Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 10 | 14 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 19 | 23 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
- 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 126 sockpuppet investigations
- 14 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 1 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 18 requests for RD1 redaction
- 51 elapsed requested moves
- 5 Pages at move review
- 15 requested closures
- 90 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 44 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The C of E Tban appeal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is an appeal against my topic ban from DYK (imposed here. Having been over a year since it was imposed, I recognised that my conduct back then was unbecoming and the drama I caused was unacceptable. I know that what I did back then was wrong and I apologise again for it. I have been working with WP:ITN to show I can be productive and avoid drama. I would love to be able to return to help build preps and restore goodwill to help the project. My previous appeal was rejected on the grounds that I had not been clear about what I had been looking for to be done.
Please let me be clear, I am aware of the strength of feeling about me so I am willing that if the TBan is lifted, to comply fully with the restrictions I was under prior to the TBAN (ie. a ban on nominating LGBT, British/Irish politics or Religion, ban on editing my own hooks in prep and anyone has a veto over my hooks). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - Just as a comment, 17 of the last 500 contributions for The C of E from October 2022 to now have been at WP:ITN, and most of them regarding Recent Deaths in particular, which makes sense since most of his work has been at mainspace. A few of the RDs he participated in have been articles that he has improved to bring up to par for posting. I wouldn't classify him necessarily as a regular participant, but I can attest to occasionally seeing him participate there with relatively low drama. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- What is "relatively low drama"? Shouldn't an editor trying to "avoid drama" and have their topic ban removed stir up next-to-no drama, as opposed to "relatively low drama". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- As an ITN regular I can say I have not noticed any drama in regards to C of E's participation there. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I say relatively low because I haven't seen him engage in any overt breaching experiments, but it's only from my limited point of view and I can't speak for the totality of his activity there. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- What is "relatively low drama"? Shouldn't an editor trying to "avoid drama" and have their topic ban removed stir up next-to-no drama, as opposed to "relatively low drama". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support - but please, please, please C of E, stay well clear of any attempts at humor or being 'edgy.' I am all for second chances, but I cannot pretend I will read any borderline material charitably; no offence intended of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Support, with the pre-existing restrictions still in place. Last chance. I also echo what Dumuzid says. Humour (particularly edgy humour) is very hard to do well, so please leave it to people who are good at it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)- Oppose. I've changed my mind after considering other opinions below, and re-reading a number of past discussions. I was sympathetic to TCOE being allowed back to DYK (partly for reasons that I don't want to go into here as they're getting close to WP:NOTTHERAPY). But I think the opposers below are right, and there have been too many red flags. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support largely thinking along the same lines as Boing! Courcelles (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support per WP:ROPE and per Boing! said Zebedee. I'd also like to see the proposal from the prior discussion that C of E also refrain from that C of E refrain from "creating any sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content" as well, insofar as if they did so, I would be the first to get in line to reinstate the full topic ban they are asking for relief from. I can confirm that C of E has contributed to ITN in the intervening year: [1] and that their participation there has flown under the radar and has not drawn attention to itself. Honestly, I hadn't remembered seeing them there at all, and I'm there every day. Which is saying a lot about how innocuous and under-the-radar it has been, which I think is kinda the idea. If we saw a similar level of blandness at DYK, I think we'd be fine. --Jayron32 16:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Enough second, third, etc., chances have been given. Everyone is capable of redemption at a point, but I see no remorse, above, for repeated attempts to use our Main Page to promote hatred against various minority groups, as documented thoroughly at the multiple previous TBAN threads. [2][3] I'm aware he isn't appealing the ban that stems from the worst of that, but why exactly do we want someone working on DYK who has repeatedly tried to get slurs and blatant political provocation on the Main Page, and seems to still not see the problem with that? Someone who has pushed every envelope he's been given? The continued full-throated defense of British imperialism on his userpage—right alongside a desire to be an admin someday—does not exactly augur confidence that he understands what is and isn't likely to offend. I'm not convinced Wikipedia needs editors like this at all; we definitely don't need them anywhere near Main Page content. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Tamzin's rationale given above aligns with the reason why I didn't !vote to support despite the evidence of his uncontroversial editing at ITN. It's still not clear to me what there is to be gained on Wikipedia or in DYK by having him return to this area. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm curious, having just looked at his user page, what's the "full-throated defense of British imperialism". Is it the box with the flags and the caption "The 4 nations of the country that helped make the world"? Generally nationalistic (and not to my taste), yes. But calling it something as specific as a full-throated defence of British imperialism is a stretch, IMO. Was there something else on his page that I missed? DeCausa (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion of course but personally I don't see how "the country that helped make the world" could be read as anything other than a full-throated defence of British imperialism. (These countries didn't exist before Britain "made" them? Really?) He may have got rid of all the jingoistic and bigoted userboxes he used to have but the underlying sentiment is still the same. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- He competes in WikiCups under the flag of the "British Empire", too. XAM2175 (T) 20:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's possibly worth pointing out that previous revisions of TCOE's user page screamed "British Imperialism" pretty much unambiguously, and it was toned down after criticism in one of the earlier rounds of these discussions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, just seen that. His current box may well be a dog whistle to those (although I still think the current box in itself is just jingoistic nationalism). What's odd about him, as I noted lower down, is restoration of the Empire is quite a niche/quirky theme for the far right nowadays. It's quite idiosyncratic and not normally where you'd expect someone on the far right (in Britain) to be majoring on. DeCausa (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. I don't actually think we're seeing far right motivation here. I think it's more like someone who needs a very ordered life, with a set of rules to be followed (given by an authority figure), where there's no ambiguity between right and wrong, in a world that's black and white with no shades of grey. But if I try to dig any deeper than that, I'd be venturing into psychoanalysis without any qualifications. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Playing amateur armchair psychoanalysis, and putting this together with their style of humour, I would say it's someone stuck emotionally in their youth sometime between the late 1950s and late '70s. Better stop there.DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do you mind? I find that is rather rude speculating on someones mental health and mindset. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's a very fair point. My apologies. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- TCOE, I know it's not great to speculate on another's mindset and mental health (but, to be fair you did openly state that you're on the autism spectrum and that you're suffering from mental health issues). I won't try to dig any deeper, but I do want to make one point that I think might help you if you can understand it. I think most people here have a problem with accepting that you didn't mean to offend anyone and didn't realise what you were doing wrong, while at the same time seeing multiple DYK examples (plus those old userboxes) that are obviously offensive to people with various characteristics, cultures and opinions that are different to yours. And so people are going to ask themselves how on earth can someone honestly not see what everyone else can see as plain as the nose on their face. And we're inevitably going to speculate, even if it's only privately. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do you mind? I find that is rather rude speculating on someones mental health and mindset. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Playing amateur armchair psychoanalysis, and putting this together with their style of humour, I would say it's someone stuck emotionally in their youth sometime between the late 1950s and late '70s. Better stop there.DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. I don't actually think we're seeing far right motivation here. I think it's more like someone who needs a very ordered life, with a set of rules to be followed (given by an authority figure), where there's no ambiguity between right and wrong, in a world that's black and white with no shades of grey. But if I try to dig any deeper than that, I'd be venturing into psychoanalysis without any qualifications. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, just seen that. His current box may well be a dog whistle to those (although I still think the current box in itself is just jingoistic nationalism). What's odd about him, as I noted lower down, is restoration of the Empire is quite a niche/quirky theme for the far right nowadays. It's quite idiosyncratic and not normally where you'd expect someone on the far right (in Britain) to be majoring on. DeCausa (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion of course but personally I don't see how "the country that helped make the world" could be read as anything other than a full-throated defence of British imperialism. (These countries didn't exist before Britain "made" them? Really?) He may have got rid of all the jingoistic and bigoted userboxes he used to have but the underlying sentiment is still the same. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support time served. We are all volunteers; this person behaved badly several times and they have been sanctioned. I see contrition in the request and they waited almost 9 months for a second appeal. In closing the first appeal Valereee told them to try again in six months. I am sure there will be many eyes on them at DYK and no harm will come to the project. The upside is that the editor has almost 600 DYKs and will be a prolific contributor. Let's hope they follow Boing! said Zebedee's advice. Lightburst (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support lifting the specific TBAN linked (the one on DYK in general), but oppose lifting the earlier TBAN (the one on British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics in DYK). There was far too much civil POV-pushing over far too long a term for this generic apology and appeal to convince me that it would not return. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am going to Oppose along with Tamzin even though I can read the writing on the wall that this topic ban is likely going to be reversed. This editor has spent nearly 15 years engaging in provocatively inappropriate editing. I remember their shockingly inappropriate disruption of United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster, a fascinating article about the legal and artistic status of gold, and mining gold in the United States, and the use of gold to market gambling casinos in the state of Nevada. This editor creepily reasoned "rooster is a synonym for cock and cock is a synonym for penis", accompanied by "a man named Richard has a nickname of Dick" to make multiple repetitive strikingly unfunny penis jokes, severely damaging an article about a notable topic to advance their puerile and utterly inappropriate agenda, and to try to shoehorn something shocking into DYK, when the stupid "hook" was entirely unsupported by what the actual reliable sources say, all of which discuss a golden rooster statue and none of which make penis jokes. This is not ancient history - it took place in 2021. This is only one of many examples of the grotesque misconduct by this editor which has not been limited to fleeting DYK hooks but also to disruptive editing of actual encyclopedia articles to advance their reactionary, attention-seeking agenda. So, if the community wants to give this editor some rope, I will certainly respect consensus. But I want to go on record as saying that I will forcefully support an indefinite block for this editor the next time they try to pull any vile or ugly stunts, as they have so many times in the past. Cullen328 (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support The ban should never have been placed. Time to remove it. --evrik (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would disagree that the ban should have never been placed. The C of E tested the DYK community's patience multiple times despite repeated warnings and multiple discussions that their hooks were pushing the rules. Even after their topic bans were implemented (the non-DYK ones) the issues continued. If anything, it's not the ban should have never been placed, it's that it's surprising the ban wasn't placed sooner. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose for now - As much as I'd want to support him being given one last WP:ROPE, I'm not just confident that this would be any different from the past. I understand that The C of E dearly misses DYK and I can understand that sentiment, but an argument could be made that enough rope was already given in the first place: the fact that he wasn't topic banned from DYK until years after his original topic bans regarding problematic content (one of which was even ArbCom-imposed) shows that he was given plenty of chances to change. Considering the earlier issues, I'm just not confident that, if the topic ban is lifted, he will keep his promise and avoid getting into trouble.
