[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andrevan (talk | contribs) at 23:30, 17 September 2024 (→Proposal 3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
    CfD 0 0 0 1 1
    TfD 0 0 4 0 4
    MfD 0 0 2 0 2
    FfD 0 0 2 1 3
    RfD 0 0 28 6 34
    AfD 0 0 0 1 1


    Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area

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

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

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

    I've had some involvement in the ARBPIA area, but haven't really actively participated in a while. I think creating articles, voting in RMs, participating in talk page discussions, etc. (all listed at that diff), makes someone involved. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked into the specific concerns here, and am in no way challenging them. But I want to note my view that participating in widely advertised discussions - AfDs, RMs, RfCs - does not necessarily make someone involved, because in theory a lot of participation there is evaluating evidence others have provided, rather than being based on your own views and experience. Of course a lot of participants in meta discussions are there because they have experience in the subject that does make them involved. Understanding whether someone is capital-I Involved really comes down to the substance of their participation, not the numbers, namespaces, or venues. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Starting an RM, in contrast, would be based on your own views and experience? Levivich (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that involved really comes down to the substance of their participation, so I just took a look at RTH's 25 edits to the "Israel-Hamas war" article as an example, and here are some edits I saw, with additions and deletions shown:
    I'm not saying these edits violate policy, but they are substantive edits that meaningfully change the content. I haven't checked the 40+ talk page edits. This is just one article. Levivich (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Starting an RM would depend on the RM. In that case, it's borderline. Your other examples, and one more I found on the talk page, are clearer: commenting below momentarily. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think those examples prove anything, other than that RTH makes good copy edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think RTH is correct that the Misinformation section was a COATRACK in the making. That said, I think a valid Misinformation section could be written that provides a broad overview of the role of misinformation, rather than a tick-tock approach that provides random examples. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are not copy edits. Levivich (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Palestinian militant" introduces Palestinians for the first time in that paragraph to clarify that it was Palestinian militants infiltrating into Israel.
    • Here's the full sentence Numerous cases of violence against Israeli civilians have also been reportedoccurred since the beginning of the Hamas offensive, including a massacre at a music festival in Re'im that killed at least 260. Violence did occur and there was a massacre at a music festival; they weren't merely "reported".
    • "Islamist militant groups Hezbollah and Al-Quds Brigades" Hezbollah and Al-Quds are Islamist militant groups and are described as such by our articles on them; this is something our readers should know.
    • Full sentence: The United States government announced it iswill supporting Israel by movingmove an aircraft carrier, warships, and military jets to the eastern Mediterranean and providingwill provide Israel with additional military equipment and ammunition. "Supporting Israel" did not need to be stated because that was obvious from the sentence's content; the U.S. didn't send a warship and re-arm Israel to oppose them.
    • ""large-scale invasion and offensive against Israel"; "Hamas offensive attack" Both of these are true statements. The Hamas incursion into Israel was definitionally an invasion. Attack is more simple language than "offensive"
    • "Some analysts": The first example properly attributed an idea to its author. The second example rephrased the very clunky "This conflict has also been called by analysts" to "Some analysts have described this war as". Neither is perfect, but the second is better.
    voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not copy edits because copyediting is fixing grammar/typos/readability without changing the meaning, whereas these edits are, as Vanamonde says below, substantive edits that meaningfully alter POV. Whether they're good or bad edits is not the point (I think some are good), and discussing the merits of the edits is a distraction. Levivich (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing which of those examples meaningfully alter the article's POV in context. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll reply on your talk page. Levivich (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Link to disscusson for future record [1] LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 09:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a permanent link: Special:PermanentLink/1242930605#From AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RE the merits of the edits is a distraction. I think intent matters. Even if each of those edits altered the articles' POVs, they don't alter them in an ideologically consistent way: some edits could be construed as pro-Israel, some as pro-Palestinian. That further leads me to believe that these were intended to be clean up edits for grammar/style (sorry for using the phrase "copy editing" interchangeably), rather than stealthy insertions of non-neutral material. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:INVOLVED is clear: editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. Involvement is about participation in particular disputes—concrete things where users are in disagreement—not about having written an article or two within the context a broad topic area or having participated substantially in a small number of article talk pages in the area. In discussions that I have participated, I have not acted as an administrator—I am not, for example, going around and closing RMs, nor XfDs, nor RfCs in which I have participated. And I will continue to not act as an administrator in those sorts of discussions where I have participated in the capacity as an ordinary editor, just as (for example) GorillaWarfare has done in the context of WP:GENSEX. But I am deeply skeptical of the notion that my relatively limited editing in the area has somehow made me involved in literally every dispute that might relate somehow to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, as appears to be suggested by Voorts above. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have been more careful with how I phrased my comment. Initially, I don't know how many edits you've made in the area or whether your edits in this area are disproportionate to the edits you make in other areas such that it could lead to an inference that you have a vested interest in the area, so I can't opine on that. And, to clarify, I don't think that your contributions (of which there are only examples listed) makes you involved in literally every dispute that might relate somehow to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. I think that it might make you involved in some disputes in the area; for example, if you tend to take a particular view in discussions on the topic, you would be involved to the extent that that view affects how you might perceive a conflict or how others might perceive your participation. I think it's more nuanced than just saying "you are involved writ large". voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict × 2) I don't believe that involvement in some part of ARBPIA necessarily makes someone involved in all of it: in that respect, RTH, I agree. Some of the examples Levivich gives above, though, and this one from your talk, are substantive content edits about the current military conflict, all of which are substantial alterations to article POV (not necessarily bad ones, but that's not the point). I don't see how you can argue you are unvinvolved with respect to the war of 23-24. And blanking the discussion on your talk page is permissible but not a good look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      With respect to the last point, I had not realized that the link Shushugah had posted above was a live link to a section rather than a permalink. I've restored the comments as such. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd also agree that there are certain aspects of the war that I'd be involved with, namely the parts where I've participated as a content editor. But I don't think I'd be a wp:involved closer if I were to take on the Nuseirat rescue operation merge request or the Al-Tabaeen school attack move request that are presently at WP:RFCLOSE, for example, because I haven't been involved in those sorts of disputes. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a limit to how much you can subdivide a topic. Being involved with isolated pages is one thing; making substantive content edits to pages central to the war is another. I would advise against closing either of those discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe this discussion has gone too far at this point, but, given that actions are forward-looking rather than punitive, and nobody's really suggested any particular action in particular, would RTH or the community really object if RTH simply promised to take more notice of the perceived separation needed between admin actions and involved editor conduct in the future? It seems at this point, a simple good faith assurance from an administrator in good standing to simply tread a little more carefully ought to be sufficient. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    That sounds like a sensible guideline to follow. Does this sound doable, Red-tailed hawk? With "involvement" issues, I've found it best to be overly cautious or these questions keep being rasied again and again. Best to nip it in the bud than to have to revisit this question. Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: That administrators should not perform both edits and administrative tasks in the same contentious topic sounds nice to one's ear, but I think it would concretely fail as a rule because several CTOP areas are extremely broad:
    If someone writes a biography about a living Norwegian musical artist once, I don't think that should prohibit them from enforcing the CTOP that is biographies of living persons in the context of a totally unrelated biography about a librarian from Kalamazoo. Nor do I think that adding information to the article on Russian chess Grandmaster Ian Nepomniachtchi about his 2013 victory over Russian chess grandmaster Peter Svidler in the Russian Chess superfinal would or ought forever bar an administrator from enforcing the CTOP of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, even though it is an edit that would be in the scope of the extremely broad Eastern Europe topic area. Nor do I think that an editor who has once added content regarding former chess world champion Vishwanathan Anand's 1992 chess olympiad performance on Team India should forever be barred from closing discussions that relate to municipalities in Afghanistan, even though both are within the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan contentious topics area.
