLOSECHALLENGE|is done at AN]] so multiple people can weigh in. You, or literally anyone else, could have filed such a challenge in a couple minutes (just like I've done here with your close), but no one ever has despite the repeated claims of a weak consensus. In a situation like this, our standard practice is to stick with the status quo until a new path forward is agreed upon, and that status quo is the 2023 RfC. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 16:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::No, it isn't! That's completely wrong and in fact if it was true, it would undermine your whole complaint here.{{pb}}When you're closing you're not confined to that one discussion at all, and in fact you need to have a clear grounding in community consensus more broadly. You have to identify all the relevant policies and guidelines, and apply them correctly. You have to understand community custom and practice. Your complaint specifically, Ed, is that you think I ''didn't'' follow custom and practice. So, yes, I absolutely do read and reflect on community consensus, and that absolutely does include the previous discussions that are specifically flagged up to the closer.{{pb}}I didn't file and wouldn't have filed a close challenge, because I'm disinterested and uninterested in any of this. I don't write or watchlist articles about the kind of person who has nonacademic letters after their name. But I'll look you in the eye and tell you that previous close was a marginal call.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Unfortunately, you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Let me try to be more specific: you found that there was no consensus for options 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, as well as no consensus on any path forward. You then personally decided that the path forward will be option 1, overruling a previous consensus/status quo in the process, because you personally view the never-challenged determination of that consensus as "marginal". That's the problem. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 18:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::While it’s true no formal AN appeal was filed, there were repeated challenges to the 2023 outcome, both on talk pages and via continued objections from experienced editors on MOS over the two-year period. The absence of a formal process doesn’t erase the consistent pushback that clearly signalled ongoing dissatisfaction. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. Unsurprisingly, I see no issues with the close and S Marshall's comprehensive and well-throught-out explanation of it and I entirely agree with Nford24's comment above. I also need to reiterate my big worry, which is that editors have been citing [[MOS:POSTNOM]] (as it stood since the previous RfC) to remove postnoms from the lead when there is no infobox. They are therefore deleting information in the name of dogma, which we should never, ever do. I do realise that many Americans don't understand the value we Commonwealth people put on postnoms, but to us it is extremely useful to see an individual's correct style. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 15:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|I do realise that many Americans don't understand the value we Commonwealth people put on postnoms, but to us it is extremely useful to see an individual's correct style.}} I highly doubt the average British person who goes to the pub after work to watch some cricket or football cares about the proper style for The Right Honourable Sir John Doe DM FFS BS, or could tell you what their post-nominals mean. I also don't think anyone is seeking to {{tq|delet[e] information in the name of dogma}}. I just think we should remove long strings of inscrutable letters that only a very small group of people (with an oddly large number of them on Wikipedia) actually care about. That's a matter of style, readability, and how we convey information, not dogma. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::To be honest, I think this belies a major flaw in the RFC to begin with: it didn't emphasize the [[use–mention distinction]] aspect of this. While it might be useful ''sometimes'' to be able to find how someone styles themselves and/or read about the notable honors they received, ''using'' that style in wikivoice in the lead is altogether different. The RFC question really didn't go into this at all and just emphasized "'''LEAD SENTENCE'''" and infoboxes. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard">[[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]] ([[User talk:Dan Leonard|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dan Leonard|contribs]])</span> 02:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::We have post nominals in articles on Catholic members of religious orders and that's normal for those biographies. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 05:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::To side fork your questioning that you don't think {{green|anyone is seeking to delet[e] information in the name of dogma}}- That concern has been raised and discussed elsewhere: By the very user you were replying to (and another experienced editor) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2024_archive#Formatting_post-nominals_examples here] and by two users, including the originator of the 2023 RfC [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2025_archive#MOS:POSTNOM here (search for the bit referencing "gnomes")]. ~~ [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 20:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I highly doubt the average British person who goes to the pub after work to watch some cricket or football gives a monkeys about ''anything'' we do on Wikipedia! Not really much of an argument. And certainly not an argument to remove information. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 15:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::I was repsonding to your assertion that Commonwealthers writ large care about these things. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 15:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' the closure: there was no consensus for change across the two RfCs, so a return to the previous position is justified. [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 17:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. HouseBlaster and The Bushranger are correct. [[User:Adumbrativus|Adumbrativus]] ([[User talk:Adumbrativus|talk]]) 03:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*Perhaps calling it a "Bartender close" was inappropriate (first I had ever heard of that), but I otherwise support the close. There was no consensus, just like in the 2023 predecessor (where I maintain that consensus was inappropriately determined). Wiki Editors have been debating the underlying issue periodically since at least 2008 (the earliest reference I found). The closest to a "Stable Status-Quo" was the pre 2023 version. The controversial 2 year version shouldn't somehow become fait-accompli just because ''I personally'' was offline and didn't have time (then or now) to figure out the intricacies of Wikipedia procedures. [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 11:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' — (hesitantly) — allow me to preface by stating that I was the RfC initiator, and I also supported some version of permitting post-nominals in the lead. I believe I supported a total reversal, though in-hindsight, I think a restrictive policy (only permitting 1-3 post-nominal combinations, and consensus should be achieved on a per-article basis if there is any issue... I would also endorse only permitting it on articles of subjects' whose nationality places a strong emphasis on such letters; For the record, I am an American). '''''Regardless''''', I feel that [[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]] was placed in a precarious and difficult position. I think it's obvious from the RfC(s) that the community is not currently happy with the total exclusion (from the lead) policy and I would hardly call support for such a policy broad. That said, <u>I understand opposers' concerns</u> with this closure. However, I would also take-issue with the reading of the prior RfC (though not necessarily with its ''closure''). This was a relatively long RfC and I believe S Marshall did a fantastic and deep analysis of all of the concerns, and thoroughly explained their position. Given the relatively unique nature of this situation, it's relatively wide-reaching consequences (either way), and the amount of participation, I feel that the closure should be endorsed, and further refinements to the policy should take place via RfC.'''[[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]]''' ([[User talk:MWFwiki|talk]]) 20:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' this is overreach, pure and simple. Discounting the cultural divide and imposing a blanket ban based on that was always a poor decision. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:If I'm reading your comment correctly, I think you may want to "endorse" the closure, then. The closer did indeed reverse the "ban." I apologize if I misread your comment. '''[[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]]''' ([[User talk:MWFwiki|talk]]) 21:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I agree with that assessment of endorse vs. overturn, and I've let Peacemaker know on their talk page. I also moved this to the participants section per their comments in the RfC in question. If anyone has an issue with this (as I obviously started this AN discussion in the first place!), please feel free to revert me. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 04:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. Good close. There is a cultural disconnect on this point which affects many people's thoughts on this matter and we should be wary of simple vote counting by way of a decision-making process. Given the split nature of the community and the lack of consensus on the matter over two RfCs, basing a decision on the initial [[WP:STATUS QUO|status quo]] seems to be the right call. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 06:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' the quashing of the previous RfC. This 2025 RfC wasn't about the 2023 one; if the consensus of that 2023 RfC was "inappropriately determined", then whoever disagreed with it should've started a closure review, well, two years ago. Also [[WP:BARTENDER]] (first time I've heard of this essay) is just that, an essay that has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 14:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:BARTENDER is a long-standing essay that is cited with some regularity in deletion discussions. I've never seen it cited in an RfC to support the overturning of an old RfC. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 15:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:How can you argue that {{green|This 2025 RfC wasn't about the 2023 one}}? Option 1 overturned the 2023 RfC ({{green|...Reversal of the Exclusion}}), Option 2 maintained it, Option 4 effectively overturned it but with the added emphasizing of the limits which were already in the pre-2023 version, Option 5 effectively would of overturned it as well but via deleting all mention whatsoever from the MOS (Option 3 was the only new, unconnected option).
*:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography&diff=prev&oldid=1290325960 Your own post] in the set-up/background of this RfC asked to ping all the editors involved in the previous one, and in one of the intervening discussions, in response to an editor disagreeing with the 2023 RfC [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style%2FBiography&diff=1276637417&oldid=1276610662 you yourself suggested a new RfC about it].
*:(I'm ignoring what appears to be a borderline attack on myself because I had RL issues at the time and wasn't online and wasn't able to follow up, and then didn't because I was advised that too much time had passed) [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 15:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' the quashing of the 2023 RfC. The close statement was well-articulated, but the result contradicts it. SM is correct in concluding that there was no consensus on what to do, but that means a return to the status quo that the RfC sought to change. I participated, obviously, so I see the arguments on one side as stronger, but even setting aside any weighting the numbers do not shake out in a manner that allows calling consensus for option 1, which is what SM did, even if they didn't state it that way. In fact a clear majority opposed option 1. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Noting that this is not about the [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] versus the US, or some such notion. At most this is a cultural artefact of the far smaller [[Commonwealth realm]], though far from universal even therein, versus common practice ''everywhere else''. Defending postnominals on organizational and informational grounds is perfectly reasonable, even if I disagree, but claiming this is US cultural imperialism is wide of the mark. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 20:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' The RfC question was whether to "overturn, maintain, or modify" the POSTNOM language. Concluding "no consensus" but then choosing one of the options to change the language seems contradictory. – [[User:Notwally|notwally]] ([[User talk:Notwally|talk]]) 22:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC.''' The closing summary seems at first like an expression of no consensus, but looks like it was attempting to re-evaluate the previous discussion as well as consider the current one. The closer seems to have decided to throw out the previous closure without showing that there is a current consensus to do so. I have somewhat vacillated over whether this was a not-so-well-expressed correct closure that found a consensus to overturn the previous consensus declaration or an incorrect closure of a 'no consensus' outcome in the new discussion that reached beyond its mandate, but I've settled on the latter interpretation. (I wasn't sure whether to classify myself as "involved" or not; I made a couple of brief clarifying and questioning comments in the discussion, but didn't express a clear position on the matter. Ultimately, I think I should consider myself involved.) — [[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 20:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn the quashing of the 2023 RfC.''' Option 1 in the RfC was to "overturn the [2023] guideline", which is how the RfC has been closed despite everyone (including the closer) agreeing that there was no consensus in the 2025 RfC. Option 1 has been imposed through sophistry and what looks like a supervote. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 08:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
===Discussion (POSTNOM)===
* I'm unsure about where I'd fit regarding participation so I'm putting my views on the matter in this section until told where they'd be best placed. Just thought I'd drop by and (since I'm semi-retired) let it be known I'm open to clarify any aspect of my 2023 closure if and where pinged — with the note that it's been two years so my memory might be vague. — ♠ [[User:Ixtal|Ixtal]] <sup>( [[User talk:Ixtal|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ixtal|C]] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> [[Non nobis solum]] </small> ♠ 16:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I heavily disagree that my closure was in any way "marginal". If I had thought that at the time, I would have included wording to signify the close nature of the arguments. My view of the discussion at the time, from what I gather based on both my closure wording and [[User_talk:Ixtal/Archives/2023/May#Your_recent_discussion_closure_at_MoS/Bio|consequent discussions on my talk page]], is that those supporting the use of post-noms in the lead sentence ''failed'' to provide strong counter-arguments to the points raised by those advocating for their removal. I did mention that the 2023 proposal {{tq|divided the community}}, but as I clarified on my talk page that was (to my eyes) just a numeric division, not one of guideline-based strength of argument. If the latter was the case, I would have said there was ''weak'' consensus and not just consensus. — ♠ [[User:Ixtal|Ixtal]] <sup>( [[User talk:Ixtal|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ixtal|C]] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> [[Non nobis solum]] </small> ♠ 16:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I would appreciate some further clarification on why finding no consensus results in de facto finding consensus for option 1 rather than keeping the status quo, {{u|S Marshall}}. I think that's where me and some others are a bit confused regarding your closure, particularly since [[WP:BARTENDER]] refers to situations where there is {{tq|a clear consensus to make a change from the status quo}} but you do not mention finding "clear consensus against option 2". — ♠ [[User:Ixtal|Ixtal]] <sup>( [[User talk:Ixtal|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ixtal|C]] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> [[Non nobis solum]] </small> ♠ 17:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::: As the ''creator'' of [[WP:BARTENDER]], I see nothing wrong with its application here. There are very clearly substantially more participants in the discussion favoring options other than option 2 than there are favoring option 2. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 22:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*Because of the sheer quantity of criticism.
#[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]: ''The exclusion was basically well-meaning but very poorly thought-out and has led to problems and strife...''
#[[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]]: ''Total expungement from the lead [sentence] is not appropriate and is overreach...''
#[[User:Nford24|Nford24]]: ''The previous RFC was a massive over reach...'''
#[[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]]: ''The existing MOS on this is a significant overreach.''
#[[User:Schwede66|Schwede66]]: '' I had missed the previous RfC and was quite aghast when I saw what had been decided...''
#[[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]]: ''I missed the original RfC and was horrified to find out about it too late.''
:I'm an extremely prolific RfC closer, and please take it from me that this kind of comment, in this kind of numbers, is ''not'' normal in RfCs. It's diagnostic of a rule that experienced editors are having a lot of trouble with.
:At that time, Ed was trying to enact a change of rules, and he got it through because you directed yourself that it was for the opposers to provide "strong counterarguments" to the rule he was trying to pass, or else it should pass.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::<s>{{U|S Marshall}}, what is the context of these comments? Are they from the 2025 RFC or elsewhere? Thanks for the quick reply btw, hope you're having a nice summer all things considered ^u^ — ♠ [[User:Ixtal|Ixtal]] <sup>( [[User talk:Ixtal|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ixtal|C]] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> [[Non nobis solum]] </small> ♠ 18:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)</s>
:::If you don't mind me replying to my own comment, I'm confused as to what the issue is with my approach to the proposal. Ed and other supporters of his proposals provided meaningful arguments based on the PAGs that backed his suggested MOS changes, while the PAG-based arguments opposers countered with were not strong enough to balance them. Cultural tradition or whether one nation uses post-nominals prolifically and others do not are ''not'' PAG-based arguments, which is why I discounted the American-British cultural divide-based arguments entirely. I imagine, based on the votes from the editors cited in your comment mentioning the Commonwealth, that this is one of the factors in my closure these editors felt was overreaching. I didn't direct myself to anything other than closing based on how I saw the consensus in the discussion based on the balance of arguments. Is there another alternative approach to the closure I should have taken that is rooted in our closing guidelines that I overlooked? — ♠ [[User:Ixtal|Ixtal]] <sup>( [[User talk:Ixtal|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ixtal|C]] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> [[Non nobis solum]] </small> ♠ 18:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Calling it an overreach is an incorrect reading of the RFC I closed, by the way, if they feel me determining expungement from the lead sentence is an overreach when the RFC explicitly mentions the lead sentence and uses [[ MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE]] as the reasoning for why the proposed change (of indeed, expunging the postnoms from the lead sentence) was necessary. — ♠ [[User:Ixtal|Ixtal]] <sup>( [[User talk:Ixtal|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ixtal|C]] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> [[Non nobis solum]] </small> ♠ 18:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::A small note on the above, {{u|Ixtal}}—I haven't checked the full statements, but as quoted here they are unhappy with the consensus of that 2023 RfC. That's fine; we've all grumbled at one time or another when consensus hasn't gone our way. But these quotes do ''not'' assert that your 2023 close was a "marginal" or an incorrect reading of that RfC, as S Marshall is alleging. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 18:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, I was hardly trying to imply the closure was improper. I suppose I could see how one might ''read'' that, but instead of simply asserting that is what I meant, perhaps one could ask for clarification. '''That''' being said, I do understand why the previous RfC was overturned and would hesitantly support it. '''[[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]]''' ([[User talk:MWFwiki|talk]]) 19:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::What is PAG is an acronym for? [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 19:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{U|Gecko G}}, [[WP:PAG]] is a shortcut to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — ♠ [[User:Ixtal|Ixtal]] <sup>( [[User talk:Ixtal|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ixtal|C]] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> [[Non nobis solum]] </small> ♠ 19:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for explaining the acronym.