- Having said that, if the topic ban is lifted per consensus, I would highly suggest that, moving forward, any nominations he does would need a co-nominator, one who would be willing to advise him if the hook and article are good or not. The co-nominator could be some kind of rope to ensure previous issues don't repeat. But again, this is dependent on the topic ban being lifted and, as much as I would want to give The C of E one last chance, at this time I am not confident he can keep his promises. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I have my reasons to be skeptical. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose C of E doesn't have a divine right to participate at DYK no matter how much they wish to, and I still believe the integrity of the Main Page would be better preserved by leaving the ban in place. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Moral oppose per Tamzin and Cullen. It appears it will be lifted, but shouldn't be. There's no indication we won't be back here again, and in addition to the time wasted he'll probably continue to be offensive and a time sink, just as he has in every other time he's been given a last chance. Star Mississippi 12:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Question @The C of E: In addition to the other pre-TBAN restrictions, do you understand and agree that you will have to stay away from "creating any sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content" or other "edgy humour" if you return to DYK, per Jayron32 and Boing? DeCausa (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- @DeCausa: I do and agree that I will stay away from any of those. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support, just about. Got to be the last chance. DeCausa (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose for the record since I didn't !vote yet, although I realize that based on the heavy-hitters putting their support behind lifting the TBAN, it's likely this appeal will be granted. I have the same apprehensions as everyone else, due to the recency of the disruption that had occurred. The fruits of rehabilitation just aren't ripe enough, in my opinion. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope that whoever closes this will judge the consensus solely on the strength of the arguments, and not in any way on the weight of any of the hitters. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I hope so too, Boing, but I also believe your arguments and those of Jayron32 are stronger than those that I may have. Clemency is nearly always desirable if possible, not just because of the easiness of blocking but also the probability that a productive user can return to Wikipedia and contribute positively. I think in nearly all cases in which the offender is both contrite and has had a previously productive background, it's a stronger argument overall. My desire to not unblock is embedded in the disgust at the extreme audacity of the edits which got the user into trouble, which I concede is a somewhat irrational position. So in spite of my presumptuous wording in using the term "heavy-hitters" (and I do apologize for that), I do also think you are very CLUEful and that is reflected by your position. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I think your position is entirely rational. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, you must be new to Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I know the way things can work here - but my comment is as much a reminder to the closer as anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I hope so too, Boing, but I also believe your arguments and those of Jayron32 are stronger than those that I may have. Clemency is nearly always desirable if possible, not just because of the easiness of blocking but also the probability that a productive user can return to Wikipedia and contribute positively. I think in nearly all cases in which the offender is both contrite and has had a previously productive background, it's a stronger argument overall. My desire to not unblock is embedded in the disgust at the extreme audacity of the edits which got the user into trouble, which I concede is a somewhat irrational position. So in spite of my presumptuous wording in using the term "heavy-hitters" (and I do apologize for that), I do also think you are very CLUEful and that is reflected by your position. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope that whoever closes this will judge the consensus solely on the strength of the arguments, and not in any way on the weight of any of the hitters. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. The C of E wrote an equally apologetic appeal to his initial topic ban[4]. The appeal was withdrawn when it was clear it wouldn't be granted, and that was followed by the behavior that led to the block from all DYK. He had multiple opportunities at DYK to demonstrate his suitability to edit in that area and failed to do so. There is no benefit to the project to give him yet another "last chance". DYK is continuing to function without his input. Schazjmd (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is really the reason why some (myself included) are skeptical this is going to work out even if The C of E does get unbanned. His previous behavior and past does not necessarily suggest that this case where he's apologizing and saying he has truly changed would be any different from the past. As I and some others have mentioned here, he was given plenty of chances to change after his initial topic ban, so this isn't a last chance given he already had several last chances. Had it been the case that after his initial topic ban, he sincerely apologized and discussed where he went wrong, promised not to do it again, and follow on said promise by ceasing all provocative behavior and apparent attempts to push the limits of his bans and what he could get away with, I don't think he would have been topic banned from DYK at all, let alone be in this position. He has apologized and promised to change multiple times in the past, only to show behavior suggesting he did not learn from his previous experiences when his topic bans were not overturned. Again, as much as I want to assume good faith and agree to The C of E being given one final (for real this time) chance, his history gives me plenty of pause. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Opppose I'm not convinced that this is a good thing for the project or for CoE - let them edit elsewhere ... I see no pressing need for them to return to DYK. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. They've had rather a lot of chances for me to consider giving them another; and the appeal doesn't have anything specific wrong with it, but it doesn't pass the smell test of sincerity for me, likely because I've seen them brush off concerns with their work too many times. It's a large project; find something else to work on. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cullen328 & Ealdgyth; sure blocks/bans are cheap if CoE misbehaves but, on the other hand, not removing the topic ban is even cheaper and, based on previous activities, better for the project. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 19:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, since we've been here before, and expecting the outcome to be any different this time stretches credulity too far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. It would be different if this were The C of E's only brush with being sanctioned, or a topic ban in article space, but it's neither of those things. DYK is an entirely ancillary part of the project, and as for sanctions, well, here's a brief précis:
- Continual attempts to introduce politically provocative hooks earn them an AE topic ban in August 2020:
The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.
- The trio of restrictions (to which TCOE would revert should this appeal succeed) are imposed in September 2020 on the back of additional political, religious, racial, and homophobic provocation.
- Request to amend the AE topic-ban is declined in November 2020.
- After this, TCOE decides that it would be appropriate to propose that Adolf Hitler is not planning world domination? as a hook in Template:Did you know nominations/Adolf Hitler Uunona, about a subject who hates the fact that that's their name, and based on article that was at AfD at the time. TCOE's !vote to keep was As per WP:GNG, Hitler has sufficient reliable 3rd party sources to justify the existance of the article. While it may be a stub now, there is more to come no doubt. Emphasis mine.
- Appeal of the September 2020 restrictions fails in April 2021.
- Barely one month after this, TCOE proposes that the 1916 song "Nigger Love a Watermelon, Ha! Ha! Ha!" is considered to have the most racist song title in America? as a hook in Template:Did you know nominations/Watermelon song, with the rationale [it's] a historical piece of music yes with an abhorrant [sic] title but it is a revealing snippet of life in America back then.
- Second appeal of the September 2020 restrictions snowfails in November 2021.
- The September 2020 restrictions are upgraded to the full DYK topic ban in a well-attended AN/I thread in January 2022.
- Appeal of the DYK topic ban fails in July 2022.
- Continual attempts to introduce politically provocative hooks earn them an AE topic ban in August 2020:
- The preponderance of evidence presented across these prior discussions makes it abundantly clear that, if TCOE is not deliberately seeking to smear their political and religious opinions all over the front page of the encyclopaedia, then they are at the very least possessed of such breathtakingly poor judgement as to be effectively incompetent when it comes to participating in the DYK process. Even assuming the latter, I'm not persuaded by the WP:ROPE arguments as much as I might otherwise be, precisely because TCOE's history shows that they can't help but probe at the exact boundaries of their restrictions, and that was the behaviour that earned them the full DYK topic ban in the first place. I quote Vaticidalprophet from that discussion:
He's someone who consistently bats at the edges of what he can get away with in one of the most sensitive parts of the project (its public face). Topic ban from British nationalism in Ireland? Time to write piles of hooks on Rhodesia. Topic ban from making jokes at people's expense because they fall into traditionally sensitive categories? Time to make jokes at people's expense because of their names. Topic ban from putting the N-word on the main page? Time to keep doing it anyway, and then barring that, put as many other dirty words on the main page as you could think of
.Even right now I have to question their judgement in continuing to use a signature that is so overtly – and irrelevantly – politically and religiously charged (on top of the fact that their username is a direct reference to the Church of England), though I at least credit them with ditching (while at AE and AN/I back in August 2020) some of the most eyebrow-raising content they were keeping on their user page.
Thus, I say for this user that there is no more rope; for they are using the very last of it now. Indeed, I would have backed Joe Roe making an indef NOTHERE block right back in August 2020 when he exposed the disgusting extent to which TCOE had knowingly and deliberately used unreliable sources in order to smuggle homophobic abuse onto the main page. Only on the understanding that TCOE is one wrong move away from an indef now would I accept the lifting of the current topic ban.
XAM2175 (T) 20:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)- @XAM2175: Actually, yes I would accept that. I realised what I did was wrong and I have already repeatedly apologised for it. All I asking for is a chance to prove I have changed, I did wrong, I made mistakes and I have abided by the restrictions that were laid on me. If such a requirement and undertaking is needed to prove it, I will give it. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. I have to agree with the above concerns about judgement in this area. I'm somewhat wary of the tendency here to pick and choose what ideologies editors are allowed to have. Monarchism isn't my cup of tea, so to speak, but it's hardly the most extreme view that's accepted among the community. But when it comes down to it, there are other areas of the encyclopedia to be more productive, while their participation in DYK is almost certainly going to create more work than it's worth, especially considering the high-risk nature of the main page. Catching POV pushers at DYK (or anywhere else on the project) is difficult enough as it is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody in any of these conversations is criticizing this editor for being a monarchist. The editor's misconduct was far more pervasive, and many presumably monarchist editors do excellent work for years without repeatedly engaging in self-indulgent disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- This has never been primarily about CofE's views. His editing speaks for itself. But for the record, "monarchism" isn't the half of it: before he blanked it during one of the above ANI discussions, CofE's user page loudly proclaimed that he was an "imperialist" who supported the "the re-establishment of the British Empire" (a now-deleted userbox), "believes marriage is between one man and one woman" (also now deleted), and wants the colony of Hong Kong "returned to its rightful owners" (he had to write that userbox himself), amongst a wall of other dog whistles and openly far right slogans. I can only explain the fact the project has tolerated CofE for so long, that we're now seriously considering letting him loose on the main page again, by assuming that our US-dominated editor base can't see the mythology and iconography of the British far-right as clearly as its American equivalents. If we were talking about the same behaviour from User:Good Ole Boy who signed his posts with "The South Will Rise Again" in the colours of the confederate flag – well, I don't imagine we'd be talking about it. – Joe (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd been looking for the right wording to analogize to the American context and express my frustration about the difference in perception, and you've found it exactly. This is part of the problem with formulating norms about hate speech based on specific ideologies. There's not something particular to neo-Nazism or neo-Confederacy that makes them evil; it's the specific ideas they espouse—most significantly, the idea that the white race is superior to others. Editors should be aware that the white supremacist basis of some ideologies will not always be as obvious as "Heil Hitler". And, as you say, everything TCoE has said about the British Empire is as much built around that kind of thinking as the Lost Cause is in the U.S.FWIW, I don't see as relevant his monarchism, nor his support for his eponymous church, nor his patriotism; but specifically his support for restoring a fundamentally racist enterprise, and his decision to still broadcast a version of that view even while seeking access anew to Main Page content, are in my view disqualifying. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you Joe, I'd also been struggling to come up with an accurate analogy. XAM2175 (T) 11:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not entirely sure the Confederate Flag issue is the right analogy. As I understand it, that's a hot button in the US and that imagery is quite prevalent in certain sections of the American far right. In Britain 'Restoration of the Empire' would be pretty niche and quirky even for someone on the far right. There are other more potent/unpleasant themes that are normally used. I don't know what the US equivalent would be - annexing Canada maybe? Having looked at his previous banners on his user page there's something bizarrely idiosyncratic about his far rightness. The mental health banner he's displaying may be more relevant. DeCausa (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per XAM2175 and Joe Roe's comment here and here. Galobtter (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. It seems to me that the Wikipedia community is in general so forgiving and lenient, sometimes to a shocking degree. This is one of those occasions. This kind of "contributor" might perhaps provide some passable contents, but I really don't feel those contributions will be worth the trouble. BorgQueen (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support, with the pre-existing restrictions still in place, per Boing! said Zebedee. I have worked with C of E often, and often criticised hooks, and am willing to do it again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is worth noting however that Boing has since struck their Support vote and no longer supports the ban being lifted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Having read the repeated examples of remarkably poor judgment and remarkably disruptive behavior, in addition to so many broken promises and insincere apologies, I don't see any reason TCOE should be allowed back at DYK, especially not at this juncture. If the editor is here to build an encyclopedia, let them do that. DYK is not about building the encyclopedia. This editor has had a mental-health issues banner on his userpage for the past two years, and the statement "I would like to be an Admin one day" on his userpage since 2009 (having only joined Wikipedia the previous year); these things are not signs that the editor has or will have good judgment now or in the immediate future. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: I find that a little insulting, I have kept to the restrictions put upon me to the letter (even asking admins before doing anything that seemed to be a grey area). When I have made apologies, they have been sincere and earnest and truthful to how I feel. I know I did wrong, I have learned my lesson and obeyed instructions given to me. Even when they said I could come back to appeal in 6 months, I waited longer to show I have changed. All I am asking for is a chance to show it, I have even agreed to a full block if I slip back into my old ways above. Or I'd be willing to a compromise, Only building sets and not nominating anything. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- As others have noted here: why exactly do you want to return to DYK of all projects on Wikipedia? DYK is not mandatory, you aren't required to participate in it. It's a voluntary choice. If you can't or do not want to participate in it, you don't have to. There are plenty of other projects on Wikipedia where you can put in your efforts and where they may be better appreciated. You have mentioned above that you are doing well on ITN, and ITN is still a project involving the Main Page and I'd argue it's even more visible than DYK since ITN items are usually up for at least several days instead of the 12 or 24-hour runs that DYK hooks have. Would it not be feasible for you to stick to ITN instead?