    I don't think any reasonable individual would see the sort of editing described above as somehow being involved in the dispute when it comes to the corresponding edit in the topic area. Zero's proposal is an idea, but I think that it's an overbroad one. And frankly it's one that I routinely see rejected when people make closure challenges—it would be a new rule. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am hoping to bring the wording of the involved rule up to date to match the spirit of it. I don't claim to have the perfect way of doing that. You are correct that some CTs are unreasonably broad and that is a good point. ARBPIA is not one of them, though. Regulars in ARBPIA can tell within one or two edits what POV a new editor has and how they will act in other ARBPIA articles. The topic does not consist of a lot of sub-topics with only a nominal connection. Zerotalk 13:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sympathetic to the argument that Contentious Topics can be overly broad when they involve either large country/populations (including BLP). I am not proposing a blanket change/clarification on how all contentious topics are handled, but ARBPIA specifically which has the strictest sanctions including 500/30 rule. Furthermore, if this was about Palestinian chess participants while possibly part of ARBPIA, it would be grey area. The example articles and actions here are firmly within ARBPIA scope. On other hand, in your analogy, if someone was tenaciously editing Chess related articles to promote a national angle, it could be raised here but I would rather focus on ARBPIA than other hypothetical areas. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with "administrators should not perform both edits and administrative tasks in the same contentious topic". But I sometimes wonder whether an admin who will later spend time at AE on cases related to a specific topic area might benefit from having spent some time as an "involved" editor in the topic area before detaching and becoming uninvolved to perform admin tasks. This is probably not practical in the real world, and I guess the 'benefit' might not end up being a benefit. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At my RFA I was asked two days into the process, Please explain how you plan to approach disputes related to the Scientific skepticism topic area as an administrator, including whether or when you would recuse and any exceptions to a recusal. I responded I'd approach them much like I try to approach any dispute, neutrally and with a level head. I wouldn't recuse from the topic area, although I'm clearly INVOLVED with many of the active editors in the topic, so don't expect any admin action from me dealing with them. I went on to sail through RFA with little dramajokes!. My answer didn't raise any eyebrows or objections, despite having been a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing, having invoked the BLP allowance from 3RRNO, and having been involved with several disputes in the overlapping CTOPS of WP:ARBPS, WP:ARBCOVID, and WP:ARBBLP.
    I'm not going to weigh in on this particular case because I really shouldn't have any say on what administrators are allowed to administer the topic area, but I did want to address this particular reading of INVOLVED, and how it played out in a discussion with over 300 editors. WP:INVOLVED refers to current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. Regular editing that does not involve disputes and prior involvements [that] are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias as called out by voorts do not, to me, cause a widespread INVOLVEment in a topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think regular editing in a topic area automatically makes an admin involved for the entire topic, but in contentious topics, it might. An admin who regularly edits around radio stations, likely not involved w/re: adminning at radio station articles they didn't create or haven't heavily edited. At ARBPIA, very possibly yes. And even at radio stations, if other regular editors or uninvolved editors are telling you you're too involved to be an admin, I'd say listen carefully. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What if their involvement in the topic area was minor enough that over seven months of working ARBPIA at AE went by without any of the regular editors thinking to raise concerns about involvement? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Conflict of interest (or the appearance of it) should be a matter of self-policing not a question of it's OK if nobody notices. And when people do notice, then that should definitely be the case. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      First, you gotta stop using "the regulars" as if it's an actual discrete group. Second, it's not like editors remember everyone else who edits in a topic area they are active in. There are thousands of editors who have edited this topic area, and most editors aren't online all the time or watching all the articles the way some editors do. Third, just because we see a problem doesn't mean we always bring it up. I haven't brought up all the problems I see with admins in this topic area, for example. Doesn't mean I don't think they exist. A lack of complaint is not indicative of a lack of problem. Levivich (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was quoting the use of regulars by Valereee (if other regular editors or uninvolved editors are telling you you're too involved to be an admin) when responding to their point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "other regular editors" is not the same as "the regular editors". The article "the" suggests a discrete and monolithic group, especially in the context of an AE referral against "the regulars" with aspersions at ARCA by referring admins (not "the referring admins") such as "the regulars in the topic area have worked together to create a hostile battleground ... the impact of the regulars" and so forth. Editors with experience in a topic area do not constitute a monolothic group and should not be "othered" in this way, time for this habit to end. Levivich (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you should assume you've become involved once other editors are saying you're involved. It's not perfect -- as Levivich says, the absence of expressed concerns doesn't mean the absence of unvoiced concerns -- but if others are saying so, you should probably listen. And if you're reluctant to decide you're involved and become an editor in that area, that may be another data point. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you should assume you've become involved once other editors are saying you're involved. My own thinking leans in this direction. The perception of others is important to take into account, so that everyone feels that the process is fair. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The text WP:INVOLVED mentions disputes as a scope, because those are well defined, whereas for the vast majority of Wikipedia, "topics" do not have a well defined scope — with the exceptions of the ~30 ArbCom Sanctioned Contentious Topics. A clear definition of scope would help us avoid more thorny and content specific questions raised by RTH for example whether a hostage rescues is somehow separate from the Israel-Hamas war or if the creation of Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip does not make them an involved admin in both the current war and more generally in all Arab-Israeli Conflict related articles when requesting clarification at ARCA.