::::::I can see the argument in that one specific component (namely ENGVAR arguments) perhaps wasn't "PAG" based, but I disagree that the rest of the oppose arguments & counterarguments from back then weren't (part of what I was trying to get more info from you in-order to understand your viewpoint with my "strength of arguments" mention in point #2 way back in our 2023 discussion on your talk page)- but that's a 2 year old debate, this is not the time nor place for that particular discussion.
::::::Because the community never sorted out "the can of worms" (which me and Ed, opposing sides both agreeing needing to be done, back in 2023 on your talk page) in the intervening years it led to repeatedly being challenged or decried and finally to a new RfC in 2025, which was unfortunately multi-option and confusing (in small part due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Lead_sentence_vs._Lead_more_broadly changes to the MoS between the 2023 RfC & the 2025 one]). It is the closure of the 2025 RfC by S Marshall which is being RfC closure review'd here and now by Ed (What I would of done with your closure in 2023 had I been online at the time). Speaking for myself, and I think many here, I find that both yourself and S Marshall both acted in complete good faith and I commend you both for willingly stepping into such a long and potentially heated discussions, however you both made some errors. I still believe you didn't [[WP:DETCON]] correctly and it seems that S Marshall either directly or indirectly agreed about the DETCON in 2023, but as a technicality perhaps S Marshall shouldn't of labeled it a "Bartender close".
::::::Wikipedia has been arguing the underlying merits of POSTNOMs and when, how, where, and even if, to include them, since at least 2008- but now we really seem to be drifting close into badgering with policy and procedure minutiae and rules lawyering... Cheers. [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 20:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I believe the decision to entirely discount arguments based on the American-British cultural divide is a key reason this issue has remained contentious for over two years. Style and naming conventions are inherently tied to cultural context, and excluding those perspectives may have unintentionally introduced systemic bias into the outcome. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 20:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::The dismissal of the cultural divide on this is exactly why there is still a problem here, and with this close. The burgeoning policing of minutiae and US-centric policy creep is driving experienced editors to distraction. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 21:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Peacemaker67}}, I dismissed the cultural divide in my closure because this is a global encyclopedia and our readership is meant to be all English speakers regardless of culture. The MOS guides us to {{tq| write articles using straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language. Editors should structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting [...]}} (from [[WP:MOS]]). The lead sentence, which should be {{tq|written in [[Plain English]]}} (from [[MOS:FIRST]]) is meant to be understood by this global readership, whether it be a British well-educated reader or a villager from Peru or a young girl from Nairobi. The editors in the discussion failed to show why the supposed cultural importance of post-nominals within the UK was, in this context, encyclopedically essential to {{tq|[telling] [[Wikipedia:GENAUD|the nonspecialist reader]] ''what'' or ''who'' the subject is}} (from [[MOS:FIRST]]). This was pointed out by editors in the discussion who supported the proposal.
::::::For what it's worth, I'm not a USAmerican. — ♠ [[User:Ixtal|Ixtal]] <sup>( [[User talk:Ixtal|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ixtal|C]] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> [[Non nobis solum]] </small> ♠ 22:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Slight aside- I don't believe the "Plain English" mention in [[MOS:FIRST]] was brought up at all back in the 2023 RfC (and I don't find anything using a couple of different search variations). It only got brought up for the first time with this 2025 RfC. So I suspect the recency of reading about it here has colored your memory of back then (very easy to have happened - something similar happened to me trying to recall back to "what was the point of the 2023 RfC? - removing postnomials entirely or only about removing it from the lead/lead sentence"?). [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 02:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The 2023 version of the MOS that was discussed in the RFC did include that language [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section&oldid=1149739009 diff], {{u|Gecko G}}. — ♠ [[User:Ixtal|Ixtal]] <sup>( [[User talk:Ixtal|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ixtal|C]] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> [[Non nobis solum]] </small> ♠ 17:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The MOS did, but that point was never brought into the 2023 discussion, nor did you mention it in your closing summation as any sort of additional/outside "PAG" being applied at the time. When it came up in the 2025 discussion I mentally noted that it was a potentially valid minor counterpoint from the other side (albeit tangential/weak). [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 01:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{ping|Gecko G}} I think(?) you've missed that [[MOS:FIRST]] and [[WP:LEADSENTENCE]] go to the same place. Ixtal used the latter shortcut in their close. And multiple people in the 2023 RfC commented on how post-nominals complexify lead sentences, even if they didn't use the exact phrase "plain English". [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 02:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::A) I didn't realize they were the same, however B) Ixtal linked that in reference to the ENGVAR component, not in reference to any "clarity" component(s) (and as an aside to the aside, a quick ctr-F doesn't find either "complex" nor "plain English" anywhere in there, so neither term was used). But we are not supposed to be rehashing (or "relitigating" as you phrased it) the underlying arguments here, here we are supposed to be discussing if the closure was or wasn't proper. I went to lengths to stay out of the merits in the 2025 discussion (beyond my lone !Vote post) unlike the 2023 one which I was heavily involved in. In the 2025 one I limited myself to attempting to clarify what precisely the previous RfC was about to get us all on the same topic. [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 06:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Sorry, {{u|Gecko G}}, but ctrl+F doesn't find phrases like "an incomprehensible jumble of letters". Nor, evidently, does it find where Ixtal referenced WP:LEADSENTENCE a second time in their close. But you're right that we aren't relitigating the 2023 consensus in this discussion, which is why I was so surprised to see S Marshall unilaterally overturning it without a consensus for that action. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 06:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::A) That phrase, and "Incomprehensibility" '''≠''' complexity (maybe borderline connected to "plain english", but even that's a stretch to then use that tenuous connection to retroactively argue that the editor in question° was arguing in the 2023 RfC about "plain english") so I fail to understand what you are arguing nor why, and B) That second pipped reference by Ixtal was in respect to the clutter component, so still not in reference to "plain english" nor "Complexity".
:::::::::::::°= and to preempt something else, that same editors elsewhere linking to [[WP:LEADSENTENCE|LEADSENTENCE]] was in a separate side component arguing about narrow/specific "PAG" vs. Broad/high-level PAGs, so was also not about "Complexity" nor "Plain English". [[User:Gecko G|Gecko G]] ([[User talk:Gecko G|talk]]) 15:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{u|Gecko G}}, I do appreciate you trying to clarify the 2023 RFC and agree on not relitigating it. I am trying to limit my comments on this thread on replying to points where opinions on the 2025 are given based on the editor's thoughts on the 2023 close if I feel they are misunderstanding or representing the wording in that closure. I think this discussion is harder for the fact that it is challenging not to rehash issues from the 2023 closure that were never formally reviewed even if it needed to have been (to improve the wording, since it staying as status quo for over two years suggests community endorsment of its result) when a core aspect of S Marshall's reasoning in his closure relies on interpreting the 2023 closure as inadequate and as having a [[WP:SNOW|guaranteed]] overturning. — ♠ [[User:Ixtal|Ixtal]] <sup>( [[User talk:Ixtal|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ixtal|C]] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> [[Non nobis solum]] </small> ♠ 13:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
== Standard offer : Michael.C.Wright ==
{{atopg|status=Unblocked|1=By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, the block of {{noping|Michael.C.Wright}} is lifted. By the consensus of the Wikipedia community and the agreed-upon unblock terms on their talk page, Michael.C.Wright is subject to a [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] from Covid-19 in general, and [[Martin Kulldorff]] in particular, broadly construed, appealable after one year. By the agreed-upon unblock terms on their talk page Michael.C.Wright is subject to a voluntary [[WP:1RR]] restriction, appealable after one year. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)}}
{{user|Michael.C.Wright}} was blocked indefinitely for "Edit warring" on [[Martin Kulldorff]] several years ago, and has requested his unblock be looked at in the light of {{u|Bbb23}}'s desysopping. Looking at the evidence as it stands, I agree this is complete overkill and would personally support an unblock. However, as previous unblock requests have been declined, I'd like to get an agreement first. There is also an active SPI ([[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael.C.Wright]]) but no confirmed socks have been identified. Hence, my decision to open the [[WP:OFFER|standard offer]]. Your thoughts, please. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 12:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:Unblocks are cheap; I'm in favour of an unblock. If he starts disruptively editing then we block again, but if he doesn't then we gain a contributor. I'm hopeful it'll be the latter, but either way, I see no reason not to give him a shot. [[User:CoconutOctopus|<span style="color: purple">CoconutOctopus</span>]] [[User talk:CoconutOctopus|<span style="color: DarkOrchid">talk</span>]] 12:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{+1}} Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support unblock''' per current good standing - He did pretty well elsewhere. No fuss, he received positive reception on other projects. So this is a good opportunity to give him another chance, as long he will not participate in another edit war. Welcome back, Michael. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support with topic ban from Martin Kulldorf'''--Unblocks might be cheap, but reblocks aren't always, especially when dealing with tendentious editors on "controversial" talk pages. The amount of sealioning and stonewalling we see on the Martin Kulldorf talk page is truly absurd, and only tends to get relieved when blocks get handed out. But blocking isn't always easy when admins who watch that page have to respond to the sealioning, and thus become INVOLVED. Upgrade whatever "probation" they're talking about to an actual, indefinite topic ban, and that sounds about right. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 12:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::A topic ban from Martin Kulldorf, broadly construed, sounds fine to me. Could even be arb-enforced, via the COVID-19 contentious topic. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 12:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support unblock''' with COVID/1RR conditions agreed upon {{diff|User talk:Michael.C.Wright|prev|1248808844|here}}. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 13:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support with topic ban''' as noted above from Kulldorf. Seems to be where the block-worthy conduct was focused. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 13:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::Just noting I'm also fine with a C-19 topic ban if that's what consensus is for. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 00:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support with topic ban on Martin Kulldorf''' Regain constructive user; avoid problems.[[User:Deepfriedokra|-- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 14:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* It is worth linking a previous ANI thread about reviewing this block, [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#Block_review_request_by_User:Michael.C.Wright]]. I was an involved with the discussions that led to the block in the first place. I'll quote my response to the last thread, which summarizes the issues: {{tq|Michael.C.Wright has been disruptive at the [[Martin Kulldorff]] for a while. In the recent incident the MO was to attack a reliable source on highly dubious grounds, then declare that that means the content is 'unsourced' {{diff2|1117689243}} - it clearly isn't by any reasonable definition of the word 'unsourced'. Then the argument is that since BLP allows for removal of unsourced content, the content must be "be immediately removed without further discussion." (their words). We went around with this same tactic once before, in September - that led to the previous block for edit warring. I think it is also worth mentioning the talk page section [[Talk:Martin Kulldorff/Archive 3#What's a "disease control measure"?]], which details an effort by Michael to keep a sentence out of the article as some sort of bargaining chip to get another sentence they wanted added in - a clear violation of [[WP:POINT]]. I think Michael's edits on coffee related articles have been good and helpful overall, but they have been wasting a lot of editor time at the Kulldorff article. I suggest that the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions should be employed, and they receive a '''topic ban from COVID-19''' in place of the current indefinite block.}} - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 14:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support with TBAN'''. I'm not particular about whether it's Kulldorff or COVID. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
: I don't think Bbb23's desysopping (which I've never been convinced was justified anyway) is relevant at all here, especially since the block was endorsed by the community in the 2022 discussion MrOllie linked above. But happy to support, with or without a TBAN, as a [[WP:SO|standard offer]] unblock (and would have been happy to support that even before Bbb23 was desysoppd). [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 15:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support with topic ban on Martin Kulldorf'''; we will see what happens. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 16:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - the latest unblock appeal is couched entirely in a false presumption that Bbb23's desysopping makes an action they performed two and a half years prior invalid; it does not. Their appeal fails [[WP:NOTTHEM]], fails to acknowledge that their own edit warring is the reason for their block, and does not convince me that they will avoid edit warring in the future; see also what {{ul|MrOllie}} wrote above. Were they to write a new appeal that addresses their disruptive behaviour, rather than just blaming the blocking admin, I very likely would support it. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 17:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*Bbb23's desysopping was absolutely necessary given his behaviour, and it certainly does justify re-looking at his blocks on appeal. I'd '''support''' reducing this block to a topic ban from Martin Kulldorf.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Tban from all COVID-19 related articles, explicitly including [[Martin Kulldorff]]'''. Hopefully that will solve the problem. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 00:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support with TBAN from COVID and a [[WP:1RR]] restriction''' per the editors aggreance at [[Special:Diff/1248808844]] and per [[WP:ROPE]]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 04:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== I would like to appeal my (User:Jax_0677) topic ban in its entirety ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 22:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1758407477}}
I would like to appeal my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1238633039#Arbitrary_section_break:_What_should_be_done_with_Jax? topic ban] in its entirety. There are articles from October 2024 that I would like to recommend for {{tl|history merge}}. I have been unable to do so due to this topic ban. [[WP:HM]] states that following a cut and paste move, "the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages" and "this is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons". I know I made mistakes in the past, but I have had few to no incidents for over one year. Thank you! --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 23:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368#I would like to request a revision to my (User:Jax 0677) topic ban|Previous appeal in February]]. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 23:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*Define "few to none" with diffs, please. Seeing these examples might help determine how the IDHT and CIR concerns that were raised when you were topic banned in the first place. It's fine to appeal after a year, but I think most are going to want to see more information about how you've handle disagreements over the past year. And yes, you should have included the previous appeal in your request from 6 months ago for full disclosure. I'm not inclined to support at this time, btw. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 23:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I have asked for guidance [[User talk:Jax 0677#Notification of topic ban|here]] about what I should and should not post. I have participated in an appropriate manner at [[Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_10#MacKenzie_Carpenter|this Redirect for discussion]]. I apologize for not including my February 2025 appeal. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 23:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*This is not a convincing appeal so far, but copyright is IMO serious enough that I wouldn't mind carving out an exception for histmerge templates. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]] <sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 01:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:More or less where I stand too. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 02:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I imposed the topic ban but am fully neutral on this request as I haven't been able to assist Jax on their Talk due to limited on wiki time. The question I ask though is the same one I did last time - Jax should make a case why they need to be the one applying these tags vs. either letting someone else do it, or complete the action rather than just tagging. I am not opposed to the carveout C727 suggests avove. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 02:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I am guessing that people might not know about some articles that need to be history merged unless I notify someone about the specific pages, as noted below. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 15:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*I think there's a reasonably clear difference between using templates like {{tl|history merge}}, {{tl|edit template-protected}}, or {{tl|db-move}} that require permissions that Jax 0677 doesn't have, and the templates people were complaining about in the original discussion; so like Star Mississippi, I'm not opposed to a carveout for them. But I'm very wary of rescinding the ban completely - people had, for example, been complaining about the part that personally irritates me the most - the opaque, idiosyncratic template redirects - for more than a decade (see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 27#Template:Wpcy]] and the following seven nominations; also several more nonconsecutive ones on that same daily subpage) without a hint of behavioral change right up until the ban was imposed. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 03:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I would be agreeable to a "carveout" for templates that require permissions that I do not have. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 21:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Additionally, there are multiple albums by [[Seventh Day Slumber]] that are unnecessarily disambiguated, which I cannot fix due to this topic ban. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 22:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::: Making requests at [[WP:RMTR]] would not be a violation of the topic ban as I read it. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 23:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::I simply wish I had better definition of which templates I am and am not allowed to use. On my talk page, StarMississsippi said "I'd stay away from the latter two as you're telling others to do a certain thing". --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 23:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I see opening a discussion different to dropping a tag on an article even if tagging it is part of opening an RM. Like @[[User:Pppery|Pppery]], I don't think this would be a violation. It's certainly not one I'd block you for. Re: which templates you're able to use and not, what you still haven't answered unless I missed it is why ''you'' need to patrol this. Opening a discussion for a Requested Move is probably fine. But is there a reason you can't move the articles? Or leave the articles for someone else? That's still the open question [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 00:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*Which articles, specifically, would you like to tag? Can you list three or four please.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:* [[User:Jax 0677/Histmerge]]. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 13:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:*: Thoughts on that list as a regular histmerging admin:
*:*:: [[Rajput (surname)]] and [[Rajput (disambiguation)]] have [[WP:Parallel histories]] that make history merging not practical in my opinion
*:*:: [[Sravanthi (given name)]]/[[Sravanthi]] is technically histmergable but seems like a rather low-priority history merge since the content being merged isn't copyrightable in the first place (nobody's attribution is lost) and it would require a delete/undelete and the attendant mess that entails to do right. I most likely couldn't be bothered to do this, but if another admin wants to do this I wouldn't complain.