- In addition, I am very sorry to say this, but I do not think it is totally accurate to say that you have
kept to the restrictions put upon me to the letter
, at least not in previous experiences. You will need to prove that this time you really mean it, and that this will be different. Considering your past history, you will be under great scrutiny and would very likely get an indefinite block and/or the ban being re-implemented if it were lifted. Are you really willing to go through that effort rather than just simply focusing on other parts of Wikipedia where you are still welcome to edit? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Because I want to be able to prove to people I am not the monster they purport me to be. I enjoyed contributing to DYK and the objectionable hooks in question people keep mentioning were made, not of a sinister ulterior motive for pushing extreme views, but out of the desire to make hooks "hooky" and help improve them. HAving had the year out, it has given me time to consider my actions and where I did wrong. I know now that views are not the main focus for DYK, but to ensure we showcase new and improved content. I want to be able to prove that I am sincere and I do mean it. It will be different. Which is why I am willing to go under any restrictions, any oversight to allow me to return. I have asked how I can show that I have changed and how to prove it to people, what I have stated I am willing to do I think shows I have repented of my old ways and hope for forgiveness. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that you admitted in your own comment above that you made those objectional hooks out of a desire to make them "hooky" and help improve them makes me wonder if you did and do in fact understand that your previous provocative hooks were wrong and that you should have never proposed them in the first place, as well as making me wonder if you do show any sincere regret for those hooks and your behavior in pushing the boundaries of both what was and wasn't allowed on DYK and your topic bans. Unless you can prove that you can show that you understand the gravity of your previous actions, are sincerely sorry for those provocative hooks, understand that they were wrong, and understand how and why they got you into trouble, along with a promise to never ever ever do it again, I don't think your topic ban will ever be lifted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I also have to note that, as mentioned in the earlier discussions, you twice requested that hooks that were... let's just say controversial, go up on 12 July, which apparently (I am saying this as I am admittedly not an expert on The Troubles or the sectarian issues in Ireland) is a very controversial date in Ireland (and when that date was rejected you requested 11 July instead, which apparently is also a controversial date. At the very least that seemed to have been bad judgement and I have not seen anything form of remorse or at least acknowledgement that the special date requests were a bad idea since then, which makes the claim that you did not intend to have a "sinister ulterior motive for pushing extreme views" at the very least suspect. In addition, you also nominated an article for DYK and strongly insisted that the hook be about calling Muhammad a thief, and only reluctantly agreed to an alternative hook when it became clear that the alternative was outright rejection. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Very well @Narutolovehinata5:, as you request. I shall make my apology here and clear:
- @Narutolovehinata5: Because I want to be able to prove to people I am not the monster they purport me to be. I enjoyed contributing to DYK and the objectionable hooks in question people keep mentioning were made, not of a sinister ulterior motive for pushing extreme views, but out of the desire to make hooks "hooky" and help improve them. HAving had the year out, it has given me time to consider my actions and where I did wrong. I know now that views are not the main focus for DYK, but to ensure we showcase new and improved content. I want to be able to prove that I am sincere and I do mean it. It will be different. Which is why I am willing to go under any restrictions, any oversight to allow me to return. I have asked how I can show that I have changed and how to prove it to people, what I have stated I am willing to do I think shows I have repented of my old ways and hope for forgiveness. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: I find that a little insulting, I have kept to the restrictions put upon me to the letter (even asking admins before doing anything that seemed to be a grey area). When I have made apologies, they have been sincere and earnest and truthful to how I feel. I know I did wrong, I have learned my lesson and obeyed instructions given to me. Even when they said I could come back to appeal in 6 months, I waited longer to show I have changed. All I am asking for is a chance to show it, I have even agreed to a full block if I slip back into my old ways above. Or I'd be willing to a compromise, Only building sets and not nominating anything. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I apologise for all of my previous behaviour on DYK. I recognise that what I did was wrong and hurtful to members of various communities and I sincerely regret it. I realise that previous hooks I proposed were offensive and not suitable for Wikipedia's front page. I do sincerely regret proposing those or any other provocative hook for the purpose of gaining views. I realised that such drama is not condusive to a good working environment for volunteers on Wikipedia and I do not wish to partake in any more nor cause any. I sincerely promise that I will not do it again if I am permitted to return and i am willing to submit to any conditions, even one of a block should I break people's trust if they allow me back. I'm willing to even come back just to only build preps for a time to prove my sincerity and willing to contribute positively to the DYK project. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Appealing again, no. Secretlondon (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- How can you assure us that this apology is different from your earlier one brought up by Schazjmd earlier? I apologize for being skeptical, but you do have a previous history of being apologetic and stating that you realized your actions were mistakes, only to continue engaging in questionable behavior later on. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Because @Narutolovehinata5: I am willing to undergo any oversight, restrictions on content and even take being blocked if I slip from my promises to prove I have changed. I'll be limited to hooks on say, sports and stadiums (as I suggested below) or even just come back to build preps. What would you be looking to see? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- That is also what you said with the aforementioned appeal (well not the blocking part, but the oversight part, not to mention the promise to stop making provocative contributions), and yet the Rooster stuff still happened after the appeal failed. I need to see an actual genuine demonstration that you have realized the gravity of your actions as well as an understanding of what led you to this point in the first please. For example, you need to demonstrate that you completely and fully understand your previous issues, like your edits and requests regarding Ireland-related topics. It is not enough that you simply apologize, especially considering your past. You need to make a demonstration that you genuinely understand the issues you had with topics such as nationalism and religion and you need to show that you actually regret doing stuff like calling Muhammad a thief. I apologize for my tone, but there are people here that are, to put it frankly, skeptical that you do understand the consequences of your previous actions and are skeptical that you would actually change should this appeal pass, skepticism that is not without warrant considering previous incidents. In my opinion at least, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the apology and promises here and the same that was done in previous failed appeal attempts that were then followed by incidents such as the hook about the song with the N-word, the attempted hook about a person who hated his name, or the aforementioned Rooster stuff, and a genuine and sincere demonstration should be made to prove that this time it's different. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I thought I had made that clear at with the long apology. Of course I recognise the issues with Ireland, islam and the N-word were a mistake of judgement and I sincerely regret doing them. But look at what I have been doing aside of that, I've been working on ITN, I've worked on a number of articles and I have stayed away from the big dramas that I became infamous for (not to mention aside of the negative DYKs mentioned above, I had hundreds of positive ones). I'm more than willing to do anything to prove that I have changed, why would I be willing to throw away 15 years of mostly positive contributions at Wikipedia just for 1 last disruptive DYK nomination? It seems logical to me. I understand now that humour and lowbrow jokes are not appropriate and I have already given my undertaking that I never try for anything like that again at DYK. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. However, while I understand it's been a year since the ban was imposed, I still think it may be too soon for you to come back, especially when the wounds of your previous actions have yet to fully heal and considering the skepticism going around. I'd suggest for now doing other non-DYK related tasks. You seem to be doing just fine on ITN and like I said, it's arguably more important and more visible than DYK, so it may ultimately be a better option if you want to contribute to the main page. In addition, you can always improve or create articles without the need to go to DYK. DYK is optional and is not a requirement for articles, and if people like your work, they may nominate them themselves anyway without your involvement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I thought I had made that clear at with the long apology. Of course I recognise the issues with Ireland, islam and the N-word were a mistake of judgement and I sincerely regret doing them. But look at what I have been doing aside of that, I've been working on ITN, I've worked on a number of articles and I have stayed away from the big dramas that I became infamous for (not to mention aside of the negative DYKs mentioned above, I had hundreds of positive ones). I'm more than willing to do anything to prove that I have changed, why would I be willing to throw away 15 years of mostly positive contributions at Wikipedia just for 1 last disruptive DYK nomination? It seems logical to me. I understand now that humour and lowbrow jokes are not appropriate and I have already given my undertaking that I never try for anything like that again at DYK. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Because @Narutolovehinata5: I am willing to undergo any oversight, restrictions on content and even take being blocked if I slip from my promises to prove I have changed. I'll be limited to hooks on say, sports and stadiums (as I suggested below) or even just come back to build preps. What would you be looking to see? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Question The C of E, what sort of articles would you be bringing to DYK if your Tban were lifted? What sorts of hooks would we be seeing? I am undecided at the moment (though were I to support the Tban being lifted it would be with the previous restrictions), and I think getting some idea of what we should expect should the Tban be lifted would be informative. We know you're capable of doing DYKs that do not cause problems, but I think many are unconvinced that you will limit yourself to unobjectionable ones based on previous behavior. Why should we trust you now? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Trainsandotherthings: I would mostly be working on sports players, stadiums and especially women's sports (Like I did in the Women in Red editathon and creating all the clubs in the Premier 15s). IF limiting myself to that would help, I will do it. The reason why people should trust me is because I have agreed at the top that should I slide back into my old ways, I will be blocked. I would not offer myself up to such a strong punishment, if I were not sincere that I want to prove that I have changed. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I see. Will need some time to think this over. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Trainsandotherthings: I would mostly be working on sports players, stadiums and especially women's sports (Like I did in the Women in Red editathon and creating all the clubs in the Premier 15s). IF limiting myself to that would help, I will do it. The reason why people should trust me is because I have agreed at the top that should I slide back into my old ways, I will be blocked. I would not offer myself up to such a strong punishment, if I were not sincere that I want to prove that I have changed. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for a limited exception to a community sanction (Newimpartial - GENSEX topic ban)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In light of the section of WP:BMB stating that exception
to a topic ban may be requested; for example, to participate in a particular discussion
, and following a discussion about this with the administrator who closed the ANI filing and imposed two sanctions as a result, I am following their guidance[5] and filing my request for strictly limited exceptions to my GENSEX topic ban at this forum.
My request concerns only two pages:
1. I would like to be able to participate in discussions at the MOS:BIO Talk page even when they concern matters within the area of the GENSEX contentious topic, and
2. I would like to be able to participate in editing the MOS:GIDINFO project page, to keep it more up to date (a purusal of that page's history will show my role in "gnoming" it, and I would like to be free to do so).
| Background |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In the ANI discussion, I did mention my concern that my background in GENSEX policy could be lost in future discussions, e.g. here. However, this was a small contribution to a large discussion in which a lot of people said a lot of things, and I don't know that many editors gave thought to determining the precise scope of a topic ban that would prevent future disruption. So, as noted above, I asked the administrator imposing the sanction whether the precise scope could be changed by them, as it could with a typical Contentious Topics sanction, but they said that they understood that their choice of sanctions reflected the consensus of the community expressed at ANI, and I would have to seek any limited exceptions here. (Full discussion linked above). |
In the last couple of months - even before the ANI concerning my editing was closed, I have avoided causing any disruption on Wikipedia. In line with my expressed intentions, I have made an effort to avoid personalizing disputes and have strictly observed the terms of the (unusual) anti-bludgeoning restrictions that reached community consensus at ANI. Whether or not my request here for a limited exception is granted, I will continue to edit in line with the principles I have articulated, to avoid personalized discussions, to respect my anti-bludgeon restrictions and to stay away from the GENSEX topic area outside of the very limited scope of this request.
