Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fimatic (talk | contribs) at 21:14, 19 May 2024 (→Permission removal: Response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
    CfD 0 0 0 8 8
    TfD 0 0 0 0 0
    MfD 0 0 2 1 3
    FfD 0 0 1 18 19
    RfD 0 0 9 40 49
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (19 out of 9047 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Minneapolis 2024-12-25 01:00 2025-05-15 17:15 edit Upcoming TFA (bot protection) TFA Protector Bot
    Talk:List of countries by age at first marriage/Archive 2024-12-24 14:28 2024-12-31 14:28 create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
    Draft:Aryabhata International Computer Education 2024-12-24 12:22 2025-01-07 12:22 create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
    Matt Gaetz 2024-12-24 11:05 indefinite edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Fela Akinse (entrepreneur) 2024-12-24 03:35 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: attempt to bypass salted Fela Akinse Rsjaffe
    Spetsnaz 2024-12-23 22:20 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter
    Module:Location map/data/Slovakia 2024-12-23 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2523 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Draft:Yasir Arafat Rahim 2024-12-23 15:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated DoubleGrazing
    Egypt 2024-12-23 07:55 indefinite edit Highly visible page Callanecc
    Gilman School 2024-12-22 19:51 2025-02-22 19:51 edit Persistent vandalism Star Mississippi
    Module:Transclusion count/data/B 2024-12-22 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:Professional wrestling profiles 2024-12-22 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Kenn Navarro 2024-12-22 13:49 2025-03-22 13:49 edit Persistent vandalism UtherSRG
    Gwalvanshi Ahir 2024-12-22 03:19 2026-12-22 03:19 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Izno
    Syria 2024-12-22 03:03 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: WP:SCW El C
    Ronen Shoval 2024-12-22 00:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement per WP:PIA, after bulk-removal of refs by IP OwenX
    Draft:KristenHanby 2024-12-21 10:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; see Draft:Kristen Hanby BusterD
    Draft:Kristen Hanby 2024-12-21 10:51 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD
    KristenHanby 2024-12-21 10:50 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated, see Draft:Kristen Hanby; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD

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

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

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

    Notified: User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion

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

    Uninvolved (COVID19)

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

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

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

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

    • Overturn This seems to be a clear supervote and WAY outside what reliable sources state. At this point, any restriction on this viable theory is political in nature and feels very much like the last vestiges of clinging to "no, I can't possibly be wrong". Buffs (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I don't agree with the restriction, the close is with what could be considered reasonable given the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the whole discussion? I was expecting it to be longer when I clicked through. At this point, the close note plus this AN thread combined seem like they are far longer than the actual RfC. The whole thing seems really weird to me, frankly -- why do we have a box proclaiming itself to be "current consensus" if all the stuff in it is four years old? jp×g🗯️ 14:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would probably have closed it differently. The reference to WP:NOTCENSORED is quite a compelling policy-based argument that wasn't rebutted for example. It's also worth remembering NOTAVOTE is an essay, not a guideline or policy, although the ROUGHCONSENSUS guideline does say "Consensus is not determined by counting heads". However the fact I would have come to a different conclusion isn't sufficient reason to overturn the close; for that we'd need to demonstrate the conclusion the closer came to is unreasonable, and I don't think it is. WaggersTALK 14:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this is byzantine. Overturn. If there is no consensus about whether a consensus exists, then no consensus exists, and the statement saying a consensus exists should be removed as wrong. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That RfC is probably one of the shortest (and most concise) I've ever seen. And I would have reached a different conclusion after spending just 5 minutes reading all the comments. A double-vote was not correctly identified and discounted. Closer wrote much more than every participant in the discussion to justify their stance, giving an appearance of a supervote. That's a clear Overturn. I echo what has been said about shutting down the current RfCs based on previous RfC from 6 months ago. The whole virus is only 4 years old. That means (checking my math) it has been more than 1/8 of the virus' entire history since the newest RfC was created after the last one. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved (COVID19)

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

    Discussion

    Ignoring the massive discussion, the facts are abundantly clear. I went WP:BEBOLD and invoked WP:IAR: [6]. WP:BRD if you feel I'm in error. Buffs (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Are these "/current_consensus" pages even real?