*:*: This doesn't mean that I oppose this proposal; histmerging is notoriously arcane with few of its conventions documented and they often differ from admin to admin, so I can't really expect Jax 0677 to know them all. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 18:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:*::I just saw it listed here so I think I should point out that the Rajput articles have been the target of extensive ideological sockpuppetry and likely have hijackings in their history. That page may be a case where a histmerge would be more harmful than helpful. I haven't actually reviewed just now to get up to speed but please proceed with caution. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 18:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:*:::Would you say these are candidates for the "list of contributors" approach? So we can get into strict compliance with the terms of use without doing heavy duty reconstruction of unhelpful edits in the page history, I mean.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:*::::It seems these aren't the target articles I'm thinking of. Probably I'm thinking of other articles that the socks have tried to hijack to insert their Rajput POV forks into those pages; hard to find but not relevant here anyway. For the (surname) and (disambiguation) pages that have parallel histories, I don't think anything should be done really. It's basically the same small group of contributors, and very little of the content (maybe none) is sufficiently creative to warrant copyright treatment anyway. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 11:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' any narrowing or overturning of the topic ban; the proposed examples of histmerge tagging fail to make their case so I'm not convinced them histmerge tagging would be useful. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 02:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but I really think it's a case of the topic ban ''working'', not something that is no longer necessary. I'd rather let some of these relatively trivial things go addressed than Jax bog down the community with endless discussions from their confusing or poorly thought out template usage. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 23:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
== Ban appeal (TonyTheTiger) ==
{{archive top|There is consensus against overturning or loosening the ban. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 22:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)}}
I was banned from having multiple GAC nominations a while back. I have recently created three articles ''[[Boating Party]]'', ''[[America Windows]]'' and ''[[City Landscape]]'' that are within striking range of [[WP:GA]]. My last GAC nomination ([[Adrien Nunez]]) took 8 months to get reviewed. I don't really want to wait 24 months for these three articles to get reviewed. The ban has been on for about a year and a half.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 16:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*Note: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1153#h-TonyTheTiger_is_gaming_the_WikiCup_through_GAN_spam-20240323223600 ban discussion]. I posted this after SandyGeorgia posted below. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 18:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:You haven't in any way addressed how your approach may have changed; one immediate example of how you might indicate having changed is to include a link to the discussion of your ban, rather than expecting others to do the work for you. Or you might include some helpful information about ways your editing may have improved in the "about a year and a half" (with no link). Most likely, there is a reason it takes so long for your nominations to get reviewed. I'm unlikely to support this appeal without some very good indications of how your editing approach has changed, and moved away from reward collecting. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Tony, can you list some other GAs you've nominated since the restriction was imposed? Adrien Nunez looks good to me but I'm not a GAN reviewer, and it doesn't appear to me that there's any reason that it took so long to be reviewed beyond the chronic GAN backlog. I also agree with SandyGeorgia that some effort from you here to explain why your ban was imposed and how your approach to GA and the WikiCup has or will change if you are unblocked would serve you better in reviewing the appeal, because what you've already written here just sounds like you're being impatient. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 18:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::Ivanvector, thanks for the link. I read only the lead at Nunez, and if that is the GA prose standard, I'm surprised. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*The prior complaint was that my nominations was that I blasted GAC with subpar quality nominations that jammed up the works there. Here, I submitted three impending nominations as samples of my work. Both the [[America Windows]] and [[City Landscape]] include research beyond my usual google searches. For the latter, I have included both printed sources and JSTOR journals with more sources on the way. E.g., I picked up Joan Mitchell: Lady Painter at the library today. The former already has a handful or print sources, with more on the way. E.g. I have checked out a book on Marc Chagall from the Library already. Regarding Boating Party, since Caillebotte is on exhibition here in Chicago at the [[Art Institute of Chicago]], interest in him is high and print resources are hard to obtain at the library. Since the work was held in a private collection for nearly 130 years up until it was unveiled in 2023, it is not widely written in the journals. However, I think these three are all at a level that would be welcomed by GAC.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 03:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*BTW, Nunez, is my first foray back into GAC since April 2024.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 04:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' there's absolutely nothing in this appeal that shows why lifting the ban would be good for the community, just Tony. That is unfortunately a recurring issue with this editor. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 19:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Tentative oppose''': there is no meaningful reflection about why the ban was imposed, what has been learned from it, and what corrective measures will be taken to avoid the conduct issues that caused it. The only rationale I see is {{tqq|I don't really want to wait 24 months for these three articles to get reviewed.}}, which does nothing to assure the community that the user's overall approach in the topic area will change. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 21:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Lifting the ban would put risk of gaming the GA processes once again. I don't see this appeal as helpful. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 00:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This has exactly the same vibes as when [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive368#h-Appealing_April_4_2024,_indefinite_WP:CUP_ban_and_indefinite_1-nomination_GAN_li-20250117185200|Tony appealed his WikiCup ban]] in January - "I don't want to wait". There is no indication whatsoever of acknowledgement of what led to the ban or why the behavior that led to the ban won't be repeated - in fact, it very much gives the vibes that any lifting of the ban will be followed by "[[Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead|full speed ahead]]". Tony, you ''must'' reflect on why you were topic-banned and how to avoid repeating the behavior that got you topic-banned; further appeals like this and the previous one could lead to [[WP:BOOMERANG|unintended consequences]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I currently have a nomination which has been waiting 9 months to be reviewed. That you have to wait like everyone else is not cause, in itself, to lift the topic ban. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 02:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Weak support some narrow loosening'''. I'd be fine with some "mercy rule" where after, say, 6 months of a single GA nom pending, Tony is allowed to submit another, to a maximum of maybe three total. I don't think this is a well-crafted appeal, with similar issues to the WikiCup ban appeal in January, which I had intended to oppose before it was SNOW-closed. Nonetheless, when a user comes here with an appeal arguing that their sanction has some defect, I don't see the same need for understanding and contrition as with a full ban appeal. Rather, I look at it as a policy-drafting question, and here the "policy" seems a bit too strict—just a bit, but enough to justify some slightly increased leeway in my opinion. This support is only weak because GA is an entirely optional part of the project (I mean, more optional [[WP:VOLUNTEER|than everything else]]), and I'm less worried about being overly draconian there than with, say, a content TBAN. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 05:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:'''Weak support''' of your weak support. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Unfortunately this kind of thing has been a problem for Tony for some time and across multiple processes. The ban appeal here provides no assurances or other evidence that the problematic behaviour won't reoccur. Having only one GAN open at a time isn't a particularly serious restriction, so it seems sensible to leave it in place for now. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 06:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*What's so important about GA anyway that's worth spending more than a few seconds looking at a ban appeal? It only means that another editor agrees that it meets the criteria. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 09:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment.''' I'm not an admin, so I won't be voting to support or oppose. But as someone involved in the GAN project, and who remembers well what happened that led to Tony being banned from the project, I do have a few questions. Tony was banned from the project after dumping no less than 70 low-quality articles onto the nominations list, in the middle of a backlog drive, single-handedly setting back the progress of numerous reviewers and wasting the time of several others. The GA project still has a chronic backlog problem, caused by an insufficient number of reviewers, which is what is leading to the months-long wait times that he is complaining about here. However, when I look at his ratio of reviews to nominations, he still has 226 reviews for 319 GAs (a ratio of 1.4 nominations for every review). Rather than seeking to be unbanned so you can nominate even more articles and put even more strain on the project, why not first help bring down the backlog by reviewing existing nominations? You say you have only nominated one GA since the restrictions were imposed, but how many articles have you reviewed since then? Do you understand that the problem you highlighted, of nominations taking months to be reviewed, will not be helped if you continue nominating multiple articles without reviewing as many (or more)? --[[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk:Grnrchst|talk]]) 11:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
**[[User:Grnrchst]], Yes, I have nominated one article and reviewed 3. I nominated Nunez in December 2024 and took part in the [[Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2025]] reviewing [[Welcome to the Jungle (Jay-Z and Kanye West song)]], [[2020 Sparta earthquake]], [[Lou Whitaker]].-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 13:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
**:Great, that's one of my three questions answered. Can you answer the other two? --[[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk:Grnrchst|talk]]) 16:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
**::I'm not sure it's good to have someone reviewing articles if they don't understand the standards ... [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
**:::I don't think they don't understand the standards, it's a lack of care for the community's time and energy that I'm worried about. --[[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk:Grnrchst|talk]]) 20:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:To be honest, the Good Article nomination processes have been become stricter as many people joined Wikipedia. You don't always ask for GAN on new articles, it's not worth getting the award, it's a top layer of the cake. Focus on making new articles instead of bragging for GA status. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 12:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Wikipedia needs more quality articles, not more quantity of low-quality low-importance barely-notable topics. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 14:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:<small>All editors may vote in discussions like this. You needn't be an admin. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]] <sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 18:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
*::<small>Huh, I don't believe I knew that myself. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 11:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
*:On a related note, Tony, you could try adding a [[WP:GARP|reviewing pledge]] to your nomination or joining a [[WP:GARC|review circle]]. [[User:LEvalyn|<span style="color: #6703fc">~ L</span><small> 🌸</small>]] ([[User talk:LEvalyn|talk]]) 22:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Since I had reviewed 3 articles after nominating [[Adrien Nunez]], I did not [[WP:GARP]] that one, but I just added a GARP to a new [[America Windows]] nomination.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 07:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Its clear from on going activity, even today,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albrecht_D%C3%BCrer#Infobox_notable_parameters_content] that Tony neither understands nor acknowledges the reasons for the restriction. If lifed, history tells us we will be back to square one within minutes. He's promising not to flood while at the same time proposing three weak articles for GA? [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 19:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
**Having read through that I can only reitirate my oppose above - with the added suggestion that Tony should seriously consider in fact withdrawing this appeal. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per all the responses so far. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|☎]] 21:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as there is no merit or benefit to Wikipedia by increasing the number of GA's in the queue. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 12:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - you don't need a silly green icon atop the article for it to be a good article. Editors write good articles all the time without the need for a status symbol be attached to the article. Just continue on with your writing, and let the folks at GAR do what they do.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 19:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
==== Proposal: loosen restriction (TonyTheTiger) ====
Tony is genuinely an active content generator and is genuinely trying to improve content, and they're one of only a handful of users I've encountered in sixteen years here who take an interest in rescuing salvageable topics from deletion, even if they have been primarily motivated by scoring points. The spirit of the restriction was to get Tony to stop mass-submitting clearly unsuitable nominations to game a contest, and banning them from the contest has mostly dealt with that. As for limiting them to one GAN at a time, the intent was to slow them down and to ensure they would vet the few nominations they were permitted and learn from reviewers' feedback, but with an eight-month backlog they are not being reviewed in a timely manner, Tony is receiving no timely feedback, and the restriction is far more [[WP:NOTPUNITIVE|punitive]] than originally intended. At this rate it will be years before Tony is even ''able'' to demonstrate if they're improving. We should fix that.
I propose replacing the current restriction with the following:
*TonyTheTiger is banned from participating in the [[WP:CUP|WikiCup]] in any capacity;
*TonyTheTiger is limited to one [[WP:GAN|good article nomination]] per calendar month.