Policy development discussions have been an area where I have felt my onwiki contributions to have been particularly constructive, as shown for example in my participation in these [6] nationality discussions [7] [8] As I have seen a new wave of editor energy at the same venue directed to the evolution of MOS:DEADNAME, I feel that my contribution as an experienced (and moderate) voice in this policy domain could be a decidedly positive one. Obviously if I were to lapse into bludgeon or antagonism, that would be disruptive behaviour and I would expect to lose editing privileges in that event. But that is within my control, and I won't do that.
For administrators who are unfamiliar with my P&G contributions, I would point to my prior participation in what evolved into an RFCBEFORE discussion on Subject Notability Guidelines, and this discussion on language for policy implementation post-RFC (the latter being within the GENSEX domain) as additional examples to illustrate how I have participated in the WP policy-development process in the past, inside and outside of GENSEX. Unlike, say, some of my contributions to deletion discussions or on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I haven't often become antagonistic in my participation in P&G development onwiki and my participation in such discussions has not led to disruption.
So I hope that a consensus of uninvolved Administrators will agree that this request will be a positive to the project, and that preventing me from editing in these two strictly confined areas plays no role in preventing future disruption, especially given my embrace of the anti-bludgeon restriction which would not be in any way loosened by these proposed, limited exceptions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support As I said briefly on Salvio giuliano's talk page, I would greatly value Newimpartial's input on the current discussion occurring at WT:MOSBIO. I think they have a wealth of knowledge of how this guideline has developed over the last few years, as well as how it's been applied in practice across a great many articles in this content area. Having their perspective in this discussion, as well as any future discussions on the scope of MOS:GENDERID while the broader GENSEX TBAN remains in place, would I think be of significant help to all editors involved in it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- While I have no position on whether to grant an exception, it seems to me that possibly your value of Newimpartial's input/perspective/help may be because you two have similar stances, with the end result being that Newimpartial will support your proposal at the discussion? Let’s see if that happens. starship.paint (exalt) 15:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I thought I was pretty clear that I would value their input because of their institutional knowledge of how the current guideline was developed, and how it's been applied in practice. Because of this knowledge, they can better inform other editors about the guideline's scope than I can. Whether they ultimately support or oppose my proposal, or any of the other proposals at the discussion is not on my mind. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- While I have no position on whether to grant an exception, it seems to me that possibly your value of Newimpartial's input/perspective/help may be because you two have similar stances, with the end result being that Newimpartial will support your proposal at the discussion? Let’s see if that happens. starship.paint (exalt) 15:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support - I confess, I am biased to some degree insofar as I consider Newimpartial a generally valuable editor. That said, I do appreciate their stated goal of 'turning down the temperature' so to speak. I think this would be a reasonable and worthwhile exception to make, though as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Part of the reason for the topic ban was because Newimpartial bludgeoned formal discussions, particularly those related to GENSEX, with the most egregious example being an RfC on the lede of J. K. Rowling with 95 comments. I'm not convinced it is a good idea to permit them to engage in formal discussions in this topic area until they have demonstrated that the bludgeoning issue is resolved, particularly since it appears they engaged in a lower level of bludgeoning at the previous RfC on the topic in which Sideswipe9th seeks their input with 36 comments. BilledMammal (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, I would like to point out that my anti-bludgeon restriction would continue to apply everywhere, including these small proposed exceptions to the TBAN. I have observed its requirements carefully in my participation in both RfC and non-RfC discussions since it was placed (as can be seen in my recent participation on non-GENSEX topics at MOSBIO) and would continue to do so. So I am not sure what future disruption could be anticipated in that venue, given the restriction. I am not proposing any loophole that would permit me to bludgeon any discussions, about GENSEX topics or otherwise. That issue is, in effect, resolved, through the establishment of a "bright line" restriction that I will not cross, and that I would not be permitted to in any case. Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am not convinced the anti-bludgeon restriction will be effective; even without considering the exceptions for replying
to questions provided the answer is reasonably short
and addingvery brief clarifications of their own comments
it would have permitted you to make 72 comments over the duration of the Rowling RfC. It might be a bright line but you can engage in bludgeoning without crossing it. BilledMammal (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)- Bludgeoning is not simply a measure of how much an editor has contributed to a discussion. You also have to be using those replies to force your point of view.
- For example, in the current discussion on deadnames I've commented 22 times, which would be a high volume of replies, but across those replies I've made my own proposal and replied to queries about it, commented and asked questions on the four other proposals, and most recently I've been trying to organise the participants towards taking or modifying one of the proposals to bring forward to an RfC. While it's a high volume of comments, I think those have been productive and that it wouldn't count as bludgeoning. For me to be bludgeoning in that discussion, I would need to be using the volume of my replies to force others towards my proposal being the correct one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- For another topically relevant example, I'd direct you to the April 2022 J.K Rowling FAR, and the sub-archives for the discussions. During the FAR, as the editor leading and facilitating it SandyGeorgia made 667 comments. However despite the volume, that wasn't bludgeoning, as while some comments contained her perspective on the issues at hand, many others were for bringing the process forward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that bludgeoning is not something that can be assessed solely by looking at the numbers; in one set of circumstances ten comments is bludgeoning, in another 667 is not.
- However, this is why I am not convinced that Newimpartial's anti-bludgeoning restriction will be sufficient to prevent bludgeoning, particularly in the topic area where they most engaged in bludgeoning in the past; it is very easy to both comply with the restriction and engage in bludgeoning. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- In the time since the TBAN and anti-bludgeon restriction was enacted, has Newimpartial engaged in any bludgeoning? Whether it was compliant or non-compliant with the restriction? Is there any way that they can demonstrate that they won't bludgeon? I recognise that you're concerned over potential recidivism, but I have to ask, in your opinion how can any editor who is subject to such a restriction demonstrate that they'll either comply with it or that it's otherwise unnecessary? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- This discussion, with at least seven comments in a 24 hour period; they were split across several pages, but they are part of the same discussion. In general, I believe they can demonstrate it is unnecessary by editing productively and unproblematically in other areas, particularly other areas where they have strong feeling. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- In the time since the TBAN and anti-bludgeon restriction was enacted, has Newimpartial engaged in any bludgeoning? Whether it was compliant or non-compliant with the restriction? Is there any way that they can demonstrate that they won't bludgeon? I recognise that you're concerned over potential recidivism, but I have to ask, in your opinion how can any editor who is subject to such a restriction demonstrate that they'll either comply with it or that it's otherwise unnecessary? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- For another topically relevant example, I'd direct you to the April 2022 J.K Rowling FAR, and the sub-archives for the discussions. During the FAR, as the editor leading and facilitating it SandyGeorgia made 667 comments. However despite the volume, that wasn't bludgeoning, as while some comments contained her perspective on the issues at hand, many others were for bringing the process forward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, while I recognize that different editors may hold varying opinions, my own assumption would be that any attempt on my part to WIKILAWYER my anti-bludgeon restriction - to observe it in letter but not in spirit - would receive the same reaction from the community as if I had violated the specific terms in which the restriction was formulated. In any event, I now edit based on my values and aspirations, not by pushing towards the boundaries of community norms, so there isn't really any other approach that would be in accord with by own conscience, other than behaving appropriately. Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't believe you have ever intentionally tried to bludgeon a discussion, so I don't believe you would try to wikilawyer your way around the restriction. I believe you will believe, incorrectly, that you are behaving in line with both the spirit and the wording of the restriction and of WP:BLUDGEON.
- My belief is reinforced by your actions related to this discussion. Your tban restricts you to two comments per discussion per day; in addition to the one comment you made here, in the period 12:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC) to 12:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC) you made at least six comments on various opposing editors talk page in response to comments in this discussion. I consider this a violation of your restriction which doesn't permit additional comments simply because the discussion is spread across multiple pages.
- Because of this, I oppose this request. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, do you regard yourself as uninvolved in this discussion? (If you do, that would seem EXTRAORDINARY to me, given the history.)
- Also, I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying about "bludgeoning", as you appear to be focused on the number of comments I make about a topic rather than - as WP:BLUDGEON does - on the purpose of the comments.
- I am not convinced the anti-bludgeon restriction will be effective; even without considering the exceptions for replying
- BilledMammal, I would like to point out that my anti-bludgeon restriction would continue to apply everywhere, including these small proposed exceptions to the TBAN. I have observed its requirements carefully in my participation in both RfC and non-RfC discussions since it was placed (as can be seen in my recent participation on non-GENSEX topics at MOSBIO) and would continue to do so. So I am not sure what future disruption could be anticipated in that venue, given the restriction. I am not proposing any loophole that would permit me to bludgeon any discussions, about GENSEX topics or otherwise. That issue is, in effect, resolved, through the establishment of a "bright line" restriction that I will not cross, and that I would not be permitted to in any case. Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
| Discussion of WP:BLUDGEON |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
My understanding of the spirit of WP:BLUDGEON is based on the text of the explanatory note:
Perhaps I do not understand correctly what the community means by WP:BLUDGEON - I don't see how counting commwents I've made on a topic can be equated to bludgeon, without looking at the content of the comments. I believe BilledMammal has referred to this 2021 RfC as an example when I engaged in |
- On my own Talk, I have outlined at some length what I intended by my comments at editors' talk pages; at least three of the comments to which BilledMammal refers are questions about how to improve my editing; if someone could explain to me on a talk page how, by such edits as those, I might "dominating a conversation in order to persuade others", that would be appreciated - at present, I am clearly befuddled. Newimpartial (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Possibly; it's not a question I've considered. I know I have interacted with you a few times, though the only time I can recall is in relation to J. K. Rowling - but I don't see the relevance to this discussion or why you are asking me specifically and not editors generally.
- One indicator, although not a guarantee, of bludgeoning is being an outlier in terms of the number of comments you made in a discussion; in the 2021 RfC no editor made more comments that you did. For your talk page comments you are under an anti-bludgeoning restriction which is as you say a bright-line restriction; within a 24 hour period you made one comment here, two on your talk page, both of which are clear responses to comments here, a fourth such response to Iamreallygoodatcheckers, a fifth to Czello, a sixth (and possibly seventh; the reply to DeCausa's reply does not appear to fit under the exception of
they may however reply to questions provided the answer is reasonably short and they may add very brief clarifications of their own comments
) to DeCausa, and a seventh to Ealdgyth. - In regards to helping you understand how your contributions, here and elsewhere, are bludgeoning, I am not sure how to do that but I would suggest not relying on your own interpretation of the spirit of WP:BLUDGEON given your past issues with it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- On the question of INVOLVED, I was asking because, prior to my TBAN, you and I have disagreed
frequentlyrepetedly concerning issues covered by GENSEX(including mulitiple issues on which your views were not widely supported by the community), and you are currently participating extensively in a series of discussions on MOSBIO that are directly related to those prior disagreements. I would have thought that, in such a situation, you could not be "uninvolved" when weighing in on whether or not I would be allowed to participate through a limited exception to my TBAN. - Concerning my User Talk comments, it would not have occurred to me (and didn't, until now) that comments made on my own User Talk could be construed as an attempt to bludgeon a noticeboard discussion, or that the number of comments made at my own User Talk would be combined with AN comments in relation to my restriction (which I described to the best of my ability at my user page).
- However, now that I am aware that comments at User Talk can be interpteted in this way, rest assured that I will take this fully into account from now on.