    • The more I think about this whole "official talk page current consensus box" thing, the weirder it gets. Since when do we have a policy or procedure for keeping a set of officially-determined statements about article consensus... on the talk page of an article... separate from actual consensus on the article? And then we have to have separate discussions to change the "official consensus" thing on the talk page, versus just the article? I don't see anything about it in any of our policies or guidelines; I am looking through some talk pages, each of which I know to be a zoo, and seeing if they have anything like this. So far it's a "no" for Talk:Israel–Hamas war, Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign), Talk:Race and intelligence. A title search says that there are, apparently, only thirteen of these pages on the whole site. The first was at Talk:Donald Trump, which seems to have been unilaterally created by one admin in 2017. What in tarnation are these? Are these binding over actual article consensus or actual talk page consensus? jp×g🗯️ 15:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They appear to be a mutation of the FAQ header sections that articles like Gamergate and R&I do have. However those are used to explain commonly asked questions and are more informative.
      The statement in question is from a talk page consensus (this May 2020 RFC). But how it's stated has led to an RFC on whether to remove a statement from a talk page, which is just bureaucracy. An RFC on text to be included would have been a better solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A good question for this closure is why the bureaucracy was weighted more heavily than the editing. Deferring to editing consensus would be preferable given that an RfC for mainspace content never occurred(to your point). SmolBrane (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Probably because that's how the RFC question was raised. If someone edited content in, was reverted and following discusion the content was kept then the statement would de facto be struck down. This seems a more sensible approach than an RFC about removing the statement from the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This RfC was not about removing the talk page statement, it was whether or not the statement was "still valid". Perhaps this is central to the issue. SmolBrane (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But that is still an RFC about a talk page statement, my point was the framing of the consensus blocks is the cause of such odd discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For pages that have had a lot of RFCs, they are basically a history of RFC results for that page. Here's some other ones. I see nothing wrong with documenting RFC results and consensuses this way. It makes it more organized. The proper way to change an item that has been RFC'd before is to RFC it again. And then we have to have separate discussions to change the "official consensus" thing on the talk page, versus just the article? Normally I think one would change both the current consensus and the article content at the same time (to reflect the result of a new RFC). The two seem clearly linked to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to side with JPxG on this. This is layered bureaucracy designed to get a consensus and then have it apply in perpetuity. The fact that it was applied first with Trump and now with COVID should be an indicator that there are other factors at play (a.k.a. "Fact checking"). Buffs (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree too, it's instruction creep of the worst kind. This kind of thing should be in the WP namespace as a formal policy or guideline. It's no wonder people fall foul of these pseudo-regulations if they're spread all over the place in talk subpages. If an RfC finds consensus to make a guideline, make it a proper one. WaggersTALK 08:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Aren't these current consensus templates just a list of RFC results though? A list of RFC results doesn't ring any alarm bells for me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It depends what the RfC is for. If it's to establish a rule like "don't mention the theory that COVID-19 might have originated in a lab" then that's a guideline and should be published as such. WaggersTALK 08:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess it depends on scope. Guidelines like that go beyond a single article. Others might just be consensus for what one particular article should say, in which case it's fine that they stay on the talk page. But that sort of consensus only reflects that moment in time, so doesn't necessarily need to be kept for posterity. In short, we can't have it both ways. Either it's a "moment in time" decision or it's a lasting guideline. WaggersTALK 08:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And sometimes the so called "consensus" is just two people agreeing, yet it's treated like a commandment forever more (often by the same two people). The Trump list is like RSP: start clicking through the links and you'll find a bunch of the entries are BS. The lab leak one is another example where "documented consensus" -- aka the opinion of strong minded editors -- failed to keep up with RSes and actually impeded Wikipedia writing an accurate summary of current scholarship on the subject. Havana syndrome is another example. Pentagon UFOs also IIRC. Same with policy/guideline FAQs. Sometimes it's good to establish and document consensus, but also those tools or processes get abused by folks who want to use them to assert consensus rather than document it. Levivich (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. This is why I think this kind of thing needs to either become actual guidelines, or not be kept at all. Discussions about genuine policies and guidelines tend to attract a fair bit more community scrutiny and stop rubbish like this getting through. WaggersTALK 13:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think to some extent this happens because people want others to read the previous discussions and not cause massive time sinks. Talk:Twitter has an FAQ section where 8 move discussions are linked, for example. Obviously consensus can change but I don't think that mentioning previous consensus where there's been strong editor participation (not a two person decision like Levivich mentioned) is a bad idea in itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm unconvinced your claim about Havana syndrome is accurate. AFAICT, there has never been a current consensus documented on the talk page [7] Talk:Havana syndrome/Current consensus. I'm aware of how controversial it's been in recent times, but my impression and I had a quick look at Talk:Havana syndrome which seems to affirm my belief that the discussion has primarily about whether the recent reports are of sufficient quality to be mentioned in the article and where and how WP:MEDRS applies. In terms of discussions over consensus, I see repeated claims there is consensus to add stuff based on the recent reports (which clearly can only be referring to a recent consensus) as well as discussions about there being consensus for MEDRS etc and people imploring others to gain consensus before making changes to avoid blocks and page protection (i.e. not necessarily because there was existing consensus they needed to override but because as always when there is dispute there needs to be discussion rather than edit-warring). Oh and there are also mentions of alleged consensuses outside of wikipedia e.g. a scientific consensus or medical consensus. In other words, this is a fairly typical highly charged disputed involving stuff some editors feel is fringe and the sourcing making certain claims are insufficient, and where others disagree. It may very well be correct that the anti-fringe editors often have the "upper-hand", so to speak, for various reasons but this is not because of any specific claims about a documented consensus other than MEDRS itself (for which there clearly is consensus even if not in it's application to any specific case). Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Linas is still openly actively editing