I '''support''' as proposer. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 10:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*This sort of idea could be workable. It strikes me that one a month is still a heck of a lot. Could we go lower?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 11:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:With options of 1/2/3/4/6 months per nomination, that would be 12/6/4/3/2 reviews a year. Given that part of this is to help with seeing improvement, it seems like once every six calendar months would not be enough with a lowered amount, but the others seem like they would work. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 11:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*::If the eight-month backlog is an indication, one per month would create a soft limit of 8 concurrent nomninations, and presumably create a scenario where one is reviewed each month (assuming the backlog stays the same). Considering that there are currently 831 nominations, 8 more hardly seems to be adding much of a burden. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 12:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:If what we're aiming for is that nominations are reviewed in a timely manner, then allowing more nominations will not help that, it'll just add even more nominations to the backlog. We need more reviewers; this is the only way to address the problem of months-long wait times. --[[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk:Grnrchst|talk]]) 11:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' one at a time is an adequate rate. If they get reviewed in a couple of weeks then that allows a higher rate if the system is working fast. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 12:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', one at a time is enough for a 20-year editor who has not evidenced they can learn from feedback. Re {{tq|... "slow them down and to ensure they would vet the few nominations they were permitted and learn from reviewers' feedback"}}, as a FAC Coord who processed many of his ill-prepared FAC nominations, the reward-seeking issue furthered by the WikiCup was not the only problem. The other issues are that a) Tony does not take on or learn from feedback (the basis for this alternate proposal), rather Tony b) waits for or expects other editors to pull his articles up to standard rather than doing, or showing he can do, the work himself, and c) he has not understood the need to build a network of collaborators to help in his weak areas. (If he is even aware of those areas.) From what I've seen of his GANs, the same problems exist at that level as existed at FAC, and his nominations sap precious reviewer time. Someone who submitted dozens of nominations to FAC, and received feedback for years, should be able almost two decades later to write an article at the GA level. One at a time until there is evidence he has taken on board the ample critique always presented, over many many years. Taking even more time to review such a poorly presented appeal is yet another example of the wasted editor time caused by the ways in which Tony doesn't take on feedback. He is not a newbie. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*: Re {{tq|"At this rate it will be years before Tony is even able to demonstrate if they're improving"}}, the appeal already demonstrates the answer to that. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*: When FAC initially instituted a one-nomination-at-a-time rule in 2010, that was precipitated by TTT's misuse of the process; fifteen years later, GAN is facing the same issue. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 09:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Featured_Sounds_Process|issues with TTT's sticker-collecting]] extend back [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive151#Am_I_being_blacklisted|many, ''many'' years]], and he has provided very little reasoning in this appeal to show that has changed. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 19:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. If there was the slightest indication that Tony has learned anything from his topic bans, I'd support this. There isn't. At all. The attitude evidenced in both this appeal and the WikiCup appeal is ''solely'' "This inconviences me". If Tony wants his bans loosened or removed, he ''must'' demonstrate that they have had an effect on his behavior. To loosen the ban before that will risk starting a [[camel's nose]] scenario, where his doing nothing was "rewarded", so further pressure to loosen the ban will follow. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', adding to the backlog will not help the underlying issue, nor is there a reason to allow them to have more when it's not clear they're any more familiar with the criteria then they were. There's no reason they can't wait other than they don't want to, which isn't a reason to increase the load on other editors. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' some form of loosening. It is not the editor's fault if the backlog process has considerably slowed. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 01:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:We don't have strong evidence the backlog process has considerably slowed, it has varied slightly and inconsistently over the past few years. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 13:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Just a comment''' about the page quality and topics Tony wishes to present - and three obviously "Good worthy" nominations at a time seems a better use of Tony's talents. Importantly, Tony knows or has learned the difference now that he's limited to just nominating his best. As for topics, Chagall's ''America Windows'' is an icon of the Chicago Art Institute, one of Chagall's masterworks. ''Boating Party'' is literally not only a [[national treasure of France]] but "was described as the most important national treasure acquired by the French Republic in the history of the National Treasure program". And a good focus on one of [[Joan Mitchell]]'s paintings would highlight a major but semi-neglected woman artist. But bottom line, I just wanted to give Tony a "job well done" after reading the discussion (an "o my" at the comments about this volunteer). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 03:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Question/Comment:''' Is it possible that people aren't reviewing TTT's GA noms at the same rate as others' because they know it's historically been a headache to deal with him if problems are found? If so, then the solution is not to alter the sanction, but for TTT to convince others that he's changed his approach to being reviewed. Based on the approach in this request, my uneducated hunch is that this could be the problem. But if he has already changed his approach and this rate of review is typical, then I would have supported some kind of "one GA nom after every ''high-quality'' GA review he makes, up to one per month max" restriction (and also, no gaming of the restriction, though I'm not sure how that could happen). But a review of the comments above seems to show that this is obviously not going to happen this time around. It's painful to watch someone make a request like this, and know that if they'd just approached it with the right attitude, it would have succeeded. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 17:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:GA can be a bit of reviewer roulette, especially given the current number of nominations. It's hard to know for sure if Tony's wait time is related to his approach. It could be that it's just lost in the backlog - with 800+ noms at any time, the chances of ''one'' particular article being picked up randomly by a passing reviewer are low. It may also be that for some reason reviewers aren't interested in the particular topic he has nominated. ♠[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]♠ [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 20:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== Angrysct0tsman12 suspected edit warring via IPs ==
I'm suspecting that [[user:Angrysct0tsman12]] is conducting edit warring via IPs 14.231.172.181, 2402:9d80:879:1130:b800:9fed:4951:d193 on page [[Battle of Đồng Hới]]. There's a correlation between the comments of the user and the IPs on the talk page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_%C4%90%E1%BB%93ng_H%E1%BB%9Bi] On the article page, the user and IPs continuously conduct mostly identical reverts.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_%C4%90%E1%BB%93ng_H%E1%BB%9Bi&diff=prev&oldid=1305806020][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_%C4%90%E1%BB%93ng_H%E1%BB%9Bi&diff=prev&oldid=1305076350][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_%C4%90%E1%BB%93ng_H%E1%BB%9Bi&diff=prev&oldid=1306477158] I kindly ask if any measures can be taken, either by me or any admin. [[Special:Contributions/95.252.72.125|95.252.72.125]] ([[User talk:95.252.72.125|talk]]) 14:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:That is someone else that shares the same opinion. My edits are being made in good faith and I am engaged in the talk page with the expressed intent of achieving a consensus. The issue here is that the primary source here being cited is biased. In the interest of maintaining a degree of fairness, my edits have been made to reflect measurable outcomes (i.e. equipment damage) which are contained in the sourced material as opposed to simply passing off the claim of a "moral victory" as evidence of an actual tactical or strategic victory. There wasn't a particularly significant battle so both sides could easily claim "victory" here. Thus my proposal is sidestep the back and forth claiming entirely and stick with what is objectively true.
Edit: After looking into WP editing policies more, allow me to try and articulate myself better. The source of contention revolves around a primary source that exclusively uses the first hand account of North Vietnamese pilots who flew during the Vietnam war. This is one of those cases where the source itself is reliable, but inherently biased due to its point of view.
The point of contention revolves around what should be placed in the "results" section of the info box. The source itself says "The twenty-minute attack was hailed as a great moral victory". Now this is very much an opinion; not a concrete fact. Moreover, the Merriam Webster definition of a "moral victory" says it is the "achievement of something that is important and good". This tag is usually applied to cases where a side lost but found a silver lining somewhere.
Therefore it does not seem appropriate to cite this singular source without properly contextualizing what was being said. That phrase could certainly be included in the body of the article. It just doesn't belong in the info box based on that source alone. Let's stick to providing factual narratives and not try to plant nationalistic flags of "my team won, yours lost" which is seemingly what has been happening the previous 16 years this article has been live.
Side note... this seems like a extremely inappropriate means of hashing out this dispute. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Angrysct0tsman12|Angrysct0tsman12]] ([[User talk:Angrysct0tsman12#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Angrysct0tsman12|contribs]]) 23:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
[[User:Angrysct0tsman12|Angrysct0tsman12]] ([[User talk:Angrysct0tsman12|talk]]) 20:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:This seems like a matter for [[WP:AN3]], not here. [[User:Aydoh8|Aydo]][[User talk:Aydoh8|h8]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aydoh8|[what have I done now?]]]</sup> 03:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
==User Higashizakura is Japanese or Vietnamese?==
{{atop|result=Inquiry misplaced on [[WP:AN]]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)}}
*In article ''[[Plan to arrange and merge administrative units in Vietnam 2024–2025|Arrange and merge administrative units]]'', this user gave a silly reason that there were no administrative units "zone" (khu) and "litte zone" (tiểu khu) before to delete them. I explained it in detail in the message section for this guy to understand, but the user continued to vandalize. ([[User:Worvandae|Worvandae]] ([[User talk:Worvandae|talk]]) 16:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC))
*:There is only one edit to the page by [[User:Higashizakura]]. Clarifying why you made this change by adding a [[WP:RS|source]] that includes these names would justify their addition. It's possible that this editor had not heard of the terms used in this context before and without a source it is not obvious that they are accurately used here. Discussing it on the [[Talk:Plan to arrange and merge administrative units in Vietnam 2024–2025|talk page]] is a good first step. Rather than speculating on their nationality or place of residence. This may not be an issue for administrator attention at this time. However, there is no qualification for any editor to be of any nationality to make any kind of edit, addition or deletion, to an article.
*:I note that you have barely given Higashizakura any time to respond. You also need to notify them that you have started this discussion on [[User talk:Higashizakura|their talk page]] (which I have done for you this time). -- [[User:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#4E8321">Recon</span>]][[User talk:Reconrabbit|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#073131">rabbit</span>]] 16:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*:No, I don't even "vandalize", I just thought that the "zone" and "little zones" doesn't exist in Vietnam. – [[User:Higashizakura|Higashizakura]] ([[User talk:Higashizakura|talk]]) 17:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*::In the article [[Năm Căn district]], I just want the article [[Năm Căn commune]] to be splitted. Just like the Vietnamese Wikipedia, they always keep the former urban and rural district, provincial city articles for history. – [[User:Higashizakura|Higashizakura]] ([[User talk:Higashizakura|talk]]) 17:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== User: Hummel329875: Non-communication, and botlike behavior ==
{{atop
| result = This is not an issue for AN, and editor has agreed to double check their work ( thank you). [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 00:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{Userlinks|Hummel329875}}
I first heard of Hummels work while stalking recent changes, so I checked out their page which is [[Willy Tiedjen]] which I did some editing work on, and helping with the sections, and even removing bold face from parts that bold should not be there for, but he kept editing his page every second with very long edit summarys, I tried using AI checkers like ZeroGPT which gave me a result of 4.9% written by AI, but it still seems like this is a bot account being a [[WP:SPA]]. When I asked him if he was using ai chatbots, he never responded, just working on the page every minute or so. [[User:EditorShane3456|shane]] ([[User talk:EditorShane3456|talk]]) 19:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:Hello Shane! I am not a bot and happy to engage with you on this. I've been working in Word and in Excel on my research, recording my findings with the German newspaper website (https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/) and preparing my notes as I begin to build my first (yes, first) Wikipedia page. I am from the US but moved to Germany and fell in love with Willy Tiedjen (and Fanny's, his wife's) artwork, and thought their story should be share with the world. If I need to improve any text I'm adding to the page, please don't hesitate to let me know as I'm happy to comply. I'm a bit older so taking this all in has been overwhelming but VERY exciting for me to engage with. Again, open to your feedback, but I sure hope I don't get banned, ha! Thank you so much. -Angela [[User:Hummel329875|Hummel329875]] ([[User talk:Hummel329875|talk]]) 19:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::Could you also share with me where you asked me about using AI chatbots? I would just like to learn about where those messages would have arrived, if not this talk page. Thank you! -Angela [[User:Hummel329875|Hummel329875]] ([[User talk:Hummel329875|talk]]) 19:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::On your talk page which is always right next to your name when you chat [[User:EditorShane3456|shane]] ([[User talk:EditorShane3456|talk]]) 19:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::There's something very wrong with the references you are using, or at least the urls you have provided. As an example in your latest edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Willy_Tiedjen&diff=prev&oldid=1306972126] you say the reference is for the ''Münchener Neueste Nachrichten'' published 1913, but the link you provided[https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb00102561?page=2] goes to tariffs on tobacco in Bavaria and the Upper Palatinate from 1729. I've spotted checked a few others and the urls all appear to be nonsensical. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 19:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:Shane, have you just... reported a user to AN for working hard on writing an article?{{pb}}Have you ever heard of a chatbot editing in lots of consecutive edits with well-written edit summaries? That's a hallmark of a competent editor, and the opposite of a hallmark of a chatbot. Do chatbots know to boldface alternate names of an article subject on first mention? Generally no, and on that note almost every part of [[Special:Diff/1306967181|this edit of yours]] goes against MOS. And I guess, most importantly, a month after I and [[USer:Giraffer|Giraffer]] gave you [[User_talk:EditorShane3456/Archive_1#Please_step_back_from_admin_areas|this warning]] about wading in too deep in admin areas and making incorrect statements of policy, why are you [[User_talk:Hummel329875#Question|telling a newer user]] that {{tqq|we have an entire [[Wikipedia:LLM|policy on using those types of unethical methods [AI] to write]]}}, while linking to an [[WP:essay|essay]], not policy, that does not in fact say AI use is unethical or forbidden? (I'm satisfied by Hummel's answer above, but even if she were using AI to generate individual statements about Tiedjen and then adding them one at a time, that would be an indicator of the kind of human-vetted AI use the community somewhat begrudgingly allows.) <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 19:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:: {{u|Tamzin}} Before saying that, have you looked at the sources? Most of them are nonsense. [https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb00101919?page=1 This] is meant to cite a painting from 1912 but is in fact from 1590. [https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb00090707?page=1 This] is a map from 1834. And most of them are like this (apart from the ones that are 404). I suspect this is simply AI generated. Unless the editor can explain this, I suggest the whole lot is removed. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Before we go deconstructing, I'm happy to review them. In my excel, I have had to hand type in the numbers from the URLs that I'm copying, so perhaps I've not transcribed it correctly. I am trying with a good heart, I promise! [[User:Hummel329875|Hummel329875]] ([[User talk:Hummel329875|talk]]) 19:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::: If that ''is'' the case, you're adding huge amounts of information at very fast speed without checking any that the sources back up your additions. If it was just one or two citations that were wrong, I could understand that, but it's ''nearly all of them''. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I did spot-check the sources, yes. Found 5 that seemed fine, 1 that didn't resolve, seemed normal enough for a new editor making some referencing errors. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but this does not seem like the normal "AI slop" we get, and regular beginners' errors still exist. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 19:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::: Check the recently added ones (especially the ones from www.digitale-sammlungen.de URLs). You'll see the problem straight away. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I do see the problem. I'm just not convinced that it's AI, or that this is a matter for AN rather than say [[WP:the Teahouse|the Teahouse]]. I've seen enough enthusiastic new editors who were making some mistakes get chased away at AN(I) by someone who decided they were some random assortment of bad things. I really don't like seeing it happen. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 20:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::: I'm extremely unconvinced, but if the user ''is'' going to go through and correct the dozens of incorrect citations then great, and hopefully it won't happen again. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I respect your opinion, Black Kite. I hope this turns out well one way or the other, because potentially we get a quality article and a quality contributor here once the bumps are smoothed out. If my initial comment to Shane comes off as naïve, well, so be it, but I do think it can be true both that a user was making significant mistakes and that an AN thread was ill-pleaded. Or maybe my frustration with Shane's past poor judgment got the better of me and I assumed the worst; I'll leave that for others to decide. I'd be as happy to be wrong on that as I'd be happy to be right about Hummel, because in Shane too we have an editor with lots of promise who needs to smooth some bumps out. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 20:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::100% correct! Thank you and my apologies for the misunderstanding. I am a fan of accuracy (I'm also a hobby genealogist) and will review it all. [[User:Hummel329875|Hummel329875]] ([[User talk:Hummel329875|talk]]) 20:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::Hi everyone, thank you for the insights. I can definitely review and edit the urls if they're not directly properly. I was so proud of all the ones I found, haha! I'm going page by page on 35 pages of results of 'Tiedjen' and am using Google Translate to translate the German to english (of course, if this isn't allowed, I'm also happy to comply), but it all seemed in line with YouTube tutorials and reddits I've been reviewing. Open to feedback of course! Thank you again. [[User:Hummel329875|Hummel329875]] ([[User talk:Hummel329875|talk]]) 19:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::Tamzin, the main reason why I reported her to an was because of her silence to my question. the secondary reason was her bot like speed in editing. [[User:EditorShane3456|shane]] ([[User talk:EditorShane3456|talk]]) 19:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you, Shane. My apologies for not replying more quickly, and I will slow down the copy/paste from Word/Excel, including popping the URL into the browser to verify it's accuracy before adding in. I'll review the URL links I have, too, to be sure they're directly properly. I have screenshots of each newspaper source so it won't take long to correct (but it is late in Germany so I'll finish by end of the weekend if that's acceptable). [[User:Hummel329875|Hummel329875]] ([[User talk:Hummel329875|talk]]) 19:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::For editors who prefer to edit with lots of one-sentence additions, that's a fairly normal speed. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 19:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Restoration of permissions ==
I am returning to Wikipedia in a limited capacity. As per my previous [[Special:Diff/1226440740|voluntary relinquishment]] of permissions, I request rollback, pending changes reviewer, and page mover to be restored, but not NPP or AFC reviewer. Thanks. [[User:Taking Out The Trash|Taking Out The Trash]] ([[User talk:Taking Out The Trash|talk]]) 21:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{Done}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]''' '''[[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>giuliano</sup>]]'''</span> 21:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
== Forgot my password and my PC where I last was logged on to is bricked - what to do... ==
{{atopg
| result = Account recovered via cat ID verification. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
Admins I come to you in a time of need. Well not really that much need. Hoping an admin can add a notice to the user page of the account I can no longer log into, [[User:LegalSmeagolian]], and link them to my new account and note that I am no longer editing under that account anymore due to loss of access.