      All of which is to say, I believe all of their edits — if in editorial capacity were reasonable conduct wise, but with regards to WP:ADMINCONDUCT they raise the appearance of impropriety. The text or WP:INVOLVED is not directly written for admins, but it's referenced in WP:ADMINCONDUCT. The focus shouldn't merely be on closure decisions of RM discussions, but also on how they conduct themselves as an uninvolved admin on wider reaching policies of ARBPIA topics. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should remember that "involved" is not just about what admins are capable of being level-headed about. It's also about community perception of their objectivity. Appearances matter and we should keep our house squeaky clean. I'm mostly concerned about the case (which doesn't necessarily apply to Red-tailed hawk) where an editor demonstrates a personal POV in a contentious topic, even in a corner of it, and later becomes an admin and seeks to police the topic. It should not be enough to argue that the admin hadn't interacted with some particular editor or wasn't involved in some particular dispute. Allowing too much choice will even invite some editors to take this career path in order to best influence the topic. Zerotalk 13:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also there's an actual shooting war going on right now. I think wp:involved applies to simultaneously editing and adminning about the same ongoing war, even if it wasn't a ctop area. For ctops, even more so. Levivich (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree with it, but the community recently did not find convincing arguments that an editor who had expressed a POV in a contentious topic was involved with that topic - some editors who are arguing here that Red-Tailed Hawk is involved actually argued against that close appeal.
      With that said, if there is evidence that RTH is partisan then I would support them recusing themselves. So far, I have not seen any such evidence, although it is possible that I overlooked it. BilledMammal (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm one of the editors who endorsed that close. Because expressing a pov on your userpage doesn't make you involved in a topic area. Making substantive edits in the topic area does. Also, because it's OK for an involved editor to close a clear (3:1) RfC. Userspace content vs editing articles is apples and oranges. Closing RFCs vs adminning in CT areas is also apples and oranges. Levivich (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, people disagreed that the quote you objected to on a user page rendered somebody involved. Not that, as here, repeated content edits in a topic area, discussions in the topic area, starting articles in the topic area, makes somebody involved. As far as I can see, you took an incredibly expansive reading of INVOLVED there, but an incredibly narrow one here. nableezy - 14:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My view is that partisanship, where an editor demonstrates a personal POV in a contentious topic, is what is required to become involved across a broad topic area.
      I see no reasonable justification for carving out an exception for personal POV’s demonstrated in user space, and I am applying this equally to both RTH and that closer. If editors have evidence that RTH is partisan, then I believe they should recuse. BilledMammal (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would tend to agree with BilledMammal that demonstrating a personal POV would make an editor involved, as, even on a user page, it does still intersect the topic area, in the same way you can make CTOP edits on primarily non-CTOP pages. However, I don't see it as a necessary condition to be involved, and I do also believe that editors making many non-trivial edits are also involved even if the edits don't necessarily demonstrate a specific POV. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I do also believe that editors making many non-trivial edits are also involved even if the edits don't necessarily demonstrate a specific POV.

      I agree with this, although I don’t think it applies to either the case of RTH or that closer, both of whom have made relatively few edits in the topic area. Of course, if the community disagrees I will adjust my expectations of closers and admins going forward. BilledMammal (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      People disagreed that the quote you objected to showed a personal POV in a contentious topic. That does not render moot what WP:INVOLVED actually says, and it does not make it so your attempt at waving away the views you disagree with as hypocritical is substantiated in the slightest. "Partisan" does not appear once in Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins. What it actually says is Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute, qualified by One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. The former is demonstrated by showing editing in disputes on the topic that are not related to the latter. nableezy - 14:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm concerned that some of my colleagues are construing a topic area too broadly, and others, "dispute" too narrowly. Some of our CTOPs are enormous: involvement in one part of a CTOP cannot reasonably be construed to mean involvement in all of it. I said as much at my RFA eight years ago [2], and I stand by that. At the same time, substantially editing an article unquestionably makes you INVOLVED with it. You don't need to be party to an editing dispute. Most of my content work isn't contentious; nonetheless, I am INVOLVED with respect to pages I've made major edits on, and where they fall within a coherent topic, in the topic as well. The question here is simply whether RTH's edits can be construed as minor (fixing grammar or formatting, for instance) or maintenance-related (reverting vandalism or unsourced content). I don't believe it can. And given a half-dozen examples related to the Israel–Hamas war, I don't believe anyone can reasonably argue those are isolated examples any more. The apparent POV of the edits does not matter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So from your POV, RTH is INVOLVED with the Israel-Hamas war but not, say, Zionist land purchases in the 1930s to name an example from upthread? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      [Disclaimer: RTH and I are personal friends and wrote a GA together. I also said, in supporting his RfA, that we "have disagreed in almost every discussion we've both participated in". Make of that what you will.]