    (Non-admin closure) Linas have been unblocked. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    If I see correctly, the last discussion about this situation was archived without close and without action at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive326#Block_review_:_Linas in 2020. The user is indefinitely blocked and still openly actively editing as 67.198.37.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), proudly displaying their editing history on their talk page (diff).

    I initially placed a long-duration block evasion block, but looking at the previous discussion (and I might have overlooked newer ones) and the interactions on their user talk page, I'm left without a strong desire for blocking, and mostly baffled.

    The easiest way out of the situation would be unblocking the account in case there's consensus for doing so, I guess.

    This is so weird. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unblock This is a silly situation, either they should be unblocked or the IP should be blocked for much longer period. Established editors evading a block or scrutiny by not logging in is a major reason editing as an IP can be so difficult. Having scrubbed back through their talk page edits the issue of personal attacks and harassment doesn't appear to have been an issue recently, and if they return to their old ways the account and the IP can be appropriately blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock either they will continue to do good work, or the pre-existing sanctions will allow any admin to make quick work of them. FortunateSons (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • An IAR unblock would have near-zero cost, and a decent upside. The old, rouge Floquenbeam would have just unblocked, but the more cowardly new Floquenbeam will just comment instead, and leave it for someone else. If they've been blocked for 12 years, another 12 hours won't hurt. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely unblock; that 2020 (3rd-party) appeal reached a pretty clear consensus, and it's a shame it never got acted upon. I don't even think it's a matter of rope anymore; the original block was rather spurious, to say the least. ——Serial Number 54129 15:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock - during the previous third-party appeal that was imposed on them without their consent (User talk:67.198.37.16#Ask forgiveness), they claimed that bureaucrats told them to edit anonymously while their account was blocked (!), while simultaneously claiming that the account wasn't theirs, and when that was not gaining traction (because they obviously are evading a block) they switched to saying that the block had expired (it had not) and repeatedly insulted the admin that tried to explain what "indefinite" means. After they were shown that the account was definitely still blocked and also shown the policies against block evasion and personal attacks, they changed their strategy to simply say loudly that they were breaking no rules, and accused everyone who did not agree of lying and being "in cahoots" with one another for sinister motives, including at least one editor who had been supporting them, just because they were admins and because "bureaucrats are the layer above WP admins" (they're not). This was all in response to someone having posted a link to the AN unblock discussion which up to that point had been rather strongly supporting unblocking them. This user has an extreme persecution complex which is not compatible with editing a collaborative project where fellow editors will challenge your work from time to time. This block-evading IP should be blocked, and should continue to be blocked each time they come back, until they make a proper unblock request acknowledging their poor behaviour.
    For the record I am in favour of an IAR interpretation of unblocking editors in mistaken cases of inadvertent block evasion, or where a blocked user has managed a history of productive contributions in spite of a block for a one-time incident and where the behaviour has not continued. This is not one of those situations. A user whose response to being told they're breaking the rules is to state that the rules don't exist should not be editing here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have unblocked Linas based on the discussion above. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User Vif12vf disruptive edits