Would also love Extended Confirmed permissions per my other account, as I was engaged in some topic areas requiring such permissions, but I am fine waiting and just editing in other topic areas. Thanks to whoever helps out. [[User:LegalSmeagolianTheSecond|LegalSmeagolianTheSecond]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolianTheSecond|talk]]) 00:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:Have you tried [https://auth.wikimedia.org/enwiki/wiki/Special:PasswordReset resetting your password]? [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::I did. Unfortunately, if an email was associated with the account (I can't even remember if one was) it would have gone to a .edu email account which is no longer accessible. [[User:LegalSmeagolianTheSecond|LegalSmeagolianTheSecond]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolianTheSecond|talk]]) 01:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:::You can try contacting Trust & Safety and see if you can prove your identity to their satisfaction. Maybe they'll reset your account password. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Or maybe see if you can gain brief access to the .edu account? [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I have tried that in the past and the institution is a real pain about reactivating. However, I think there might be a way for me to contact T&S to verify based off of some of my contributions (I have snuck photos of my cat on here, so maybe I could do some kind of cat ID verification). I will email them sometime today. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:LegalSmeagolianTheSecond|LegalSmeagolianTheSecond]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolianTheSecond|talk]]) 13:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::For what it is worth, cat ID verification made me laugh out loud. Appreciated today! [[User:Lulfas|Lulfas]] ([[User talk:Lulfas|talk]]) 18:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::It worked. @[[User:Voorts|Voorts]] you can mark this resolved, thanks for the advice. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 01:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
: {{declined}}. You (LegalSmeagolianTheSecond) are using proxies to edit Wikipedia instead of using the same [[ISP]] as LegalSmeagolian. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 20:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Move request ==
{{atop
| result = Request now posted to more appropriate venue at [[WP:CR#Talk:Government of the Grand National Assembly#Requested move 20 July 2025]]. {{nac}} [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 22:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
I have requested move for [[Government of the Grand National Assembly]] quite while ago and now the request is not relisted or done anything till now kinda abandoned. Could an uninvolved page mover/admin please close and perform the move? [[User:Asianeditorz|A$ianeditorz]] ([[User talk:Asianeditorz|talk]]) 12:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{yo|Asianeditorz}} Please post a closure request at [[WP:CR#Requested moves]], which is the noticeboard and section dedicated to handling this type of request. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 09:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Okay thanks. [[User:Asianeditorz|A$ianeditorz]] ([[User talk:Asianeditorz|talk]]) 19:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Disruptive page moves ==
[[User:GhoshThakur|GhoshThakur]] has made multiple disruptive page moves involving caste-related titles without prior discussion or consensus. These actions appear to be caste-based POV pushing.
'''Problematic moves:'''<ref>[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=move&user=GhoshThakur+&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist&issubmitted=1 Move log]</ref>
* [[Chudasama (Rajput clan)]] → [[Chudasama (Ahir)]]
* [[Chudasama (Rajput clan)]] → [[Chudasama ( Ahir/Yadav clan)]]
* [[Chudasama (Rajput clan)]] → [[Chudasama ( Ahir clan)]]
* [[Hindu Ghosi]] → [[Ghosi Thakur]]
GhoshThakur also created a blatant hoax redirect[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudasama_(_Ahir/Yadav_clan)]. Requesting review, reversion to stable titles, and administrative action to prevent further disruption. [[User:Chronos.Zx|<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;">Chronos.Zx</span>]] ([[User talk:Chronos.Zx|talk]]) 12:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:I dropped a final warning about the caste-related extended-confirmed-restriction. Counting on someone else to fix the page moving mess. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 13:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks @[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] for your efforts. <s>Please also revert this page move: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chudasama_(_Ahir_clan)&diff=prev&oldid=1307037939].</s> [[User:Chronos.Zx|<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;">Chronos.Zx</span>]] ([[User talk:Chronos.Zx|talk]]) 13:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Came to this through CAT:CSD and only just noticed this AN thread. I've deleted 2 of the bad titles under the [[WP:ARBECR]] for [[WP:CT/SA|Indian caste history]]; another was deleted by BusterD. Some protections also applied. Any remaining questions about the page title can be handled through the normal editorial process. Checkusers may also wish to take a look at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala]]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 21:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
== Proposed modification of Arbitration Committee procedure ==
Please see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#CTOP/AE page protection logging]]. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
== User:Lorraine Crane ==
* {{Userlinks|Lorraine Crane}}
Lorraine Crane, formerly known as Villkomoses ([[User talk:Lorraine Crane/Archive 1]]), has been [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers|a new page reviewer]] for three weeks. I first encountered the user at the [[Roly Porter]] article, and I am afraid to say that some of the user's recent reviews are inappropriate ([[Wikipedia:Tag bombing]]). Examples:
* They tagged {{tl|Excessive citations}} to the [[Roly Porter]] article, below infobox ([[Special:Diff/1306973347|diff]]). I think two citations for one sentence is acceptable because, to quote [[Wikipedia:Citation overkill]], "Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources".
* They tagged {{tl|Independent sources}} and {{tl|Orphan}} to the [[Miramar Christian School]] article ([[Special:Diff/1306985196|diff]]). It is already linked from one article: [[List of schools in the Wellington Region]].
* They tagged {{tl|Orphan}} and {{tl|No significant coverage (sports)}} to the [[Ricardo Valdéz]] article, below infobox ([[Special:Diff/1306990037|diff]]). It is already linked from two articles: [[Dorados de Chihuahua (basketball)]] and [[Plateros de Fresnillo]].
* They tagged {{tl|Orphan}} to the [[LightShip (spacecraft)]] article, below infobox ([[Special:Diff/1306991354|diff]]). It is already linked (via redirect) from two articles: [[Solar electric propulsion]] and [[List of European Space Agency programmes and missions]].
* They tagged {{tl|No significant coverage}} to the [[Pass the Plate (album)]] article, below infobox ([[Special:Diff/1306992134|diff]]). I think the AllMusic review is a significant coverage.
I am requesting the removal of Lorraine Crane's NPR rights. Although the user's NPR rights will expire on 28 August 2025, it would be helpful if someone else could take a look at their contributions. [[User:フランベ|フランベ]] ([[User talk:フランベ|talk]]) 14:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:フランベ|フランベ]], why haven't you tried discussing your concerns with Lorraine Crane first? [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 14:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{Reply to|Schazjmd}} Because I would like an administrator to determine if Lorraine Crane deserves NPR rights. I've just left a notice on [[User talk:Lorraine Crane]], so I think we can discuss the issue here now. [[User:フランベ|フランベ]] ([[User talk:フランベ|talk]]) 14:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:::maybe they would have done self-reflection and apologize. administrator intervention would never be required in the first place. i agree that it's a bit premature. [[Special:Contributions/85.98.23.90|85.98.23.90]] ([[User talk:85.98.23.90|talk]]) 16:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{re|Rosguill}} granted the temporary right and may be interested in this discussion. We need new page reviewers, and educating those who are just starting and may make mistakes is a whole lot more helpful to the project than running to a noticeboard to publicly call them out without even telling them about any errors or giving them a chance to rectify their mistakes. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 16:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I agree with Schazjmd, and would further note that tag use frequency is perhaps the easiest bad-NPR-behavior to correct for, as it typically just means recalibrating how quickly one moves to tag, rather than having to learn a complicated concept like notability, OR, or copyright law. That said, the concerns raised are valid; I would like to see a response from Lorraine Crane before determining whether any actions are necessary. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 16:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:Hello,
:Thank you for taking the time to review my contributions. As you mentioned, this is my trial month at NPR, and I’m still learning. I apologize for the mistakes and will make sure to review the relevant regulatory guidelines before applying these tags again.
:I’d also like to clarify that there was no ill intent behind my actions, and I’ll be more careful when determining orphan status going forward. Previously, I relied on tools to suggest tags, but I now realize they often create more issues than they solve, so I’ll use it wisely and when needed to address the problem and give the chance to the author to work on the article more.
:Instead of focusing on tagging, I’ll pay closer attention on taking appropriate action myself, such as draftifying or initiating AfD discussions when necessary. If there’s anything else you’d like to point out, I’d truly appreciate the feedback.[[User:Lorraine Crane|Lorraine Crane]] ([[User talk:Lorraine Crane|talk]]) 12:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{Reply to|Lorraine Crane}} Thank you for your explanation. Apology accepted. However, I'm not talking about just {{tl|Orphan}} tag, but also other tags like {{tl|Excessive citations}} and {{tl|No significant coverage}} (there may be some more inappropriate tags I haven't found yet). If you understand that you made mistakes, then I think you should clean up your own mess. [[User:フランベ|フランベ]] ([[User talk:フランベ|talk]]) 13:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::''Yes, I meant rereading the guidelines on applying different tags, including all of those mentioned, not just orphans. I will make sure to double check my previous contributions to clean up where there might've been mistakes committed. Cheers!'' [[User:Lorraine Crane|Lorraine Crane]] ([[User talk:Lorraine Crane|talk]]) 14:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
== IP editing despite block? ==
{{atop
| result = Question answered and confusion resolved, no actionable concern raised. {{nac}} [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 19:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
I'm slightly confused here. I reverted an edit by {{vandal|197.185.176.53}} and then went to look at their contributions - [[Special:Contributions/197.185.176.53]] - and the message says that the IP is currently part of an anon-only range block. How did they edit? --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 14:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:It's a partial block from one page, [[Draft:Sphokuhle N]]. They can still edit other pages. [[Special:Contributions/88.97.192.42|88.97.192.42]] ([[User talk:88.97.192.42|talk]]) 14:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::Oh my goodness, I feel like an idiot. I completely missed that. Blocking people from editing one page didn't used to be a thing. Thanks. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 14:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== WP:RFPP backlog ==
I just opened [[WP:RFPP]] and saw the 71h backlog, which is the longest I have ever seen (this is of course anecdotal evidence). It was built gradually, still yesterday there were requests not processed for 48h. I have processed a few oldest, but I have now go to bed. Some attention would be appreciated. Thanks. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 21:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:Backlog there has been slowly building up the last few days. Unfortunately I don't have much time because of work, but will take a look. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳🌈]]</sup></small> 21:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::Backlog is mostly dealt with. Thanks to all who helped. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳🌈]]</sup></small> 00:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
== Create [[Talk:Margaret Mitchell (scientist)]] ==
{{atop
| result = Page exists, editing advice given. Thanks, OP, for helping us. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 13:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
I am the person depicted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mitchell_(scientist), which has several tags that need to be addressed, and has had them for awhile. I am happy to help address them.
I also think the article could focus more on my work and accomplishments, and would be happy to provide relevant information with sources/references.
Following the instructions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_Request_Wizard/COI , my understanding is that first an administrator needs to create Talk:Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret Mitchell (scientist) , and I can submit suggestions/references there; and that the way for this page to be created is for the request to be made here. Let me know if I should be doing something else.
Thanks! [[User:M.Mitchell|M.Mitchell]] ([[User talk:M.Mitchell|talk]]) 23:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:Hello Margaret. I believe all users can create talk pages. You should just be able to click "Create page" or "Edit page", add content, then press "Publish changes" below the edit window to create the page. Also, the page already exists. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 23:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::Welcome to Wikipedia! [[Talk:Margaret Mitchell (scientist)]] already exists; just click the "+" tab at the top of the page to start a new talk page section, which will let you make the edit requests you'd like to make. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:It looks like you might be pasting the entire URL into the Page Name box in the Edit Request Wizard. Just paste in "Margaret Mitchell (scientist)" (without the quotes). [[User:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|REAL_MOUSE_IRL]] [[User talk:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|<span style="background:#000;border-radius:50%50%0 0;padding:4px 1px;border:1px solid #888;color:#fff">talk</span>]] 07:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Free Republic of Verdis ==
{{atop|1=VerdisSupporter9 blocked per [[WP:DUCK]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)}}
[https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VerdisSupporter9 Globally blocked] editor {{Userlinks|VerdisSupporter9}} is attempting to re-create and re-add edits related to a social media project for a micronation called [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic_of_Verdis Free Republic of Verdis] from Simple Wikipedia, evading a previous block: [[Special:Contributions/VerdisSupporter9]]. Disruptive editing which has been reverted and cautioned against by multiple editors on Simple Wikipedia and more recently here. Deletion forums are being spammed [https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=prev&oldid=10471457 here] and [https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=prev&oldid=10471525 here]; article templates removed [https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Republic_of_Verdis&diff=prev&oldid=10471803 here], spamming [https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Republic_of_Verdis&diff=prev&oldid=10471803 here], hostile behavior toward others [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croatia%E2%80%93Serbia_border_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=1307154635 here], among other disruptive edits. It appears the related accounts are attempting to move their disruptive editing from Simple Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia:
* {{Userlinks|VerdisSupporter9}}
:: Editor is evading a [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/VRDSupport global block put in place] back in 2019
* {{Userlinks|DAndujar}}
:: Attempted to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatia%E2%80%93Serbia_border_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=1307175118 erroneously redirect] article and is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Verdis&diff=prev&oldid=1307179287 recreating VerdisSupporter9's earlier edits]
Thank you for taking a look at this. [[Special:Contributions/2601:646:8081:8100:45D9:4B0F:EB46:70C|2601:646:8081:8100:45D9:4B0F:EB46:70C]] ([[User talk:2601:646:8081:8100:45D9:4B0F:EB46:70C|talk]]) 02:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
* Correction from DAndujar ^: I only added the internal link in your first remark, I'm not sure why I'm being added here for that. I created an edit for the Verdis page before VerdisSupporter9 was banned from the platform, and I redid them after the page was defaced by protesters. (This was after the page was recreated by a different individual. I am simply a 3rd party in this, who is just making edits that were previously (at least from what I saw) defaced on [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free%20Republic%20of%20Verdis simple]. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:DAndujar|DAndujar]] ([[User talk:DAndujar#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DAndujar|contribs]]) 03:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I find it interesting to see how you upgraded Verdis from a micronation to a full country [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Verdis&diff=prev&oldid=1307179287 here]. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 13:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:Simple Wikipedia is a separate project, but it looks like someone has already proposed the article for deletion there. If this is a sock it looks like the original account, blocked on en.wiki, is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VRDSupport VRDSupport]. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::I don’t know who that is! That account was blocked 6 years ago it says. I have a similar name that is all. Do you not think that could be a common occurrence when you google Verdis and see all the attention at the moment? [[User:VerdisSupporter9|VerdisSupporter9]] ([[User talk:VerdisSupporter9|talk]]) 06:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:::FYI; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/daniel-jackson-unclaimed-land-croatia-serbia-verdis [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:2E0:3D01:A8E6:FC72:C58:AFA6|2A00:23C5:2E0:3D01:A8E6:FC72:C58:AFA6]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C5:2E0:3D01:A8E6:FC72:C58:AFA6|talk]]) 07:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Question''' - Is this post about an English Wikipedia issue requiring administrative action, or about cross-wiki abuse that should be dealt with by stewards? [[User:VRDSupport]] is both ENWP-blocked and globally blocked. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I find it crazy I am being accused of sockpuppetry without any investigating. That persons account was blocked 6 years ago. [[User:VerdisSupporter9|VerdisSupporter9]] ([[User talk:VerdisSupporter9|talk]]) 21:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - [[Verdis]] and [[Free Republic of Verdis]] are both admin-locked redirects. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:There definitely has been some abuse in the past. I mean the president was 14 in 2019 but he seems to be in the media now, and a lot has happened since then. they even lived on the land and I am all for it. [[User:VerdisSupporter9|VerdisSupporter9]] ([[User talk:VerdisSupporter9|talk]]) 21:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:I've blocked [[User:VerdisSupporter9|VerdisSupporter9]] as a sock account given the behaviors and the block already applied on simple-en-wiki. If [[User:VerdisSupporter9|VerdisSupporter9]] wishes to contest the block, they're welcome to file an appeal. Further evidence of sock puppetry and other accounts should be filed in a case at [[WP:SPI|SPI]]. [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 22:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== ChickpeaAnxiety ==
{{atop|Had some more time and finished going through the edits to make the right forward fixes. Closing this since it was primarily a request for someone to help going through them as I had to go to sleep last night. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 20:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)}}
{{Userlinks|ChickpeaAnxiety}} just spent the last few hours making an about a hundred small [[WP:AGF]] edits to many different articles. Unfortunately almost every single edit was breaking [[WP:NOPIPE]] and/or [[WP:NOTBROKEN]].