- On the question of INVOLVED, I was asking because, prior to my TBAN, you and I have disagreed
- On my own Talk, I have outlined at some length what I intended by my comments at editors' talk pages; at least three of the comments to which BilledMammal refers are questions about how to improve my editing; if someone could explain to me on a talk page how, by such edits as those, I might "dominating a conversation in order to persuade others", that would be appreciated - at present, I am clearly befuddled. Newimpartial (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
| pointer to context-rich tangents |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
My further thoughts about the ways editors talk about "bludgeoning", including how I see it employed by editors in a looser sense than described in WP:BLUDGEON, may be found here - with some additional diagnostic context - while my ongoing effort to identify best practices that I can follow going forward is here. Neither of those edits to my OWNTALK is intended as a contribution to this discussion, and I would hope to be able to edit both of those Talk sections in future without them being considered part of this AN, so long as I do not make any further reference to AN or comments made at AN in those Talk sections. |
- Newimpartial (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC) strikeout and correction by Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think you have confused me with another editor; I rarely edit in GENSEX areas and looking at our interaction report for the Talk namespace the only discussions related to GENSEX where we have interacted are the Rowling RfC and Talk:Transsexual#Requested move 2 May 2022. There might be a couple of other discussions in the Wikipedia Talk namespace or at the noticeboards but a quick review suggests not.
- To clarify, the issue wasn't that you made those posts on those talk pages, it was that by doing so you were participating in this discussion from a distance; you were responding to comments made here and attempting to engage with editors who participated here in relation to this discussion. As long as you do neither of those I believe the sections on your own talk page will be fine; I see no current issue with them. BilledMammal (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Well, upon reviewing the interaction history, you are right that I was confused, so I have made corrections above.
- Newimpartial (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC) strikeout and correction by Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
| one source of confusion explained |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I'm not sure exactly what parameters you used to identify interactions, but in addition to the ones you list there was also the 2021 RfC, which you have referred to several times, on one of the GENSEX topics where you are currently engaged on MOSBIO, as well as the discussion of sources for the Rowling article at the relevant FAR page, and multiple interactions at RSN - including discussions that I bludgeoned, yes, but I'm not pointing to my having been correct in the past, just that we have repeatedly disagreed on GENSEX issues. The immediate question this filing decides is whether or not I could participate - within my bludgeon restriction - in one specific Talk page, on a GENSEX topic where you are participating fairly extensively and where we have previously expressed divergent views. Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I consider interactions to be where we interacted rather than merely participating in the same discussions. Regarding RSN, I assume you are referring to RfC: The Times of London, RfC: The Economist, and RfC: The Telegraph. I left just one comment at each of those discussions and we didn't interact; same with the 2021 RfC.
- I still don't understand the relevance, however. BilledMammal (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly what parameters you used to identify interactions, but in addition to the ones you list there was also the 2021 RfC, which you have referred to several times, on one of the GENSEX topics where you are currently engaged on MOSBIO, as well as the discussion of sources for the Rowling article at the relevant FAR page, and multiple interactions at RSN - including discussions that I bludgeoned, yes, but I'm not pointing to my having been correct in the past, just that we have repeatedly disagreed on GENSEX issues. The immediate question this filing decides is whether or not I could participate - within my bludgeon restriction - in one specific Talk page, on a GENSEX topic where you are participating fairly extensively and where we have previously expressed divergent views. Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Seems a reasonable and considered request and we should aim to provide a path back to good standing for otherwise-productive editors. My support is contingent on the anti-bludgeon restriction remaining, and I would urge you to make your contributions concise and to the point then let others have their say (concision and butting out in talk page discussions we should encourage across Wikipedia). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support — I've seen Newimpartial in a handful of discussions, post-ANI closure, and their behaviour was exemplary each time. DFlhb (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support: I opposed the original topic ban as a whole. I do not think that Newimpartial was a significantly problematic editor in this topic area at all, and so obviously I'm for loosening the topic ban imposed on them. Loki (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support Newimpartial is a seasoned editor who has taken to heart the issues raised at ANI, and this is a reasoned and reasonable request. Also this gives them a way of showing they can bide by the bludgeoning restriction in an area they are obviously passionate about. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- SupportI feel comfortable in
liftingloosening the ban. This is a good request, and it appears they do understand just why theblockban was implemented. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)- This isn’t an appeal for the ban to be lifted, and I’m not sure what block you are talking about. Are you in the right thread? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you are nitpicking colloquial uses of language. Loki (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Because the words ban and block can mean specific things on Wikipedia and I would like Rick to be clarify what he is referring to. Admins don’t usually refer to a topic ban as a block. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Because I mistyped. I support his request. I'm human, I screwed up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Rick your comment is still a little confusing. Are you supporting a repeal of the topic ban entirely? Because what’s being requested here is a carve out. As I read it you are supporting something not requested so your comment may not be considered by the closer. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I support the request that ban be loosening as NewImpartial is asking for. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. From one human to another, I didn’t mean to come across as snippy. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I support the request that ban be loosening as NewImpartial is asking for. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Rick your comment is still a little confusing. Are you supporting a repeal of the topic ban entirely? Because what’s being requested here is a carve out. As I read it you are supporting something not requested so your comment may not be considered by the closer. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Because I mistyped. I support his request. I'm human, I screwed up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Because the words ban and block can mean specific things on Wikipedia and I would like Rick to be clarify what he is referring to. Admins don’t usually refer to a topic ban as a block. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you are nitpicking colloquial uses of language. Loki (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- This isn’t an appeal for the ban to be lifted, and I’m not sure what block you are talking about. Are you in the right thread? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: Newimpartial has not acknowledged their disruptive behavior which was demonstrated at their ANI thread. Search for two occurances of "18:45, 22 February 2023". [9] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Weak support. Honestly, I do think that any CBAN topic ban ought to be taken as an indication that the editor subject to it needs to avoid the subject area for a time, and I would urge that NI, if allowed this restricted access to the area, use as light a touch in regards to even the carve out for a while. That said, policy discussions are a different animal from content discussions, and in two respects that impact this request especially: 1) there is decreased potential for immediate concern to BLPs or disruption of their associated talk spaces, and 2) changes to policies tend to get entrenched, meaning a topic banned editor could lose their moment to provide valuable insight in consideration of a change to the community/project's outlook on key issues. Considering the narrowness of the request, and the tone and nuance with which it was made, I'm inclined to support it--with the caveat that the least bit of disruptive behaviour in the relevant project spaces would hopefully lead to the exception being revoked immediately, and possible further restrictions in the area. But so long NewImpartial recognizes that they are putting their credibility and standing somewhat on the line here in that respect, I think we can afford to utilize some flexibility. SnowRise let's rap 23:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is far too slippery a slope, and likely to lead to way too many people requesting these exemptions in a torrent of wiggle-room negotiations that will eventually defeat the purpose of their TBANs. GENSEX is far too contentious topic already; we should not be letting exceptions creep in. We are not giving TheTranarchist exceptions. As with any other TBAN or sanction, let the editor edit neutrally and collaboratively in other topics for six months to a year, and then file for an appeal. There is no rush on Wikipedia, and nothing that cannot wait for one single editor's input. None of us are indispensable. Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support generally valuable editor. Andre🚐 01:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose This completely undermines the point of the topic ban. This is the exact sort of topic that Newimpartial was topic banned for bludgeoning. Either make a appeal of the whole topic ban or just accept the terms of the topic ban. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Hemiauchenia. Let's see some productive editing in some other area of the project for a while before we relax the tban. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Newimpartial has been a valuable contributor in policy discussions and has to my knowledge not exhibited further bludgeoning problems since the post which led to the ban. As ActivelyDisinterested said, this gives them a way of proving (or disproving) that they can contribute constructively in discussions related to the topic area, and their behaviour would be valuable evidence, one way or the other, in an eventual full appeal. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- The user talk posts gave me pause, but it seems there was a miscommunication involved, Newimpartial has stopped and is understanding the issue, so I want to reaffirm my support here. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Hemiauchenia and Softlavender. The fact that there is a discussion currently taking place at MOS:BIO that would normally incense OP (and result in the things that led to the tban) has certainly prompted this request. Convenient exceptions to the ban defy its point. — Czello 15:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t think there are any discussions at MOSBIO
that would normally incense
me (much lessresult in the things that led to the tban
). Editors are groping towards RfC questions that could see guidelines shift in various directions, and I have background and expertise to offer but no preferred outcome in mind. - Also, I don't think there is any evidence of my being "incensed" in any prior discussions around GENDERID policy, with the relevant evidence coming, e.g., from this discussion, this one and this one - but feel free to check the whole archive.
- I would also hope that you would not consider yourself uninvolved on this issue, given our interactions. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC) edited for clarity by 20:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I feel that you are right now repeating disruptive behavior by arguing over semantics ("incensed") at the expense of the commenter's intention, as I previously pointed out to you. [10] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Or arguing over the precise location of a discussion ("at MOSBIO"). Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Kolya Butternut: I think you're being a bit unreasonable here. In your !vote above, you cite behaviour from the TBAN thread in February and a January 2023 discussion at Talk:Gender as evidence of Newimpartial's lack of acknowledgement of the problems that lead them to being TBANed. Yet in their opening post, they acknowledged the reasons for the TBAN where they said
I have made an effort to avoid personalizing disputes and have strictly observed the terms of the (unusual) anti-bludgeoning restrictions that reached community consensus at ANI
. While that may not address your specific concerns raised in the TBAN discussion, it does address the generalised concerns that were noted in the closure of the discussion. It seems unreasonable to me to expect an acknowledgement of your specific concerns, when you, like myself, were but one voice in many supporting a TBAN. Why is acknowledging your specific concerns more relevant than acknowledging the broader community concerns that were noted in the closure? - You've also now accused Newimpartial of
repeating disruptive behavior by arguing over semantics
, yet nowhere in Newimpartial's reply are they arguing over semantics. They are using the language that Czello used, while also saying that they do not believe it to be an accurate descriptor. That seems a fair thing to do, as saying that a discussion would get someone incensed is quite provocative and an aspersion about their emotional state. - Finally, context does matter. In the discussions that lead to the TBAN, many editors did rightly point out problematic contributions in article space discussions and at RSN, BLPN, and AFD. However no editor, either in that discussion or this one, has pointed out problematic contributions to policy discussions like those currently taking place at WT:MOSBIO. Do you have any evidence of problematic contributions by Newimpartial in policy or guideline discussions like those at MOSBIO? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
While that may not address your specific concerns raised in the TBAN discussion...