    Could someone please have a look at the nonsensical reversions of user Vif12vf? For example, he keeps on adding content about Nuevo Movimiento al Socialismo on the page of Movimiento al Socialismo (Argentina), even though these are different parties. The Spanish Wikipedia makes this very clear (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuevo_Movimiento_al_Socialismo). Further, he continues with removing content in the lead of the page of the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina), even though the sources are given in the text, its four national deputies are well known, and the infobox states that the party has four national deputies as well. And so on and so forth.

    This behaviour is precisely the reason why the atmosphere on Wikipedia becomes toxic. 2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For context, the IP above makes additions without making it clear where their information comes from. They also removed some information containing a reference at Workers' Left Front as part of this process. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NMAS is not MAS. The PTSU is not a founding member of the Workers' Left Front (thus the reference was misinterpreted and didn't belong in the article). In addition, the articles request the user to "expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article".2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Expansions with content from other-language versions of wikipedia still has to be accompanied with the actual sources used, and wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But ... the sentence the IP is removing is completely unsourced? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You need a source that states that NMAS is not MAS? Ridiculous.2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam If you are referring to the notion from MAS, then this is the case with most of that stub, which generally speaking hardly appears to be notable enough to have an article in the first place! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, the spanish article, while containing a fair bit more content, also appear to be poorly sourced. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to the fact that you edit-warred to keep an unsourced sentence in the article, while demanding that the IP editor provide a source to remove it. Not really how it works. Also, your first revert you treated like the IP was vandalising, when they clearly provided a reason. You've had a previous 3 month block for edit warring a few years ago, and sweveral edit warring blocks in the past. Were I you, I would take accusations of edit warring seriously, and back away from the edge, before you find yourself banned, or with a 1RR limitation, or something. The talk page is open, as is AFD. What is not open is to disregard a good faith editor because they are editing with an IP, and edit warring. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IP editor, you were edit warring too. Please use the talk page section I graciously created for the two of you. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and I see that you added a dubious tag. That's good enough for me. But there is still incorrect infomation in the Workers' Left Front page, reverted back in by Vif12vf. The PSTU is not a founding member. In addition, he removed the names of the national deputies of the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina) from the lead of its article.2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I would suggest adding a {{dubious}} tag there, too, and open a section of that talk page. It takes about 1 minute. 2 if you're plodding like me. When there is no obvious-to-everyone right or wrong version, we usually default to the status quo ante until it's discussed. The discussion doesn't need to be long and protracted, we just need to see if there's a consensus for one or the other. Or, optimally, one of you actually changes the other's mind. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Can I add back the names of the national deputies removed by Vif12vf on the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina)-page? I have sources.2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This would place you over 3RR on that article. Why not start a section on the talk page? Jake Wartenberg (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My advice would be to just let it go for a day. Technically you'd be at 3 reverts on that page too. Don't risk an edit warring block just when things seem to be cooling down. Also, a final note, the use of "vandalism" to describe edits that you disagree with, but were intended to be good edits, is really a red flag to many people. Don't risk derailing a discussion by calling someone who annoys you a vandal. It backfires every time. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understand. I thought that Vif12vf had misunderstood or something, but then he began to spam my IP-page with warnings and began demanding sources for the removal of one unsourced sentence (as you also have noted above). That doesn't makes sense at all. Maybe this doesn't constitute vandalism but it's disingenuous and disruptive. Anyway, I won't add back the names. I leave that task to someone else.2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Vif12vf is over 3RR on Movimiento al Socialismo (Argentina). Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jake Wartenberg Oops, thats my bad, lost count in the middle of everything else going on. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Permission removal