I just spent combing and reverting many of them, but there’s still more edits to go through.
i think it might be a case for a mass-rollback, but I don’t have rollbacker perms.
We explained the policies in question to the user on the talk page, so hopefully they won’t make the same mistake again going forward. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 07:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:I thought I was doing something good and didn’t expect it to be a problem. I have read the rules, and I believe an important part of the edit I made can still be considered '''appropriate'''. [[User:ChickpeaAnxiety|ChickpeaAnxiety]] ([[User talk:ChickpeaAnxiety|talk]]) 08:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::Oh yes, I not discounting that the intent behind some of the updates for consistency of the terms usage wasn’t good, it was. Just that it happens that the way you went about them by introducing pipe links rather than using the redirects was breaking some of our fundamentals, so the edits had to be undone in the form made and instead done correctly by updating the outdated redirects to the newer terms redirects.
::So this is purely a matter of the work it resulted in having to review and undo/correct it and I brought it up here to see if someone with the advanced tooling can speed up the rest that I didn’t get to yesterday as I was going to bed. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 14:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::Echoing @[[User:Raladic|Raladic]], you're not in trouble, this is AN and not ANI ;) we appreciate your effort and hopefully we'll get most of the intent of your changes to stick. [[User:Lizthegrey|lizthegrey]] ([[User talk:Lizthegrey|talk]]) 17:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== [[User:GoldenBootWizard276]] ==
This user seems to have literally created [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/GoldenBootWizard276/0/onlyredirects over a thousand redirects] of questionable utility, including {{-r|Planes hit Twin Towers}}, which they've created three times over the past week and is currently tagged for [[WP:R3]]. They were [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoldenBootWizard276#c-Asilvering-20250818052800-Redirects warned by an admin] for creating nonsense redirects recently. Could we get a [[WP:NUKE]] and maybe a block here? Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:F3C6:CB9:911E:FBD7|2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:F3C6:CB9:911E:FBD7]] ([[User talk:2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:F3C6:CB9:911E:FBD7|talk]]) 21:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:I've partially blocked them from mainspace until they communicate, which is not optional. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 03:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:F3C6:CB9:911E:FBD7}} {{ping|Star Mississippi}} Please can you point out to me which redirects are "nonsense". Also I recreated the deleted pages because [[User:asilvering|asilvering]] said that if I believed that the redirects were plausible search terms then I should recreate them. Even if the redirects were not plausible nothing I have done has been in bad faith so I should be unbanned. [[User:GoldenBootWizard276|GoldenBootWizard276]] ([[User talk:GoldenBootWizard276|talk]]) 17:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::[[User:GoldenBootWizard276|GoldenBootWizard276]], {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stautatory_rape&oldid=1306562929|name=these}} {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Seven&oldid=1306563010|name=are}} {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-seven&oldid=1306563015|name=all}} {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six,_seven&oldid=1306563020|name=perfectly}} {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six_seven&oldid=1306563023|name=useless}} {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six,_Seven&oldid=1306563030|name=redirects}}.{{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six_Seven&oldid=1306563035|name=Nothing}} {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6,_7&oldid=1306563044|name=but}} {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6%277&oldid=1306563050|name=clutter}}. {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6-7&oldid=1306563054|name=How}} {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6_7&oldid=1306563056|name=on}} {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_the_11th&oldid=1306563071|name=Earth}} {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=11/9/01&oldid=1306563096|name=would}} {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=09/11/01&oldid=1306563104|name=you}} {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=11/09/2001&oldid=1306563128|name=consider}} {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=11/9/01&oldid=1306563137|name=any}} {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_the_11th&oldid=1306563152|name=plausible}}?<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>It doesn't matter that you did this in good faith; good-faith disruption is still disruption and a time sink, since it requires someone to clean up after you. As far as I'm concerned, this block is warranted and preventative and, quite frankly, considering you claim you do not undestand what is disruptive about your actions, I'd make it a full indefinite block.<span id="Salvio_giuliano:1755970787758:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]''' '''[[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>giuliano</sup>]]'''</span> 17:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
::::{{ping|Salvio giuliano}} These are absolutely plausible search terms. Do you really think no one would search "September the 11th"? [[User:GoldenBootWizard276|GoldenBootWizard276]] ([[User talk:GoldenBootWizard276|talk]]) 17:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::They may search that but I find them unlikely to search [[Planes hit Twin Towers]]. [[User:CoconutOctopus|<span style="color: purple">CoconutOctopus</span>]] [[User talk:CoconutOctopus|<span style="color: DarkOrchid">talk</span>]] 17:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|CoconutOctopus}} It is a simple term that accurately describes the event. For those who have heard of the attacks but cannot remember what the name is, this is a very useful redirect. [[User:GoldenBootWizard276|GoldenBootWizard276]] ([[User talk:GoldenBootWizard276|talk]]) 17:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I find it very hard to believe that anyone is out there and has forgotten the name "9/11" and instead searches "Planes hit Twin Towers". Its use as a redirect is next-to-none, as any google of that would give you 9/11 anyway. Regardless, this isn't about any one redirect but a pattern of creating bad ones. [[User:CoconutOctopus|<span style="color: purple">CoconutOctopus</span>]] [[User talk:CoconutOctopus|<span style="color: DarkOrchid">talk</span>]] 17:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|CoconutOctopus}} I admit that I should have been more considerate as to the usefulness of the redirects I have created and I should have thought more beforehand about whether or not these redirects I have created were useful or not. But I have not created any redirects in bad faith and I have created many good redirects so I don't think that we should let [[Bad apples|a few bad apples]] ruin a whole bunch. [[User:GoldenBootWizard276|GoldenBootWizard276]] ([[User talk:GoldenBootWizard276|talk]]) 18:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:GoldenBootWizard276|GoldenBootWizard276]], I think you might be misunderstanding the purpose of redirects. We're not trying to hard-code google search. Please see [[WP:RPURPOSE]]. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[User:GoldenBootWizard276|GoldenBootWizard276]], no, not really. Not to mention that I do not understand why such a redirect, if needed at all, should point to [[September 11 attacks]] rather than [[September 11]].<span id="Salvio_giuliano:1755971290699:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]''' '''[[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>giuliano</sup>]]'''</span> 17:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::Nothing you've said here is convincing to me @[[User:GoldenBootWizard276|GoldenBootWizard276]] that you understand the goals and usage of redirects, but you're welcome to file an unblock and an admin will review it and make their own decision. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 19:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
== User:CROIX ==
{{atop|status=[[WP:BOOMERANG]]|1=Regardless of the underlying issues, 3RR is a bright-line rule. Ahonc blocked 24 hours. Discussion should continue on the article talk page(s). - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)}}
User is editwarring. In articles [[Antigua and Barbuda]] and [[List of national capitals]]. I removed unreliable source and add more reliable, and began discussion on talk page. But he reverts me. [[User:Ahonc|<b style="color:purple;">''Anatoliy''</b>]] ([[User talk:Ahonc|<span style="color: indigo; font-family: Verdana">Talk</span>]]) 22:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:We are in an active discussion on the Antigua and Barbuda talk page and I and @[[User:162 etc.|162 etc.]] have repeatedly requested that he not reinstate his edits until after the discussion ends. The items he has removed have been discussed in the past and these discussions can be accessed from the Frequently Asked Questions section of the Antigua and Barbuda talk page. He has provided no evidence that the sources are unreliable. '''[[:User:CROIX|<span class="tmpl-colored-link " style="color: red; text-decoration: inherit;">CROIX</span>]]'''<sup>[[:User talk:CROIX|<span class="tmpl-colored-link " style="color: green; text-decoration: inherit;">talk</span>]]</sup> 22:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::But your source is unreliable. Please give more reliable source. CIA and Britannica are more relaible that unknown amateur website.--[[User:Ahonc|<b style="color:purple;">''Anatoliy''</b>]] ([[User talk:Ahonc|<span style="color: indigo; font-family: Verdana">Talk</span>]]) 22:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:::How so? The site does not disagree with the CIA or Britannica, rather, it is expressing the nature of the claim. These policies only exist in practice, the meaning of [[de facto]]. The site never says that St. John's for example is not the capital of Antigua and Barbuda, rather, it is saying that the status of St. John's as capital is only ''de facto'' in nature, which based on a check against the official laws website at https://laws.gov.ag (which in a discussion was determined to be an up-to-date source) is accurate. '''[[:User:CROIX|<span class="tmpl-colored-link " style="color: red; text-decoration: inherit;">CROIX</span>]]'''<sup>[[:User talk:CROIX|<span class="tmpl-colored-link " style="color: green; text-decoration: inherit;">talk</span>]]</sup> 22:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::This isn't [[WP:RSN|RSN]], but [https://www.axarplex.com/ axarplex.com] is in no way a reliable source. It's anonymous, none of the site information pages are filled in, and it's not cited by ''any'' reliable sources. The link for its creators ("the Axarplex Institute") goes to [https://www.wix.com/ wix.com] and the only meaningful search result for that name is a Facebook page with 0 followers. Literally anybody could have created this website. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 00:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::While I share your concerns about the source- I'll avoid using it from now on, for the note of anyone reading this, they do appear to be transferring from an offline service to an online one, this may explain the status of their website. I also found information about their contacts and who is working there.
:::* https://www.axarplex.com/items/e-mail
:::* https://www.axarplex.com/items/our-team
:::'''[[:User:CROIX|<span class="tmpl-colored-link " style="color: red; text-decoration: inherit;">CROIX</span>]]'''<sup>[[:User talk:CROIX|<span class="tmpl-colored-link " style="color: green; text-decoration: inherit;">talk</span>]]</sup> 00:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:Sure is bold to report someone for edit-warring when you're past [[WP:3RR]] and they aren't. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 03:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2]] closed ==
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
* The existing [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Manual of Style and article titles|Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic]] is amended, to narrow the scope to only apply to article titles and capitalisation. The contentious topic area is to be renamed "[[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Article titles and capitalisation]]", and the exact scope is available at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2#Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended|the final decision page]].
* The word limit restriction (discretionary) is added to the [[Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Standard_set|standard set]] of contentious topic restrictions for all [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics]]:{{tqb|Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within a specific contentious topic area. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.}}
* {{user|Dicklyon}} is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
* The Arbitration Committee assumes [[Special:Diff/1298523260|the indefinite topic ban]] of Dicklyon. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
* Dicklyon is indefinitely topic banned from challenging or requesting a review of any closure within the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Article titles and capitalisation|article titles and capitalisation contentious topic]] area, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
* {{user|Cinderella157}} and {{user|SMcCandlish}} are indefinitely topic banned from the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Article titles and capitalisation|article titles and capitalisation contentious topic]] area, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
* Cinderalla157, SMcCandlish, and Dicklyon are limited to 500 words in any discussion related to the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Article titles and capitalisation|article titles and capitalisation contentious topic]] area, broadly construed.
* {{user|Hey man im josh}} is warned for edit warring.
{{bcc|Andy Dingley|Chicdat|Thryduulf}}<!-- hidden ping for the parties not mentioned by name in the final decision --> For the Arbitration Committee, <span style="display:inline-block;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contribs/HouseBlaster|'''Blaster''']] ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] • he/they)</span> 23:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2 closed}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 23:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
== Paul F. Kisak is republishing Wikipedia articles reworded through AI ==
I bought Mythological Archetypes from this person by ordering through my local bookstore, but it is also available on Amazon. The chapters are reworded Wikipedia articles with the same information in the same sentences and sentence order. Some chapters even have "Further Reading" copied right in for topics the book does not discuss. The last dozen or so pages are full of Wikipedia URLs used as sources. There is zero original intellectual effort being put in to make this book.
And this "author" has produced 200 books since 2024. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C56:7DF0:6C10:5C17:612D:49A4:3A48|2600:6C56:7DF0:6C10:5C17:612D:49A4:3A48]] ([[User talk:2600:6C56:7DF0:6C10:5C17:612D:49A4:3A48|talk]]) 00:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:Are any of these books cited on Wikipedia? Does the book acknowledge Wikipedia per the CC attribution licence? [[Special:Contributions/206.83.99.97|206.83.99.97]] ([[User talk:206.83.99.97|talk]]) 01:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:Anybody can republish Wikipedia articles with any changes they want as long as they comply with the requirements at [[Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers' rights and obligations]]. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 01:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::If you do a search on Amazon, you can find plenty of books that are reprinted Wikipedia articles. Seems like a waste of money for the purchaser but there is nothing wrong with doing this. Of course, as soon as they are printed, they are out-of-date. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:This should be added to [[Wikipedia:Republishers]], but I can't figure out how to get the information to fill out the fields there. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 07:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:If there are so many Wikipedia URLs in the book it looks as though the compiler has at least made an attempt to follow our licence conditions. ''[[Caveat emptor]]''. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 08:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
==RfC closure on [[Talk:Shubhanshu Shukla]]==
I tried raising the issue with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shubhanshu_Shukla&diff=1306185207&oldid=1306183332#Cost_of_seat_in_the_lead_section_or_body_only? this RfC closure] with the closing editor, and they haven't offered any valid justification for their improper closure. The closing editor gives weight only to headcount and does not cite a single argument that could provide any sources to dispute the information in question. At best, it was supposed to be closed as "no consensus" or "consensus to keep in body and lead". [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 00:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
===Closer ([[User:Dionysodorus|Dionysodorus]])===
*'''Comment as closer''': I closed this from [[WP:CR]], along with a number of other discussions that needed closing, in order to help out with the backlog there. The close is well within policy. Orientls raised this on my talk page a few days ago, and I have already responded to their concerns at [[User talk:Dionysodorus#RfC closure]]. I would be grateful if anyone commenting here could take a look at that first.
:When I closed this RfC, I had not noticed that it had previously been closed by [[User:Ophyrius|Ophyrius]], as can be seen in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shubhanshu_Shukla&direction=next&oldid=1302808400 this version], but Orientls posted on Ophyrius' talk page to argue that the close was too early in [[User talk:Ophyrius#RfC close]], and Ophyrius then reverted their close. After this, one more editor posted in favour of the measure, two posted against it. There has also been a conflict on the talk page as to whether KoshuriSultan's !vote should be struck through or not, in which Orientls has been involved. Yet Orientls has at no point actually commented on the RfC. This seems to me a very odd way of proceeding: not to comment on an RfC, but yet to take repeated actions behind the scenes to influence its outcome.