I am saying that they were being disruptive in their own TBAN discussion. I feel that the specific brand of disruption demonstrated there is vital to acknowledge, and I don't believe if the community recognized it that we would agree to any leniency at this time. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Kolya Butternut: I think you're being a bit unreasonable here. In your !vote above, you cite behaviour from the TBAN thread in February and a January 2023 discussion at Talk:Gender as evidence of Newimpartial's lack of acknowledgement of the problems that lead them to being TBANed. Yet in their opening post, they acknowledged the reasons for the TBAN where they said
- I feel you're focussing too largely on a single word I used in my post. I can re-word it if you like (though I believe my original description is accurate) - the point is that it's the sort of topic generated the behaviours that led to this tban in the first place. To be honest, the fact that you've dwelled on a single word like this might be somewhat proving my point. — Czello 21:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t think there are any discussions at MOSBIO
Neutral/CommentOppose I strongly supported the anti-bludgeon restrictions in the original thread but had no comment on the GENSEX issue. I had no particular experience of their GENSEX conduct, but I had seen their frequent bludgeoning. So I don't have a strong view on this now. However, it seems strange to allow them to get back into the topic area on two specific pages just because they really want to. Why doesn't that work for any tbanned editor? Why make an exception in this case? They mention that they used to do gnoming at MOS:GIDINFO. There's more logic to allowing them to edit there provided they only engage in gnoming. DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)- Having thought about this further, including this exchange on my talk page, I've switched to oppose. I really don't see any argument for this being an exception to the normal TBAN approach and it sets a rather illogical precedent. I had already found the argument that their "expertise" was needed on these pages was unconvincing. Thinking about it further, it's not only unconvincing but because they advanced such a bogus ground for the exception to the TBAN it pushes me over to oppose. DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Extremely weak support with the thinnest possible ice. Those who know me off-wiki may be aware that I'm quite conflicted on this, but at the end of the day I feel like banning people from talk and project pages is risky business compared to article-space bans, and I like open discussion. The thing though is that despite this editors promises, they have in the past most certainly choked up talk pages. I'm hoping they've changed but not holding my breath, and if this goes downhill then an immediate reversal of the exception is certainly warranted. (comment from involved editor)
Oppose, as the ice has been shattered per Kolya Butternut and Czello. casualdejekyll 19:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm not understanding why an exception should be granted just because Newimpartial really wants one. A TBAN effects both good and bad editing and that exceptions should be granted
on very rare occasions
(per WP:BMB). It would need to be proven that there is some kind of compelling reason to allow for this exception. I don't believe that has been proven at this time. Furthermore, I don't particularly like the idea of Newimpartial trying to find little loopholes in policy to get back on the GENSEX area despite their TBAN; they need to accept the TBAN, make attempts to better themselves and other content areas, and then appeal the TBAN in full in due time, not spend time with requests like this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 21:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC) - Comment: Badgering people at their talk pages does not inspire confidence. See Special:Contributions/Newimpartial. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Note I wish to highlight that NewImpartial is choosing to message opposers separately to this discussion.[11][12][13][14] Normally I'd say there's nothing wrong with this, but given that there is an anti-bludgeon restriction against this user (for the very reasons that spawned the initial TBAN) I'm forced to bring this up, as I'm inclined to believe this is bludgeoning by less-obvious means. (Disclosure: I have already expressed my !vote above) — Czello (music) 22:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm opposing their request for other reasons. To be honest, I wasn't too bothered about them posting on my talk page.
- it's kinda comically incorrigible!DeCausa (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)- "Incorrigible" is certainly the word I'd use, which is the real issue here. — Czello (music) 22:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- NewImpartial is now pinging editors to a wall of text where they continue to dispute comments left here. They also continue to message users on their talk page. Again, normally this wouldn't be a problem - but given the anti-bludgeon restriction in place I can't help but see how this is anything but bludgeoning; the only difference is that it's on user talk pages rather than here.
- NewImpartial, I'm sorry, but - I think this is harming your case and honestly just reinforces my above !vote. It's only been a month; I don't think it's the right time for an exception yet. — Czello (music) 08:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Note that Newimpartial has remarked that they believe they've misunderstood the definition of bludgeoning owning to
blind spots
associated with their neurodivergent qualities. If I am reading their meaning correctly, I'm happy for the above to be disregarded. — Czello (music) 10:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)- Which is why I have partially struck my earlier comment. My understanding is that this may be an explanation of previous and, indeed, ongoing bludgeoning-type behaviour. Those who opposed solely because of bludgeoning behaviour may want to consider this. DeCausa (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Note that Newimpartial has remarked that they believe they've misunderstood the definition of bludgeoning owning to
- I'm opposing their request for other reasons. To be honest, I wasn't too bothered about them posting on my talk page.
- Oppose the tban has been in effect for a little over a month. It is far too early to be carving out caveats like this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose given the nexus between the behavior that led to the TBAN and the behavior evident here and on user talk pages in response to participants. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- In response to this comment, Newimpartial has apparently determined to strengthen the case by...adding my talk page to the ones they are bludgeoning. Well done. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- On a balance, support per ActivelyDisinterested and Madeline: above, a few users (DFlhb, ActivelyDisinterested,...) have said OP's recent contributions to discussions have been exemplary, while another editor has worried that, despite good behaviour elsewhere, the user would bludgeon this topic area — well, how better (or how else?) can a user who's been editing constructively elsewhere, and has a depth of institutional knowledge of this area, prove or disprove that they can contribute constructively to this area, except by having at least a limited opportunity to do so? -sche (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Too soon. it has only been five weeks or so since the topic ban and the extraordinary anti-bludgeoning restriction were placed. I'm not confident that this user will be able to avoid falling back into the same problematic behaviour that lead to the sanctions. I find it telling that this request includes their statement
Obviously if I were to lapse into bludgeon or antagonism, that would be disruptive behaviour and I would expect to lose editing privileges in that event. But that is within my control, and I won't do that.
but they have engaged in what editors have called bludgeoning. Pinging editors to lengthy discussions of this thread elsewhere to avoid bludgeoning this page is still blufgeoning. Meters (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC) - Oppose as I see bludgeoning type behaviour already in responding to this thread. Also there is no clear reason given for an exemption. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as we are already seeing problematic behavior in this thread (visiting opposers talk pages while subject to an anti-bludgeoning restriction, really?) Courcelles (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Weak support a reasonable request made by a good editor who has non-trivial problems. Newimpartial, you need to learn to let things go--I've seen more than a handful of cases now where you are your own worst enemy. I'd be willing to take on a mentor/police role here if that would be useful. I was going to fully support until the latest issues (detailed above). Hobit (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, user is demonstrating the same behavior that led to the topic ban in the first place, and in any case the reasons given are insufficient to justify an exemption. The MOS:BIO discussion is complex enough as it is and is building up to an RfC in which (if past experience is anything to go by) one 'vote' will hardly tip the scales. The MOS:GIDINFO page has other people working on it in the history, so there is no 'need' for this specific user to edit it. Crossroads -talk- 13:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose due to the bludgeoning of this very discussion. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per LEPRICAVARK. It way too soon to be carving out exceptions to a TBAN that's only been in place for a few weeks. I also agree with Guerillero. This discussion makes me less likely to support a lift of the original TBAN since there doesn't appear to much respect for editor's time. Nemov (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC on a procedural community desysop
Please see Village pump (policy) regarding removal the admin user-right from blocked administrators. WormTT(talk) 14:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Noting there is an additional proposal regarding the removal of the mop from community sitebanned users. HouseBlastertalk 15:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Deceased wikipedian :( AlPaD (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Done. Sincere condolences to their family and friends. --Jayron32 14:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Please move the article from User talk:TuanUt/Freshworks to Freshworks, because "Freshworks" is currently locked for creation. TuanUt (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- As was mentioned, and you agreed to, previously. Please put it through the AfC process and if accepted it'll be moved and sorted. Canterbury Tail talk 08:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's borderline and will trim some advertorial content, but I think there's enough to let the community decide. Star Mississippi 16:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Reversing page move done in violation of topic ban
This page move should be undone because the user (Venkat TL) did this move in violation of his existing topic ban from Indian/Pakistani/Afghanistani politics[15] and the subject Atiq Ahmed was an Indian politician who is still being discussed in a purely political context by sources.
This request is not about seeking any sanction because I believe first topic ban violation is supposed to be forgiven. Thanks >>> Extorc.talk 09:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Extorc I consider this page move, done along with the Atiq Ahmed (cricketer) move, was a non controversial process related edit. I have not made any content related edit in this article. If you disagree with my opinion, you could have messaged me to revert myself or posted this request on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for revert by another editor. Now that you have already posted here, I have no concerns if the move is reverted. and then someone else does the same page move again. This page was not appearing in my searches for the person. I fail to understand your intention in starting this thread here and not at the expected venues to address this. Venkat TL (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- The move on Atiq Ahmed cannot be undone by a non-admin[16] that's why it needs admin intervention. Why you would expect me to message you and make the page move again to repeat your topic ban violation? There was no discussion for the cricketer move, [17] so it needs to be undone as well. You are violating WP:AGF by doubting my "intention in starting this thread" when I have made it explicitly clear that I am not seeking any sanction. >>> Extorc.talk 09:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- No. with valid reasons, any page move can be undone by users on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. You get this message when you try to do any move. So you should know that. The page location Atiq Ahmed was previously occupied by Atiq Ahmed cricketer's bio, so Atiq Ahmed cricketer's move was essential to implement the page move request you had made for Atiq Ahmed politician. You were the one who started this page move request, and now you want your completed request to be undone and reverted. I am still waiting to hear your motives in starting this thread here. Venkat TL (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests are also processed by admins or page movers. I see no problem with Extorc bringing it to admin attention at this noticeboard instead, especially since the circumstances are unusual. – Joe (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- No. with valid reasons, any page move can be undone by users on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. You get this message when you try to do any move. So you should know that. The page location Atiq Ahmed was previously occupied by Atiq Ahmed cricketer's bio, so Atiq Ahmed cricketer's move was essential to implement the page move request you had made for Atiq Ahmed politician. You were the one who started this page move request, and now you want your completed request to be undone and reverted. I am still waiting to hear your motives in starting this thread here. Venkat TL (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Venkat TL: There is no exception to topic bans for "non controversial process related" edits. If you've been topic banned from ARBIPA, that's an indication that the community does not trust you to decide what is and isn't controversial in that area. You shouldn't have tried to close an RM on an Indian politican and you shouldn't have moved these pages. I've reversed the move and removed page mover from your account. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- The move on Atiq Ahmed cannot be undone by a non-admin[16] that's why it needs admin intervention. Why you would expect me to message you and make the page move again to repeat your topic ban violation? There was no discussion for the cricketer move, [17] so it needs to be undone as well. You are violating WP:AGF by doubting my "intention in starting this thread" when I have made it explicitly clear that I am not seeking any sanction. >>> Extorc.talk 09:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Biased editing of HistoryofIran
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On Karabakh khanate english wikipedia page HistoryofIran account removed my sourced azerbaijani caucasian khanate term to only caucasian withput adding any source. Azerbaijan related topics are very common to have anti azerbaijan sentimenist editing. Please check this and restore my sourced editing or at least add source to HistoryofIran editing. Leamsezadah (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:OUCH
Leamsezadah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Remember to notify me next time. WP:OUCH; This user either lacks access to the edit summaries of other users (they talk as if I didn't explain myself [18]) or they have WP:CIR and WP:POV issues. I would wager the latter. Am I being too hasty or having bad faith for immediately making such a conclusion? No, I've been editing for 10 years in these type of (problematic) articles and I know a user who is clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia when I see one. Leamsezadah has been editing since 2020 (and very randomly/inconsistently, as they were a sleeper account), and I'd wager not a single edit of theirs have been helpful.
- Here they added an anachronistic Azerbaijani transliteration to a figure who didnt even speak it, which makes sense as the language didnt exist back then [19]. Here they disregarded what WP:RS said in the article and removed "Azeri", replacing it with "Azerbaijani" [20]. Here they randomly removed the sourced mention of "Turkish" [21] [22]. They did the same here too [23] [24]
- As for the recent issue in which Leamsezadah accuses me (WP:ASPERSIONS) of being "biased" (which is rich) and having an "anti azerbaijan sentimenist editing.", let me explain;
- At Karabakh Khanate they replaced "Turkic" with "Azerbaijani" [25] [26], adding two cherrypicked sources. And thus now the article said "Azerbaijani khanate" and "Azerbaijani Caucasian khanate". Not only is "Azerbaijani" anachronstic once again here, as they weren't an ethnonym back then (though admittedly some WP:RS still uses that term for this period), the name of the article is Khanates of the Caucasus, not "Khanates of Azerbaijan" or "Azerbaijani Khanates of the Caucasus". So in other words, Leamsezadah disregarded the name of the article to push their pov.
- Sorry if I might come across as a bit arrogant here, I just woke up. Anyways, based on this I propose a indef block for Leamsezadah. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- This seems like a content dispute. Why aren't these disagreements being discussed on the articles in question. Nemov (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- i was worried about power inequality so i posted it here Leamsezadah (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, WP:AN is for more clear conduct issues. They reverted you a single time; and while you did provide a source, nothing about your edit was so obviously necessary that simply objecting to it and reverting it would be a problem. (See WP:ONUS; verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, so reverting a sourced edit is not axiomatically improper.) You should take it to talk and try to hash it out there. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for information dear Aquillion.