    I'm currently a member of the following five groups: autoconfirmed users, extended confirmed users, pending changes reviewers, rollbackers and users. Last one's redundant, of course. Would I be able to get the first 4 removed, so that my account has no special permissions? Thank you in advance. (If autoconfirmed/extended confirmed can't be removed, just get rid of the rollback & pending changes designations.) -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 06:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed pending changes reviewer and rollbacker but kept extended confirmed as the latter is not so much a special permission but a recognition of experience and commitment. It could be removed if you want, but I don't think it would automatically return. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, extendedconfirmed is granted automatically upon an account meeting the requirements, but only at that point. If the permission is removed manually it will not be re-granted automatically, but can be requested at WP:PERM. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for making those changes. If it's possible, though, could you get rid of the other 2 permissions as well (autoconfirmed/extended confirmed)? That should be all, once that's done. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I pulled extended confirmed. Autoconfirmed cannot be removed. Looks like I originally granted you rollback a decade ago! Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Thanks for making that final change. It's funny to hear that too - I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while but it's great to see the same people sticking around. Hope you're doing alright. Take care. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 21:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MisterHarrington

    (Non-admin closure) Closing per TJRC's suggestion, will move to WP:ANI if problematic behaviour continues, but they've now had multiple messages posted to their talk page, including by admins, so hopefully the questionable editing stops. Adam Black talk • contributions 12:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    MisterHarrington (talk · contribs) appears to be wilfully ignoring WP:ENGVAR. They have been warned by multiple editors on their talk page on at least five occasions (TJRC at 22:58, 14 May 2024, TJRC at 18:20, 15 May 2024, TJRC at 20:18, 15 May 2024, myself at 16:32, 17 May 2024 and Soni at 21:26, 17 May 2024). I issued a level 4 warning, as I could see from the edit history there had been multiple, ignored warnings. Seemingly, however, the unconstructive edits have continued, and MisterHarrington has reverted @Soni's latest reversion of his needless change from British to American English at Lucy Letby after receiving another warning. I think this is a clear case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and it seems like administrator intervention is warranted. Adam Black talk • contributions 21:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @TJRC Adam Black talk • contributions 21:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would also be useful to look at their rather wild use of Twinkle now and again. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is continuing. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this at WP:AN rather than WP:ANI, why are you not providing diffs of the breaches of WP:ENGVAR that you're complaining about, and why are you representing the erroneous change from "inquiry" to "enquiry" as a change from British to American English? NebY (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your message comes across as a bit abrasive. I'm relatively new to the bureaucratic side of Wikipedia. I brought this here because I felt the user's editing pattern could benefit from being reviewed by an administrator. I find the various different noticeboards a bit confusing, though. I was not aware I needed to provide all of the diffs for the WP:ENGVAR breaches. I'm busy working on an article at the moment but I will look through the user contributions later and provide diffs for problematic edits. As for "inquiry" to "enquiry", we call these inquiries in the UK and I am not familiar with every variant of English (I don't think I specifically mentioned American English, but I could be wrong); I assumed given the other warnings for WP:ENGVAR this was another violation. Adam Black talk • contributions 16:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ANI, as stated at the top of this page, is the place for intractable behavior problems and as stated in that page's header, provide diffs. You're asking administrators to take action; what you assumed because you've seen warnings is not a valid basis for action. As to I don't think I specifically mentioned American English, your original posting here includes MisterHarrington has reverted @Soni's latest reversion of his needless change from British to American English at Lucy Letby after receiving another warning. "Enquiry"[8] is not American English. How many actual cases of MisterHarrington needlessly changing from BrEng to AmEng are there? NebY (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adam Black, rather than getting bogged down in a meta-discussion about what mechanism is the appropriate one to raise this issue, why don't you close this and re-raise it in WP:ANI as suggested above? Right now the discussion is centered on where the discussion should be rather than the editing behavior (or behaviour!) that needs to be addressed; closing out and restarting will probably be more productive. TJRC (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Deletion procedure for draft articles created in violation of arbitration remedies