:This whole issue seems to me to be a very minor dispute over placement of content within the article, and I am puzzled that it is considered necessary to appeal it to AN. It would be most appropriate at this point to accept the judgement of an uninvolved closer and to move on, rather than trying to use every means to reverse a perfectly reasonable and policy-consistent RfC closure. It is especially important that the normal process of an RfC should be respected in relation to a contentious area (South Asia). My closure is altogether based on the policy reasons raised in the discussion itself, and I find it difficult to see how this request can possibly meet the criteria for a [[WP:CLOSECHALLENGE]], which explains that closures will not normally be overturned simply because the discussion is close or the closer is not an admin. [[User:Dionysodorus|Dionysodorus]] ([[User talk:Dionysodorus|talk]]) 05:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::I wonder if the admins who have recently been involved on the page or its talk page ([[User:Ivanvector]], [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]], [[User:The Bushranger]], [[User:Redrose64]]) have any thoughts? There is clearly a protracted editing dispute here, so there may be background that I am unaware of. [[User:Dionysodorus|Dionysodorus]] ([[User talk:Dionysodorus|talk]]) 05:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I would ''really'' like to see {{u|Asamboi}} elaborate on the concerns [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shubhanshu_Shukla&diff=prev&oldid=1304077683 raised here], almost ''three weeks'' before the close. If there is any truth to this claim, the RfC result should be at least put on hold pending close scrutiny of the !votes. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 07:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::If it can actually be shown that anyone in the RfC was a sock or under a relevant topic ban at the time of the RfC, I'm certainly happy to revisit my close in light of that. But I don't think that this would necessarily change the result: my close was based on an assessment of the debate, taking into account the strength of the arguments presented, and was not based on a head count that would be undermined if the comments made by one user or another were struck out. (If I had thought that the closure of the RfC depended on the validity or invalidity of Asamboi's concerns, I would have asked Asamboi for clarification in the first place before closing the discussion.) [[User:Dionysodorus|Dionysodorus]] ([[User talk:Dionysodorus|talk]]) 08:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I did have a look through the users participating in the discussion at the time when I closed it, and I found no ''prima facie'' reason to think that any of them was a sock or anything like that. I don't think I found that any of the contributors looked suspicious, and I think all (or at least most) were extended-confirmed. [[User:Dionysodorus|Dionysodorus]] ([[User talk:Dionysodorus|talk]]) 08:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I suspect that this vague casting of aspersions is actually about [[User:Koshuri Sultan]]'s active topic ban from Indian military history, and I don't think it affects the outcome.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 09:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I think that's probably right, given that Asamboi and others favouring "lead only" were trying to strike out Koshuri Sultan's !vote in the RfC (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shubhanshu_Shukla&diff=prev&oldid=1303990647 this edit], and see also the discussion at [[User talk:Asamboi#Striking]]), whereas Koshuri Sultan and Orientls restored it (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shubhanshu_Shukla&diff=prev&oldid=1304028642 this edit]). Personally, I wouldn't have thought that a topic ban on Indian military history would apply to this article. But, if Koshuri Sultan's topic ban were considered to apply to this article, that would remove one of the votes against what I determined was consensus, and so would reinforce rather than undermine the consensus indicated in my close. [[User:Dionysodorus|Dionysodorus]] ([[User talk:Dionysodorus|talk]]) 09:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tqq|Shubhanshu Shukla is a group captain and test pilot with the Indian Air Force}} - he's a serving military officer. Koshuri Sultan's topic ban is: {{tqq|Koshuri Sultan is indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, '''broadly construed'''}} - emphasis added on the important part. The topic ban applies. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 09:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::If so, the consensus indicated in my close has a clearer majority of legitimate participants in its favour than I thought (i.e. 9 against 5, rather than 9 against 6). [[User:Dionysodorus|Dionysodorus]] ([[User talk:Dionysodorus|talk]]) 09:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{u|The Bushranger}} The topic ban does not apply here because the RfC is irrelevant to "Indian military history". Even the subject is irrelevant to "Indian military history". Wait for more years until his military career (on which Koshuri Sultan never commented on) becomes part of history. [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The suggestion that a topic ban from Indian military history doesn't apply to the biography of an Indian military officer so defies logic as to boggle the mind, and it ''certainly'' calls into question the motivation of an editor who would make such a comment. It is so far removed from reality that ... I don't even know what to say, I'm just so sick and tired of these same editors picking these same fights over and over. I'm going to review the recent Arbcom case and see what kind of sanctions could apply here. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 13:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::The topic ban is from Indian military history. If it includes officers who're serving today then it ought to be a topic ban from the Indian military full stop.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 14:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That's part of "military history". Indian military ''equipment'' is included in the [[WP:CT/SA]] ECR topic area for "Indian military history", for instance - clarififed that when GS/SA was declared. "Military history" includes the present. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 17:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Only if that officer is a part of history then sure, however, this subject is not a part of history yet. There is a big difference between "Indian military" and "Indian military history". Same way, [[2025 India–Pakistan conflict]] would not fall under "Indian military history" right now. The RfC wasn't about any "military", let alone any "Indian military history".
::::::::::::::Finally, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shubhanshu_Shukla&diff=prev&oldid=1300244968 this comment] was '''made days 5 before''' the topic ban,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koshuri_Sultan&diff=1307310880&oldid=1301085498] so even if we assume that the RfC was related to Indian military history (it wasn't), then still there was nothing wrong with the comment. [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 17:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::...the present day counts as "military history". The definition of military history includes the present. That said, since the edit took place before the topic ban, this is moot. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 20:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::What purpose does the word "history" serve if it includes the present day? [[User:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|REAL_MOUSE_IRL]] [[User talk:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|<span style="background:#000;border-radius:50%50%0 0;padding:4px 1px;border:1px solid #888;color:#fff">talk</span>]] 20:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::History is made every day? It's a continual process. Yesterday is history. "Military Present" isn't a thing... - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::At least two users in the debate have a confirmed history of sockpuppetry:
::::* [[User:Koshuri Sultan]] fka Based Kashmiri was previously blocked for sockpuppetry, see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr_Anonymous_699/Archive]].
::::* [[User:Editking100]] remains blocked as a sockpuppet of IndicInsaan.
::::Some other users in the debate are also IMHO extremely likely to be sock/meatpuppets and you're invited to draw your own conclusions from the evidence I presented at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr_Anonymous_699/Archive#10 July 2025]], but the SPI did not positively confirm this. [[User:Asamboi|Asamboi]] ([[User talk:Asamboi|talk]]) 13:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I warned {{ul|Asamboi}} in that SPI filing that their repeated allegations of sockpuppetry were disruptive, and that if I saw any more claims of this sort that they would be blocked from editing ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr_Anonymous_699&diff=prev&oldid=1300295270]). Since this is not just a similar report but effectively the ''same'' report (i.e. [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]) I have blocked them from editing. I'm also not happy to see Orientls here with another frivolous report (per the section Dionysodorus already quoted about not challenging closes only because the closer is not an admin, which this clearly is) but I'll have to come back to that. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 13:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
{{od}} Dionysodorus mentions that the RfC (started 15 July) was once inappropriately closed under 12 days on 27 July,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shubhanshu_Shukla&diff=prev&oldid=1302808400] which was then reopened on 3 August[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shubhanshu_Shukla&diff=prev&oldid=1303970987] and was closed again by 16 August.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shubhanshu_Shukla&diff=prev&oldid=1306183332] It seems that the RfC wasn't even allowed to run for 30 days, and was closed in just 26 days. Why was there so much hurry? [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:As it says at in the lead at [[WP:CR]], RfCs have no fixed length, and can be closed at any time after the discussion has stabilised: 30 days is just a rough guideline. In this case, the discussion had clearly stabilised, since there were no new comments after 6 August. [[User:Dionysodorus|Dionysodorus]] ([[User talk:Dionysodorus|talk]]) 13:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::Correct link is [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Duration]] which says "30 days". You cannot close it sooner only because there are "no new comments" for days. [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 17:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::The page that you have linked only mentions 30 days as the period that a bot assumes that an RfC will run for the purposes of removing the RfC tags, but also makes it very clear that "there is no minimum or maximum duration", and that the RfC should run until the discussion comes to an end and the participants or an uninvolved closer decide that it should be closed. There is no basis in policy for your statements that RfCs must always be left to run for 30 days, and the fact that an RfC has been inactive for a while (in this case, 10 days) is normally taken as suggesting that the discussion has run its course. [[User:Dionysodorus|Dionysodorus]] ([[User talk:Dionysodorus|talk]]) 18:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{u|Orientls}}, please ''read'' rather than just link that section. It says the opposite of what you claim it says. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::@Dionysodorus: You can argue in favor of an early RfC closure when the result is [[WP:SNOWE|too obvious]] but that couldn't apply on this RfC. There is absolutely no justification as to why the RfC template wasn't allowed to stay for a full 30 days. It was there for only 21 days. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-size:100; style=color:blue"> '''THEZDRX'''</span> <span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:92; style=color:black"><sub>([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | </sub></span><sub>([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]])</sub> 04:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Again, it's simply not the case according to Wikipedia policy that an RfC has to be left to run for 30 days. Any discussion that appears to have stabilised can be closed by an uninvolved editor: see the lead in [[WP:CR]], and [[WP:RFCCLOSE]]. (In any case, it wasn't 21 days; it was 32 days from the date of opening, or 25 days if you subtract the week during which the discussion was previously closed by Ophyrius.) It seems to me that these objections to the timing of the close are [[WP:LAWYERING]], since they involve coming up with procedural objections in order to avoid accepting a perfectly legitimate and policy-based close. [[User:Dionysodorus|Dionysodorus]] ([[User talk:Dionysodorus|talk]]) 09:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::For some reason a lot of people seem to be commenting here without reading this discussion, relevant policy/guidelines or the RFC. Points have been made that have already been answered with links to policy/guidelines. Please, everyone, read before you write. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
===Uninvolved (Shubhanshu Shukla)===
*'''Overturn''' - The closure appears to be based on vote count. There appears to be a lack of counter argument against the sourced content. [[User:Ratnahastin|Ratnahastin]] ([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]]) 01:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. This is a simple question of content. The disputed information is well sourced and the consensus was, rightly, to include it. At issue was whether to place it in the lead. Therefore the prevailing policy is [[WP:ONUS]], which means that removing the disputed information from the lead while keeping it in the body was the policy-compliant outcome.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 05:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. The closer stated that the majority are in favour of the consensus they found, not that the consensus was based on the majority of voters. I can't see an policy based argument to overtirn the close, and the close itself appears to correctly interpret policy. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 11:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Just to clarify my comment, from my reading of the close it wasn't done by head count. That a head count was done doesn't immediately mean that was how the consensus was found. The closer found that the more convincing arguments happened to come from the majority, rather than basing the consensus on a vote. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 14:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*:There also lots of talk of the close being to early, this is not the case. It had been open for over a month, or nearly a month with it being closed for a period of time, and no new comments had been added for over a week and a half. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 10:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' - I don't see any policy-based justification to exclude the reliably sourced information. Just because there are more people voting on one side, it doesn't mean you have to favor it. This was after all a premature closure, the RfC could have been relisted minimum. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-size:100; style=color:blue"> '''THEZDRX'''</span> <span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:92; style=color:black"><sub>([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | </sub></span><sub>([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]])</sub> 13:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*:RfCs are not relisted. This isn't AfD.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 14:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' - per [[WP:NOTVOTE]]. The closer made zero analysis of the strength or weaknesses or each sides arguments as is required by [[WP:DETCON]] and merely engaged in a headcount. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 13:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. The RfC was closed with an outcome that matches the consensus in the discussion. It isn't enough to argue that the closer did a vote count; it needs to be argued that ''because the closer did not properly determine consensus''—and this is made evident by the closer "counting votes" instead of analyzing the discussion to determine consensus—the recording of the consensus is wrong. Namely, it is possible and more often the case than not that the outcome arrived at after a vote count ''coincides'' with the consensus outcome.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 14:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' as a perfectly reasonable close. I'm very unimpressed by the multiple comments saying that this was just decided on a votecount, when one only has to read the closing statement to see that it was not. And the RFC is about whether the content is suitable for the lead section. There is no need to disprove it to decide that it is not. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 14:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' - The information that is doubtful or disputed can be removed from the lead but this was not the case with the information that was discussed in this RfC. Along with that, we are seeing that the close was also technically wrong since it was carried out too early . [[User:Lorstaking|Lorstaking]] ([[User talk:Lorstaking|talk]]) 14:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*:If any information is doubtful then it shouldn't be in the article at all. But that wasn't the question that was asked in this RFC. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 16:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' as the close is perfectly fine and judges the consensus reasonably well. ''[[User:JavaHurricane| <span style = "color:green">Java</span>]][[User talk:JavaHurricane|<span style = "color:red">Hurricane</span>]]'' 17:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' I am perplexed by the rationale provided for overturning this close. The original close was fully within the bounds of acceptability and consistent with established standards. No compelling justification has been presented to demonstrate that the decision was improper or flawed. Accordingly, the reversal appears unwarranted.- [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 13:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' I don't get the "didn't explain at all," given that the references to the strength of the arguments and [[WP:BALANCE]] and [[WP:DUE]] are referred to as supports right there. I see nothing that meets the burden for an overturn. Nor am I convinced by the "not 30 days" argument. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 15:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. The !vote count just appeared to be one factor along with weighing the strength of arguments. Was closed after a reasonable amount of time when the discussion at largely stopped. [[User:Skynxnex|Skynxnex]] ([[User talk:Skynxnex|talk]]) 15:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. I see no basis for the argument that the closer only performed a headcount. The arguments to place the cost in the lead are decidedly weaker: this is a biography, and covering detail not within the purview of the subject needs justification that wasn't provided; also, the lead is a single short paragraph at the time of writing, making the due weight concern stronger. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 16:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. Mentioning the vote count in a close is not the same thing as closing solely based on vote count, especially when the closer describes the relevant policies in the very same sentence. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#487d30">Thebiguglyalien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#714e2a">talk</span>]]) [[Special:Contributions/Thebiguglyalien|🛸]] 22:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
===Involved (Shubhanshu Shukla)===
*'''Overturn''' - Yes the "closer stated that the majority are in favour of" something, but RfCs are [[WP:NOTVOTE]]. Even the statement above by Dionysodorus, together with mass canvassing in their favor, does not seem to address the concerns raised by OP. [[User:Wareon|Wareon]] ([[User talk:Wareon|talk]]) 12:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' as the only result that aligns with [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:DUE]]. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 15:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''': As per [[WP:NOTVOTE]], with the discussion close being about vote count rather than arguments given. Also, considering how much discussion was going on, the RfC should have stayed open for some more time. [[User:EarthDude|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkviolet">'''EarthDude'''</span>]] ([[User talk:EarthDude|<span style="Color: cyan">''wanna''</span> <span style="Color: green">''talk?''</span>]]) 04:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
== Disruptive user don’t accept to follow Wikipedia standards ==
Hello everyone. The user <bdi>Yujoong is insisting in add a critics consensus on the intro of ''[[Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba – The Movie: Infinity Castle]]'' article'','' but no major aggregator has attributed a score yet for the film. I warned him that this was not correct, because in every major movie releasing globally, the critics consensus in the introduction is based on what most critics are saying, hence it’s need a major aggregator to list the review so we can see how critics overall see the movie. The user, however, insists in putting his personal opening on how he thinks that is the overall critics consensus on the, without any supporting source from a critics reviews aggregator like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. This is how every article for films work, we only add a critics consensus in the introduction when major aggregators show what most critics are saying.</bdi>
I went to his talk page to make sure he was acting wrongly on the article, by trying to change the article object without discussion and trying to depict a critics consensus when there’s no one listed by major reviews aggregators. He not only ignored my warning instead of start a discussion on this matter, but also simple removed the warning from his talk page. Please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYujoong&diff=1307093580&oldid=1307026049
The what’s next? He goes to my talk page to put a vandalism warning, trying to start some sort of war https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepGuardi&diff=1307315881&oldid=1307096005
If you go to the history of the article you’ll him with multiple revisions, simply because he wants to add a “mixed” critics consensus when we don’t even have any major aggregator showing what most critics are saying: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer:_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_–_The_Movie:_Infinity_Castle&action=history
Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer%3A_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_–_The_Movie%3A_Infinity_Castle&diff=1307101045&oldid=1307063341
here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer%3A_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_–_The_Movie%3A_Infinity_Castle&diff=1307314022&oldid=1307311146
Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer%3A_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_–_The_Movie%3A_Infinity_Castle&diff=1307163475&oldid=1307114936
Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer%3A_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_–_The_Movie%3A_Infinity_Castle&diff=1306919057&oldid=1306882539
So please if you can stop this user from disrupting the article. [[User:PepGuardi|PepGuardi]] ([[User talk:PepGuardi|talk]]) 15:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:PepGuardi|PepGuardi]], this is pretty straightforwardly a content dispute. Please attempt to resolve it by discussion on the article's talk page. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::I believe this issue is being made bigger than it needs to be. My edits were meant to improve the article. The page had several problems before and I worked on improving it including adding the "Reception" section. The editor PepGuardi reintroduced outdated and unsourced material such as calling the film “upcoming” [[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer:_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_%E2%80%93_The_Movie:_Infinity_Castle&diff=prev&oldid=1306319455]][[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer:_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_%E2%80%93_The_Movie:_Infinity_Castle&diff=prev&oldid=1307022642]] even though it had already been released, and describing reviews as “favorable” [[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demon_Slayer:_Kimetsu_no_Yaiba_%E2%80%93_The_Movie:_Infinity_Castle&diff=prev&oldid=1306874477]] without citing a reliable source. For the “critical response” part, I summarized the Reception section using the reviews that are currently available. These reviews clearly show both praise and criticism which supports describing the reception as “mixed.” There is no Wikipedia policy requiring us to wait for Rotten Tomatoes or other aggregators especially when they don’t yet exist and "reliable reviews" are already available. Per [[WP:LEAD]], it is appropriate to summarize this in the lead.