- I will try to do my best after this. But sometimes i do not really to do, it may be complicated sometimes Leamsezadah (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, WP:AN is for more clear conduct issues. They reverted you a single time; and while you did provide a source, nothing about your edit was so obviously necessary that simply objecting to it and reverting it would be a problem. (See WP:ONUS; verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, so reverting a sourced edit is not axiomatically improper.) You should take it to talk and try to hash it out there. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I certainly did not call you racist. but I noted that articles about azerbaijan often contain vandalism and bias. this is also true for articles on Armenia(by nationalist turkish and azerbaijanis). That's why I asked to be checked.
- Don't I contribute to Wikipedia? I am the creator or translator of many articles on Catholicism in the Azerbaijani language. At the same time, the religious importance of the Apostle Bartholomew for the azerbaijan christian laity and officals was placed in the article thanks to me. Of course, I had some unnecessary parts because I didn't know some rules. However, Apostle Bartholomew's article came to be inclusive as it is now, with my contributions playing a major role. Please understand that wikipedia is not anyone's personal space, we can all contribute and no one gives you the right to prejudice people.Everyone makes mistakes because of ignorance, we become better by learning.
- yes, you are right, the Karabakh khanate was a Caucasian khanate, but this does not contradict with the information that the ruling dynasty was ethnic linguistic azerbaijani and the majority of the population was azerbaijani. Many academicians also refer to this khanate as the Azerbaijani khanate, not surprising the fact that it is a Caucasian khanate. If your problem was that there were no commas between them, you could have added a comma instead of deleting them.
- Many valuable scholars such as Tadeusz Swietochowski use the term azerbaijani khanate when talking about this khanate. Likewise, I cited the source for this information. When such a popular description exists, why do we delete it completely instead of giving it as additional information? Something like"azerbaijani origin caucasian khanate" or "caucasian khanate(also known as azerbaijani khanate).
- I will emphasize one important point. I attribute this to your ignorance on the subject. Yes, the term azerbaijani was officially accepted by the azerbaijanian people in recent centuries. Dont forget that, it is seen as racism for Azerbaijani people that people from other nations interfere with the national decision of Azerbaijani people. we use the term people of color today, but different terms have been used in the past. but when we talk about historical people in the past, we use modern terms and respect people's right to define themselves. yes, azerbaijani denonym was not popular in Penahali Khan's time, but nowadays it is and the ethno-linguistic bond is not erased just because the political term has been changed.***
- Please let's stop this unnecessary misunderstanding and this new enmity between us. let's develop wikipedia hand in hand as people who just don't exclude other people because of their ethnicity and you will definitely help me with editing. But let's not forget that we all may have mistakes that we are not aware of, mine and you too. I would be very happy if you review the term azerbaijani and your ideas in the article about the Karabakh khanate. Sending love and peace
- X Leamsezadah (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Respectfully, this is not a dispute/disagreement but simply me stopping a user from pov editing. As for your question, based on this random report of me apparently being “anti-Azerbaijani” and this users editing history, I highly doubt they would be able to engage in such a discussion. HistoryofIran (talk)
- I think both of you would have a hard time convincing people that that whether or not a Turkic Caucasian khanate located in what is modern-day Armenia and Azerbaijan should be called "Azerbaijani" or not is so clear-cut that a single edit in one direction or the other (there wasn't even a revert war!) is an obvious POV issue to the point where it would require immediate administrator intervention. Remember that even if a particular edit happens to be POV, that doesn't necessarily mean the intent behind it is WP:TENDENTIOUS - editors can introduce biases into articles inadvertently, especially if they're only familiar with some of the sources. You mentioned above that you felt Leamsezadah's sources were cherrypicked, so one useful approach would be to demonstrate this on talk by producing more and / or higher-quality sources that describe the topic differently. Besides, part of Leamsezadah's objection was that they provided a source and you didn't; providing sources of your own would answer that objection while narrowing down the locus of the dispute, and assuming you convinced them, including the sources in the article would then make it less likely that someone else comes across the article and repeats all this. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- The sources are already listed in the Khanates of the Caucasus article, and in a WP:OVERKILL manner a that. I would also highly advise OP to read WP:TLDR and WP:ASPERSIONS, calling me “ignorant” on this subject is quite rich coming from them, as they dont even know when “Azerbaijani” became an ethnonym whilst playing expert. Ill post sources for that when I’m home, though its already mentioned in various Wiki articles, including Azerbaijan… HistoryofIran (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Look, you're repeating this again. When the azerbaijani ethnonym is formalized by azerbaijanis is an internal matter of a nation, modern language is used in modern history. It is pointless and pointless to enter this subject anyway. When we can only discuss the Karabakh khanate, why are we talking about the topic which has very sensitive racist boundaries? It is not even our topic. Leamsezadah (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- That made no sense. If you think this is too much of a sensitive topic, then you shouldn't have kept talking about it, let alone randomly reported me. Anyways, gimme a sec, I'll debunk what I can be bothered to debunk of your WP:TLDR comment in a sec. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I requested a review on the removal of the sourced term azerbaijani in the article, it is not about the necessity of calling Muslim Turkic people "azerbaijani" or not, who spoke the language that is now called azerbaijani in the Caucasus. Leamsezadah (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- That made no sense. If you think this is too much of a sensitive topic, then you shouldn't have kept talking about it, let alone randomly reported me. Anyways, gimme a sec, I'll debunk what I can be bothered to debunk of your WP:TLDR comment in a sec. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- you also claim that I attacked the definition of "Caucasian khanate", although I have no problem with this definition. Adding additional sourced information to the article does not mean rejecting any relevant information.
- Even the article "Caucasian Khanates" itself contains the term "Azerbaijani khanates". Even in this regard, there is no contradiction. If both azerbaijani and caucasian terms are written in the article, on the contrary, it will add neutrality to the article and both terms are terms with available sources. At the same time, these two terms are not contradictory terms. Leamsezadah (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Look, you're repeating this again. When the azerbaijani ethnonym is formalized by azerbaijanis is an internal matter of a nation, modern language is used in modern history. It is pointless and pointless to enter this subject anyway. When we can only discuss the Karabakh khanate, why are we talking about the topic which has very sensitive racist boundaries? It is not even our topic. Leamsezadah (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- The sources are already listed in the Khanates of the Caucasus article, and in a WP:OVERKILL manner a that. I would also highly advise OP to read WP:TLDR and WP:ASPERSIONS, calling me “ignorant” on this subject is quite rich coming from them, as they dont even know when “Azerbaijani” became an ethnonym whilst playing expert. Ill post sources for that when I’m home, though its already mentioned in various Wiki articles, including Azerbaijan… HistoryofIran (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think both of you would have a hard time convincing people that that whether or not a Turkic Caucasian khanate located in what is modern-day Armenia and Azerbaijan should be called "Azerbaijani" or not is so clear-cut that a single edit in one direction or the other (there wasn't even a revert war!) is an obvious POV issue to the point where it would require immediate administrator intervention. Remember that even if a particular edit happens to be POV, that doesn't necessarily mean the intent behind it is WP:TENDENTIOUS - editors can introduce biases into articles inadvertently, especially if they're only familiar with some of the sources. You mentioned above that you felt Leamsezadah's sources were cherrypicked, so one useful approach would be to demonstrate this on talk by producing more and / or higher-quality sources that describe the topic differently. Besides, part of Leamsezadah's objection was that they provided a source and you didn't; providing sources of your own would answer that objection while narrowing down the locus of the dispute, and assuming you convinced them, including the sources in the article would then make it less likely that someone else comes across the article and repeats all this. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Respectfully, this is not a dispute/disagreement but simply me stopping a user from pov editing. As for your question, based on this random report of me apparently being “anti-Azerbaijani” and this users editing history, I highly doubt they would be able to engage in such a discussion. HistoryofIran (talk)
"I certainly did not call you racist. but I noted that articles about azerbaijan often contain vandalism and bias. this is also true for articles on Armenia(by nationalist turkish and azerbaijanis). That's why I asked to be checked."
That's quite astute of you, you did not call me racist; I never said that. I said that you accused me of being "biased" and "anti azerbaijan sentimenist editing", which you did here [27]. Also, you're not dealing with children here, no need to beat around the bush with your comment(s), it's clear that you are indicating that I have bias/pov issues, which is again, rich coming from you.
"Even the article "Caucasian Khanates" itself contains the term "Azerbaijani khanates". Even in this regard, there is no contradiction. If both azerbaijani and caucasian terms are written in the article, on the contrary, it will add neutrality to the article and both terms are terms with available sources. At the same time, these two terms are not contradictory terms."
Are we reading the same article? [28] It also says "Iranian khanate" and "Persian khanate" with tons of sources, so why does that get to be omitted? Because it doesn't fit your pov - and so I fail to see how this is the most neutral decision, choosing one side over the other that is. In fact, I'm pretty sure Western WP:RS uses "Iranian/Persian khanate" the most (WP:COMMON NAME), but I don't really care, at least not now; If I have to keep getting pestered by constant nonsense like this, that might change.
"Everyone makes mistakes because of ignorance, we become better by learning." / "I will emphasize one important point. I attribute this to your ignorance on the subject."
The ignorant one is you, do your homework before you start patronizing;
This is directly taken from LouisAragon's comment at the recent discussion at Talk:Imadaddin Nasimi, I'm sure I have a lot more sources in my own little library if need be;
- "Russian sources cited in this study refer to the Turkish-speaking Muslims (Shi’a and Sunni) as “Tatars” or, when coupled with the Kurds (except the Yezidis), as “Muslims.” The vast majority of the Muslim population of the province was Shi’a. Unlike the Armenians and Georgians, the Tatars did not have their own alphabet and used the Arabo-Persian script. After 1918, and especially during the Soviet era, this group identified itself as Azerbaijani." -- Bournoutian, George (2018). Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1900-1914"'. Routledge. p. 35 (note 25).
- "The third major nation in South Caucasia,19 the Azerbaijanis, hardly existed as an ethnic group, let alone a nation, before the twentieth century. The inhabitants of the territory now occupied by Azerbaijan defined themselves as Muslims, members of the Muslim umma; or as Turks, members of a language group spread over a vast area of Central Asia; or as Persians (the founder of Azerbaijani literature, Mirza Fath’ Ali Akhundzadä, described himself as ‘almost Persian’). ‘Azerbaijani identity remained fluid and hybrid’ comments R. G. Suny (1999–2000: 160). As late as 1900, the Azerbaijanis remained divided into six tribal groups – the Airumy, Karapapakh, Pavlari, Shakhsereny, Karadagtsy and Afshavy. The key period of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation lies between the 1905 revolution and the establishment of the independent People’s Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 (Altstadt, 1992: 95)." -- Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14
- "As hinted earlier, the history of Azerbaijan and of the growth of an Azerbaijani ethnie is more problematic than the other two cases. The lack of a clear way of differentiating between the various Turkic languages spoken and written in medieval and early modern times is one of the difficulties. Another is the absence until the twentieth century of an Azerbaijani state." -- idem, p. 35
- "In the case of the third major ethnic group of South Caucasus, the Azerbaijanis, the path towards nationhood was strewn with obstacles. First, there was uncertainty about Azerbaijani ethnic identity, which was a result of the influence of Azerbaijan’s many and varied pre-Russian conquerors, starting with the Arabs in the mid-seventh century and continuing with the Saljuq Turks, the Mongols, the Ottoman Turks and the Iranians. Hence the relatively small local intelligentsia wavered between Iranian, Ottoman, Islamic, and pan-Turkic orientations. Only a minority supported a specifically Azerbaijani identity, as advocated most prominently by Färidun bäy Köchärli." -- idem, p. 68
- "Azerbaijani national identity emerged in post-Persian Russian-ruled East Caucasia at the end of the nineteenth century, and was finally forged during the early Soviet period." -- Gasimov, Zaur (2022). "Observing Iran from Baku: Iranian Studies in Soviet and Post-Soviet Azerbaijan". Iranian Studies. 55 (1): 37
"but when we talk about historical people in the past, we use modern terms and respect people's right to define themselves."