    Is there a standard (speedy?) deletion process for cases where a non-extendedconfirmed user creates a draft article that unambiguously falls within a topic area covered by EC restrictions e.g. Draft:Bmaryamin_Ambush by Special:Contributions/Humbler21 with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict? Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See RfC: Status of G5 and subsequent discussion. Admin can decide not to, though. Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators. Levivich (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The current apparently unresolved status increases the chance that I will file an SPI request under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NormalguyfromUK. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do both? Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or neither. Laziness is a factor. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting an experienced editor and keeping Viraj Mithani

    I'm done dealing with nonsense like this [9]. If a promo article that ledes with statements like "...where contradictory forms bombard our thoughts and gazes." and is authored by an account that is probably a sock and was blocked as a "Spam / advertising-only account",[10] isn't G11 I'm in the wrong place. I've had my NPP flag removed,[11], and doubt I will continue contributing in anyway. @Bbb23: has won the game they've been playing with me, but it cost Wikipedia an editor. I'm well aware there is little concern about losing experienced editors, but eventually it will catch up with Wikipedia (and clearly is having an impact at AfC, AfD, and NPP).  // Timothy :: talk  17:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm really quite confident Bbb23 is not trying to get rid of you. There are graceful ways to leave if you're sick of a place, but coming to AN on your way out the door just to blame it on one person who disagrees with you on the definition of a G11 isn't one of them. Hope you find some peace and come back in a better frame of mind. You've done a lot of good work. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Timothy, I hope your absence isn't forever. I have taken two extended WikiBreaks during my 11 years here, the first for 6 months when I was a new editor and got into what seemed like a dispute that would never end (that editor left Wikipedia during my time away) and later for 2 years after some changing life circumstances. Both times I came back to Wikipedia renewed and ready to get to work. So don't say goodbye forever, if stress or ongoing conflicts are wearing you down, change your environment for a week, a month or several months. Come back after you have cleared your head and differences that could be driving you crazy now might not seem so catastrophic. But I agree with Floq, you've contributed a lot to Wikipedia and I'd hate if you slammed the door shut forever on your way out. Take care. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mattythewhite

    Mattythewhite has consistently been changing the Brighton and Hove Albion manager section from vacant to Roberto De Zerbi even though a citation from the official Brighton and Hove Albion website announcing Roberto De Zerbi is leaving has been added Brightonandhovewinnerz (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Brightonandhovewinnerz: You must notify an editor when you start a discussion about them. I have done that for you. Administrators don't adjudicate content disputes. Discuss it on the article's talk page and don't engage in an edit war. RudolfRed (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He's leaving effectively after the Manchester United match on Sunday, that's why Mattythewhite and Struway2 have restored it to have De Zerbi as the manager on the article. Having it as vacant is factually incorrect. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Account being sold