::I have also made it "clear" on his talk page that once aggregator scores such as Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic become available, I am fine with adding them. My goal is simply to keep the article accurate, sourced and neutral. Not to create unnecessary conflict. [[User:Yujoong|Selenne]] ([[User talk:Yujoong|talk]]) 00:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
== Penelope’s Bones ==
{{atop
| result = Resolved. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 16:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
Hello. I am trying to create a new article entitled ''Penelope’s Bones'' on Wikipedia. The full title is: ''Penelope’s Bones: A New History of Homer’s World through the Women Written Out of It,'' by Emily Hauser, published by the University of Chicago Press ([https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo250606968.html external link here]). So this is a legitimate book published by a reputable publisher. However, the page has been blacklisted ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penelope%E2%80%99s_Bones link here]). I am wondering if this title could be taken off the black list to allow for article creation. This would include the longer title as well. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 16:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:Your issue is that you're using a curly instead of straight apostrophe. Try [[Penelope's Bones]]. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 16:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:Hi @[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] was going to do it for you as an established editor but realized it's a curly quotes issue. [[Penelope's Bones]] is available and likely easiest. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 16:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::Well, I guess this is something for future reference. Thanks very much to both of you. Regards, ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 16:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== No longer require new pages reviewer permission ==
I think I have this permission from the days when I was a Twinkle developer, but I haven't been active in that space for some years, nor have I ever been an active reviewer. Thank you for removing the permission from my account. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 02:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:
== Giving EC to a bot ==
{{atop| result = Resolved. [[User:GalStar|<span style="color: teal">Gal</span><span style="color: darkgreen">Star</span>]] ([[User talk:GalStar|<span style="color: royalblue">talk</span>]]) ([[Special:Contributions/GalStar|<span style="color: royalblue">contribs</span>]]) 17:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)}}
Hi, can we please give EC rights to [[User:GraphBot]]? It failed to update [[Ohio]] (see [[User:GraphBot/Conversion Errors]]) because it doesn't have the right. —'''[[User:Matrix|Matrix]]''' <sub>ping me</sub><sup>when u reply</sup> ([[User talk:Matrix|t?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|<sub></sub>c]]) 14:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}}. Is there a reason we don't just have that perm [[Special:ListGroupRights#bot|grouped in with <code>bot</code>]]? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 14:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]] According to the group permissions it should already be included. The list of permissions granted by bot rights includes <code>Edit pages protected as "Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access" (editsemiprotected)</code> and
::<code>Edit pages protected as "Require extended confirmed access" (extendedconfirmed)</code> [[Special:Contributions/86.23.87.130|86.23.87.130]] ([[User talk:86.23.87.130|talk]]) 14:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::Wait... the bot right comes with "Edit pages protected as "Require extended confirmed access" (extendedconfirmed)", I'm a bit confused why the bot couldn't edit [[Ohio]]. Maybe it's because the bot right is temporary? I'm not sure. —'''[[User:Matrix|Matrix]]''' <sub>ping me</sub><sup>when u reply</sup> ([[User talk:Matrix|t?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|<sub></sub>c]]) 14:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Matrix|Matrix]] The error message doesn't say anything about protection or missing rights, and the same error was produced for pages that weren't protected, e.g. [[Demographics of Burundi]]. Could another issue have caused the error, such as loosing internet connection? [[Special:Contributions/86.23.87.130|86.23.87.130]] ([[User talk:86.23.87.130|talk]]) 14:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I find that somewhat unlikely, since it created the .chart and .tab pages in Commons before mysteriously giving this error. Usually if there is an error with GraphBot in my experience it doesn't create the .chart and .tab pages. —'''[[User:Matrix|Matrix]]''' <sub>ping me</sub><sup>when u reply</sup> ([[User talk:Matrix|t?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|<sub></sub>c]]) 14:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Looking at [https://github.com/arihant2math/graphbot/blob/0ed5bd46831aaac298459c9cc4d606ded852df96/src/graph_task/mod.rs#L282 the code], it appears to be some kind of catch-all error message. Some more precise logging might help. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 15:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Hmm, I have no idea why that happened. I'll take a look at the logs at let you know. [[User:GalStar|<span style="color: teal">Gal</span><span style="color: darkgreen">Star</span>]] ([[User talk:GalStar|<span style="color: royalblue">talk</span>]]) ([[Special:Contributions/GalStar|<span style="color: royalblue">contribs</span>]]) 02:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, the error was that the page is protected:
:::::<pre>2025-08-24T14:33:06.862954Z ERROR page_handler:run_on_page: graphbot::graph_task: Failed to update page Ohio: Page is protected</pre>
:::::[[User:GalStar|<span style="color: teal">Gal</span><span style="color: darkgreen">Star</span>]] ([[User talk:GalStar|<span style="color: royalblue">talk</span>]]) ([[Special:Contributions/GalStar|<span style="color: royalblue">contribs</span>]]) 02:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{re|GalStar}} That's strange. Can you try logging into the bot manually and making a [[help:dummy edit|dummy edit]] to [[Ohio]]? If the edit saves, then the issue must be some check in the code that is assuming it can't edit the page even though it can. If the edit <em>doesn't</em> save, this is a MediaWiki issue. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 07:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ohio&diff=prev&oldid=1307778826 [[User:GalStar|<span style="color: teal">Gal</span><span style="color: darkgreen">Star</span>]] ([[User talk:GalStar|<span style="color: royalblue">talk</span>]]) ([[Special:Contributions/GalStar|<span style="color: royalblue">contribs</span>]]) 17:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:GalStar|GalStar]] Are you using a bot password or Oauth to allow the bot to log into it's account? If so did you remember to grant the confirmed and extendedconfirmed permissions to the password/Oauth grant? [[Special:Contributions/86.23.87.130|86.23.87.130]] ([[User talk:86.23.87.130|talk]]) 13:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Ah, thanks for the catch. I didn't grant it editprotected. [[User:GalStar|<span style="color: teal">Gal</span><span style="color: darkgreen">Star</span>]] ([[User talk:GalStar|<span style="color: royalblue">talk</span>]]) ([[Special:Contributions/GalStar|<span style="color: royalblue">contribs</span>]]) 17:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::The "page is protected" error occasionally happens to [[:User:DatBot]] too, and it's a mask for the 'real' error which is that the authentication drops: {{code|Your username or IP address has been automatically blocked by MediaWiki. The reason given is: :__NOEDITSECTION____NOTOC__ You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. '''''You are still able to view pages''', but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.'' Editing without an account from $1 is disabled as it is a [[private IP]] range. This is probably a result of a problem with your Internet connection. You may be able to edit if you [[Special:UserLogin|log in]] or [[Special:CreateAccount|create an account]]. . *Start of block: 20:42, 11 June 2025 *Expiration of block: no expiry set *Intended blockee: 172.16.0.76 Your current IP address is 172.16.0.76. Please include all above details in any queries you make.}}
::::::I'm sure there's a way to root out the underlying cause but I'm not smart enough to figure it out, and it happens infrequently enough for it not to be a major concer. [[User:DatGuy|DatGuy]]<sup>[[User talk:DatGuy|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/DatGuy|Contribs]]</sub> 14:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Oh good point, auth tokens do expire, but then edits would stop being listed as being done by graphbot, which isn’t the case. [[User:GalStar|<span style="color: teal">Gal</span><span style="color: darkgreen">Star</span>]] ([[User talk:GalStar|<span style="color: royalblue">talk</span>]]) ([[Special:Contributions/GalStar|<span style="color: royalblue">contribs</span>]]) 16:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Wow I literally linked to that and looked right past it, didn't I. Guess I'll remove the right as redundant. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 14:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Fair enough —'''[[User:Matrix|Matrix]]''' <sub>ping me</sub><sup>when u reply</sup> ([[User talk:Matrix|t?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|<sub></sub>c]]) 15:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Also the expiration for bot rights is late september, do I have to apply for a extension? [[User:GalStar|<span style="color: teal">Gal</span><span style="color: darkgreen">Star</span>]] ([[User talk:GalStar|<span style="color: royalblue">talk</span>]]) ([[Special:Contributions/GalStar|<span style="color: royalblue">contribs</span>]]) 02:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Block from Edit ==
Please I am blocked from edit(s) though I can't remember my Username & Password for and I just created another account with Username - Star Egejuru, yet I am not logged-in. Please unblock My-account now. [[Special:Contributions/102.88.109.145|102.88.109.145]] ([[User talk:102.88.109.145|talk]]) 05:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:For what it's worth, [[User:SuperMarioMan|SuperMarioMan]] pblocked the /16 of this IP from article and talk spaces for two months [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=171885318 ten days ago]. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 05:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Which looks to be tied to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/SuperMarioMan&target=SuperMarioMan&offset=20250815210618&limit=21 21 edits that were mostly talk page spam.] --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 10:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{yo|Star Egejuru|SuperMarioMan}} I've created the account. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 10:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks Pal! [[User:Star Egejuru|Star Egejuru]] ([[User talk:Star Egejuru|talk]]) 12:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
== Request for revision deletion ==
{{archive top|result=Rev-deleted. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)}}
I'm not entirely sure this belongs here, but this is neither a privacy violation nor a threat per se, nevertheless a grossly inappropriate edit summary: [[Special:Diff/1304035008]]. [[User:Stockhausenfan|Stockhausenfan]] ([[User talk:Stockhausenfan|talk]]) 17:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
{{ab}}
== Inactive mentors ==
Hopefully this is the right place to request a non-urgent admin action. [[Wikipedia:Growth Team features/Mentor list#Mentors automatically assigned to new accounts]] (scroll down to the table and sort by active data ascending) lists about 4 active mentors who have not been active for at least a month. It would be great if someone would change their status to "Away", as newbie questions are not being answered. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 21:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
: I have been manually doing this at the two-month threshold for a while when I remember. While I don't have any objection to setting a smaller threshold, I think the community should agree on how long we should wait before setting someone as away. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 21:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
== Appealing "temporary" indefinite block ==
Hello all, I have a "temporary" indefinite block on my account which reads, “Temporary block until editor responds to recent questions about their edits on Jewish terrorism.” I have responded to all of the questions on my talkpage in this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gjb0zWxOb#Jewish_terrorism section]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gjb0zWxOb&diff=prev&oldid=1304417382 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gjb0zWxOb&diff=prev&oldid=1304421604 here], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gjb0zWxOb&diff=prev&oldid=1305436030 here]. I outlined that my edits were made in [[WP:AGF|good faith]]. I also made a [[Talk:Jewish_terrorism|discussion]] about them on the talkpage at the time, and only got one reply. I did not undo the reversion of my edits because the user who made the comment made a good argument and I did not feel the need to contest it further. A couple of editors were concerned with some of the edits I made and mentioned it on my talkpage. While I meant to respond to the editors, including {{ping|Doug Weller}} {{ping|Sean.hoyland}} and {{ping|Theofunny}} I got busy with other things and forgot to respond.
Several weeks later, on August 2nd, I received a block that seemed intended to force me to respond to questions about my edits. Over the course of the month, I responded to the questions raised, as the blocking admin requested. I had responded to the article's talkpage as well as to the questions on my talkpage. I made sure to acknowledge where I went wrong with my edits and how I would improve in the future. Namely, that I understand now that [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] only applies in extremely rare cases when it pertains to removing sourced content, and that my edit summaries in the past were not as detailed as they should have been and I will make them more detailed moving forward. Two days after the block, the blocking admin Doug Weller stated, “I'll leave it to another Admin to decide.” I asked for clarification regarding his block on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&diff=prev&oldid=1304192245 his talkpage] and did not receive a response. Then, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gjb0zWxOb&diff=prev&oldid=1306957959 responded to his comment on my talkpage] asking for further clarification if any of the conditions regarding my block remain outstanding. He still has not responded to those inquiries.
I feel like I have tried everything. I feel I have done my best to address the reasoning provided for the block on my talkpage and elsewhere. I have appealed the block three times. I have taken this to the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1262#Confusing block|Teahouse]]. I even learned how to operate the [https://web.libera.chat/?channel=#wikipedia-en-unblock Libera IRC Chat] as is recommended by [[Help:I have been blocked]].
I am starting to feel incredibly hopeless.
I have acknowledged what I will do better moving forward, specifically making more detailed edit summaries, and not removing sourced content. Though I initially removed some content citing policy mentioned above, I now realize that in order to remove sourced content, it must first be taken to the talkpage for consensus to be reached, even if that is my rationale. I also realize now that my edits may not have been as supported by policy as I had first believed, something I would have learned if I took it to the talkpage first. I have been editing for over two years and I have never been blocked before. I acknowledge where I fell short in my comments, but this whole process has been insanely frustrating and I have felt ignored and left in the dark, like someone threw me in a prison and lost the key. Is this "temporary" block truly going to last forever? [[User:Gjb0zWxOb|Gjb0zWxOb]] ([[User talk:Gjb0zWxOb|talk]]) 22:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:I [[Special:Diff/1306989926/1307312568|told you]] what you still needed to respond to: why were you using misleading edit summaries? [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::The issue is not, as you stated above, that your edit summaries were not {{tq|detailed}} enough. It was that they were fundamentally misleading. Until you can honestly and adequately respond to straightforward questions without deflecting, you will remain blocked. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
| |||