...Except that the Azerbaijanis weren't an historical people back then, barely having an ethnic identity per the sources above. And according to whom? Which WP:RS says that?
"Dont forget that, it is seen as racism for Azerbaijani people that people from other nations interfere with the national decision of Azerbaijani people"
Not the Azerbaijani people, just you - you don't get to speak for every Azerbaijani about this. I edit in what article I see fit, you don't get to judge me for that. And if we were to use that logic, you should be careful with editing in this topic, as the Azerbaijanis didnt exist back then.
I'm only in my early 20s, and already growing gray hair from this. People need to realize that AA3 is never going to find peace as long as we're not observant on these type of topics [29] [30] [31] which brings birth to issues like these. I got called "anti Azerbaijani" and "biased" for merely reverting OP, I'm probably gonna get called "ultra-racist" or something like that for this. This is hopefully my last comment. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- "Are we reading the same article? [28] It also says "Iranian khanate" and "Persian khanate" with tons of sources, so why does that get to be omitted? Because it doesn't fit your pov - and so I fail to see how this is the most neutral decision, choosing one side over the other that is. In fact, I'm pretty sure Western WP:RS uses "Iranian/Persian khanate" the most (WP:COMMON NAME), but I don't really care, at least not now; If I have to keep getting pestered by constant nonsense like this, that might change."
- What does this have to do with me? I had resources related to the term azerbaijan khanate, I added it. this is not an argument. I dont possess every source all over the world, nobody posseses Leamsezadah (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Horrible excuse, did you stop reading Khanates of the Caucasus at the part in which it said "Azerbaijani khanate"...? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have to add all the information. I wanted to add and add the sources of the part related to the Azerbaijani khanate, I have no obligation to add the others. I guess I'm not superman, the savior of the wikipedia articles lol. Leamsezadah (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I see, you apparently need to be superman to read a single line and then self-reflect if your addition is going to be neutral or not. How about not adding either and letting it stay like it already was? You know.. the most neutral decision? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- why would this be the most neutral option when there are loads of resources for the other definition as well? your personal preference? there are many sources use "Caucasian khanate" for Karabakh khanate and also many sources use "Azerbaijani khanate" for Karabakh khanate.
- add if you have enough resources for others, but you can't eliminate a term with valuable resources just because it doesn't fit your own thinking.
- There are many valuable sources that call the Karabakh khanate the azerbaijani khanate and therefore should be found in the article. If you want to add other terms, provide enough sources about the Karabakh khanate and add them, this's none of my business. Leamsezadah (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sigh... this is the last time I'm repeating myself; The name of the article is Khanates of the Caucasus, not "Azerbaijani Khanates of the Caucasus" or "Khanates of Azerbaijan", thus I see no problem keeping in line with the name of the article, that is calling the Karabakh Khanate a "Caucasian Khanate". Moreover, calling the Karabakh Khanate a "Azerbaijani Caucasian khanate" is also not neutral as various WP:RS not only attest to the usage of "Khanates of the Caucasus/Caucasian khanates", but especially to the usage of "Iranian/Persian khanate" as well. And do I even need to explain that calling the Karabakh Khanate a "Azerbaijani or Iranian/Persian Caucasian khanate" in the lede is silly? Moreover, using "Azerbaijani" becomes even worse when the ethnonym didn't even exist back then as I demonstrated. I stand by my proposal to indef or at least topic-ban Leamsezadah from every topic related to WP:Azerbaijan, as they're clearly not able to edit neutrally in this field. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do you want someone to be banned just because you disagree? wikipedia is not your private property.
- i again say i do not care about the name of caucasian khanates article, we are talking about Karabakh khanate and "azerbaijani" term is the addition information to article with source. If you want to distinguish it from caucasian khanate just use "," Leamsezadah (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Did you even read my comment? I said I supported to a indef block/topic-ban because of your non-neutral behaviour. As for your other comment, it's clear that you did not understood what I said either and that you are not satisfied until you have forced the word "Azerbaijani" into that article, i.e. WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sigh... this is the last time I'm repeating myself; The name of the article is Khanates of the Caucasus, not "Azerbaijani Khanates of the Caucasus" or "Khanates of Azerbaijan", thus I see no problem keeping in line with the name of the article, that is calling the Karabakh Khanate a "Caucasian Khanate". Moreover, calling the Karabakh Khanate a "Azerbaijani Caucasian khanate" is also not neutral as various WP:RS not only attest to the usage of "Khanates of the Caucasus/Caucasian khanates", but especially to the usage of "Iranian/Persian khanate" as well. And do I even need to explain that calling the Karabakh Khanate a "Azerbaijani or Iranian/Persian Caucasian khanate" in the lede is silly? Moreover, using "Azerbaijani" becomes even worse when the ethnonym didn't even exist back then as I demonstrated. I stand by my proposal to indef or at least topic-ban Leamsezadah from every topic related to WP:Azerbaijan, as they're clearly not able to edit neutrally in this field. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I see, you apparently need to be superman to read a single line and then self-reflect if your addition is going to be neutral or not. How about not adding either and letting it stay like it already was? You know.. the most neutral decision? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have to add all the information. I wanted to add and add the sources of the part related to the Azerbaijani khanate, I have no obligation to add the others. I guess I'm not superman, the savior of the wikipedia articles lol. Leamsezadah (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Horrible excuse, did you stop reading Khanates of the Caucasus at the part in which it said "Azerbaijani khanate"...? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- This report is too lengthy and convoluted to parse. Maybe try WP:AE where word/diff limits are mandatory, thus forcing you both to be concise. El_C 01:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, the entire massive walls of text above concern these edits - specifically one two-part edit changing a single word in the lead and short description, and one two-part edit reverting it. After that one revert they came straight here, with no discussion on talk or anything else. There's nothing here and they need to take this to Talk:Karabakh Khanate, not WP:AE. --Aquillion (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- The convolution is mainly due OPs walls of texts, which I tried to address as concise as possible. Though I probably should have stopped replying to them after that, meh. It should have indeed not been taken here, and I'm definitely not gonna go for round 2 with this user at Talk:Karabakh Khanate, as they clearly have POV issues - something I was hoping would get addressed here. Next time I will be the one reporting them, to WP:ANI that is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Great Gama and unverifiable claims
Admins The Great Gama article was recently edited by this user Hairy Wookie who restored a heavily uncited and unbalanced version which was the cause of this article being protected last year the nationality of Great Gama is disputed as he gained Pakistani citizenship but his career was all based in British India which caused edit wars last year I attempted to restore the version prior to Hairy Wookies edit. A compromise was reached to refer it as British Raj which maintained peace but its unprotected now and we are at the same spot. It seems my edits are being flagged as I removed a portion regarding early life which was unverifiable and seemed totally made up I have restored that as to prevent admins being side tracked. 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:A09A:916F:3CEB:768F (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- [32] This is the edit made by the account 4 days ago deleting sourced information and strangely adding uncited material back in. Also removed a tag without discussion. There are large amounts of uncited materials being restored bizzare editing.2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:A09A:916F:3CEB:768F (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a reason you haven't notified the user about this discussion per WP:ANB? Nemov (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Revision deletion review - WT:Deceased
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am requesting a review of Barkeep's removal of this post at WT:Deceased. I was told WP:BLPN was not the correct venue (although Barkeep did provide a response. [33] I am posting here per WP:Revision deletion#Appeal and discussion of actions Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Kolya Butternut, the revdel was correct. You should have dropped the stick at that point. – bradv 23:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Revdel warranted. There was potential outing and offwiki shenanigans that should stay offwiki. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I closed the inappropriate discussion at BLP/N. It seems odd that revdeling something for privacy/BLP violations can be appealed on a public board like this, but since it wasn't oversighted, I guess KB is following the rules as currently written. I suppose this board is a better location for shit stirring than BLP/N. I've reviewed the deleted material, and agree that it was not appropriate for posting on WP, and the revdel was correct. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not following the reasoning behind the redvel. The post did not link to anything off-wiki or provide identifying information. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- See WP:RD3. If it had linked to off-wiki or identifying information you likely would have been oversight-blocked. If you persist in your current disruption, you will merely be blocked for that instead. – bradv 23:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand how this can be called disruptive when I am following policy:
The first step is to make absolutely sure that the user in question has indeed died. Reliable sources are key to counteracting fallacious claims.
WP:Deceased_Wikipedians/Guidelines The community needs to discuss what to do, and since the RS this year there has been no community discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand how this can be called disruptive when I am following policy:
- See WP:RD3. If it had linked to off-wiki or identifying information you likely would have been oversight-blocked. If you persist in your current disruption, you will merely be blocked for that instead. – bradv 23:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not following the reasoning behind the redvel. The post did not link to anything off-wiki or provide identifying information. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I commented at BLPN, the first noticeboard Kolya raised this issue at today,
The BLP violation, which of course applies in all places onwiki not just in articles, is that one way or another you are accusing a person who is alive (the subject of the unlinked news story) of faking their own death. Kolya's repeated attempts to "prove" this - and not for nothing I'm reasonably convinced - are itself disruptive. Kolya is not building encyclopedic content. Kolya is not stopping current or future disruption by proving this given the existence of current CU blocks for socking and the possibility of adding new editors to that case if they should arise.
. I see above that at least one editor has suggested I should have used RD3. That's fair. I considered using that criteria, but decided it was more inflammatory than using the RD2 criteria, given that I did feel there was a BLP violation. As I noted at BLPN, I think we've long passed the point of disruption by the continous litigation of this topic. I actually found their revised re-start at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians after the BLPN close a failure to drop the stick but otherwise a reasonable job of addressing the feedback given and hoped that it might suggest a more promising path. The belief that we need to hold an RfC on this matter and the decision to try a second noticeboard suggests instead that Kolya's inability to focus on other matters of encyclopedic importance, rather than this meta-matter about the project, is itself disruptive to the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Someone needs assistance
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apparently, this guy needs assistance, and he's asking me to request it because he... can't?
BillClinternet (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AIV Backlogged
Apologies if this isn't appropriate, however AIV currently seems to have a massive backlog going back to 6:15 AM this morning (central timezone which I have set as what times should be displayed as). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Blaze Wolf - 6.15 central would be about 11.15 UTC, I believe. The current queue has been resolved, but looking over the day's logs, it never seems to go above 7-8 with a 5 hour or so backlog. That should not be viewed as a "massive backlog", even if it isn't ideal (more for the time than the length). Nosebagbear (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ah alright, sorry about that. It probably just seemed larger than it actually was due to all the bot reports. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Spammer from ru.wiki
SSDlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is spammer from ru.wikipedia who try to add different external links in articles and promote insignificant peoples. [34] blocked on ru.wiki. Кронас (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would say this is a clear WP:NOTHERE case.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at CentralAuth, they've also spammed be-, de-, fi-, fr-, and nl-wiki. I have reported them to m:SRG. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 16:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- And I've blocked them here for spamming. Courcelles (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
3 revert rule violation
User:Orb007 on Star_Trek:_Picard_(season_3) repeatedly restring edits that violate rules. User's only edits, possible sockpuppet 204.78.15.9 (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)