    Nothing to see or do here. Amortias (T)(C) 19:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It has come to my attention here that User:Sachinsewa, a veteran Wikipedia editor, may potentially be selling their account. This could be a hot spot for vandals/trolls using an account with lots of edits to get away with something bad. Can WMF do anything about this, and/or could admins block this account to prevent this account from going in the wrong hands? Courtesy ping: Saqib for telling me about this. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 18:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The account is glocked and has been since 2021. Selling the account is basically scamming whoever buys it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. I should've seen that. Is there a place I can see why it was glocked? thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 18:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CentralAuth generally also includes the glock reason (in this case, cross-wiki promotion). With that said... the stats given on that page don't sync with Sachinsewa's account details. So this is almost certainly a scam. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, they claim 4K+ edits on enwiki alone but on enwiki they have only 14. Scam, and I'm guessing that's why no one has fallen for it. Oh well. Closing. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 18:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-opening discussion as intervention may be necessary after all. Check the user ID shown in the first screenshot. Querying the public Wikipedia database shows this ID is tied to User:UA3 and not User:Sachinsewa. This user has 4,043 edits, which matches what is being claimed in the ad. See [12] for the query. Adam Black talk • contributions 18:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Took the words right out of my muzzle, and answered the question I was going to ask, to boot. Based on what my popups say, UA3's inactive (last edit ca. 2 years ago). If Sachinsewa's trying to sell off UA3's account, my thinking is he's either running a scam or he's compromised UA3 (and thus knows/could give up the account's password). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the ad was posted in 2022, around the time UA3 went inactive. Given Sachinsewa's block, it could be the case that it's a sockpuppet. Adam Black talk • contributions 18:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. But unless there's strong behavioural evidence, that can't be proven. (It couldn't be proven technically even at the time, either; Sachinsewa was glocked a year before UA3 went on sabbatical and hadn't edited en.wp for ten years at the time of the glock.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This thread can safely be re-closed. First, the for sale link is from 2022, still no edits 2 years after it went on sale. Second, anyone stupid enough to pay $1500 for an "aged" account with only 4k edits will have CIR issues that will be easy to spot. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeez... reading through this listing feels like pointing a flashlight into a rubbish bin to watch the scuttling. Everything wrong with WP:UPE distilled into one heady brew... ---Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1RR appeal by Marcelus

    I would like to ask the community to remove or reduce the 1RR restriction imposed on me. I received 0RR on March 7, 2023 ([13]), this restriction was reduced to 1RR on July 3, 2023 ([14]), for appreciating my trouble-free editing history. On September 27, however, after my 2nd revert on the Povilas Plechavičius article, I received 0RR again ([15]). It was once again reduced to 1RR on November 29, 2023 ([16]).

    I received 0RR for waging the editing wars. Since then, I have changed my style of working and communicating with other editors. I avoid making reverts, in complicated situations I initiate discussion. Except for this one case on Povilas Plechavičius, I have not had any problems related to reverts. My revert to Povilas Plechavičius was due to my misinterpretation of the revert (I restored the deleted content with the addition of sources, responding to the objections of the user who removed the content under the pretext of a lack of sources), and not out of bad faith.

    After another five months of trouble-free editing, I would ask that the sanction be removed or reduced.

    This is the second attempt to process this issue, the previous one ([Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive360#1RR_appeal_by_Marcelus_(restored)]) did not attract the attention of any admin, and was also spammed by users who do not like me.Marcelus (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC closure

    Asking for a review of an RFC closure. An RFC was closed by a now indefinitely blocked user. As far as I can see the conclusion of the RFC was also based on the numbers of people that supported each position, which runs counter to "Wikipedia is not a democracy" and was not predicated upon the actual arguments made. The RFC in question can be seen at Talk:ANO 2011#Should centre-right be in the infobox?. Helper201 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You're asking for a review of a close from eight months ago because the person who closed it was blocked two months ago? That doesn't sound like a productive use of anyone's time. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One reason was because they were blocked. The other is because I think the conclusion was declared based around the numbers of people voting on each side, which breaks "Wikipedia is not a democracy". Therefore the conclusion is flawed if it’s based upon the braking of a guideline. Helper201 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1224686579"