      Topic-area-level involvement is a tricky thing. ArbCom has never clearly endorsed such a concept—there was some language in RexxS that some have read that way, but also a number of cases, including Arbitration enforcement and GiantSnowman, where, even in sanctioning or criticizing an administrator, the Committee failed to find a broad issue with them adminning in a content area they edit. And yet some level of proximity feels inappropriate and occasionally has landed admins in hot water. What I found in my time as an admin was that the most important variable is degree of engagement. Mere copy-edits don't preclude an admin from using admin powers even regarding the page they copy-edited. On the other end of the spectrum, being a major player in RfCs etc. might disqualify an admin from an entire topic, although I don't think an entire topic area (caveat on that later). For instance, I was involved in many discussions about trans people's names and pronouns, so didn't admin about that at all (excluding obviously bad-faith conduct). But GENSEX is a large topic area, and I never had a problem with adminning elsewhere in it, besides of course cases where I was more directly involved. Compare and contrast with my participation in say, AMPOL or RUSUKR, where I've created or improved a few articles, but not been involved much in higher-level decisionmaking. In those, I steered clear of the specific articles I worked on and closely-related ones, or users I'd come into conflict with, and that was enough. (And of course one can play devil's advocate here and say no I should have been stricter, but I'm speaking descriptively about an approach that objectively worked to keep me out of trouble, and I'm not an admin anymore so y'all can't desysop me even if you want to. :P )
      Now, as several have pointed out, everything in the PIA topic area, especially during the ongoing war, is very closely related, in a way that differs from, say, GENSEX, where there's quite a bit of distance between RuPaul's Drag Race and the Seneca Falls Convention. There's very few things in PIA that don't tie in to the current war. It's not true in the opposite direction: I don't think a lot of edits to conflict-related parts of hummus, Bar Refaeli, and You Don't Mess with the Zohan would necessarily disqualify someone from adminning ARBPIA; but being involved in consensus-building about the current war does seem a lot closer to involvement with the entire conflict, at least for such time as the war is so central to the overall conflict. So this feels less like the dubious concept of topic-area-level involvement, and more like single-topic-level involvement, where that topic happens to, at this moment in time, extend to basically the whole topic area. Again, not just because of participating at all, but because of participating in those meta-level processes.
      This does get to, as Zero gets at, the matter that WP:INVOLVED is pretty old and out-of-date. Among other things, it technically doesn't have an exemption for "any reasonable editor" + potentially controversial admin, only the other way around, even though it's often cited that way; it barely discusses applicability to non-admins (and probably shouldn't even be in WP:ADMIN anymore); it doesn't address the different way "involved" is used in close appeals, including by ArbCom; and there's been a semantic drift from "involved but exempt" (the policy's approach) to "exempt so not involved" (how it's often phrased). More profoundly, it does not address the conflict between "any reasonable administrator" and administrative discretion; can an involved admin no-warn-indef someone who vandalizes an article they wrote, even if they normally would warn, just because some admins would do so? Even more fundamentally, does the policy reward admins for not engaging with the actual work of building an encyclopedia, encouraging the existence of a class of admins with high social capital but low content proficiency? Now there's a question.
      -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 17:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Even more fundamentally, does the policy reward admins for not engaging with the actual work of building an encyclopedia, encouraging the existence of a class of admins with high social capital but low content proficiency? Now there's a question. I feel confident to answer this question "no". There is a huge amount of content to edit and there is a huge amount of admin work that is to be done. Also, as someone who thinks the general rule is that every admin should have serious content writing experience, I would dispute the idea that keeping our encyclopedia free of vandalism is not the actual work of building the encyclopedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but interests tend to overlap between content and conduct. For instance, I follow news about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict intently. I lived in Israel for two months as a teen. I've tried really hard to understand perspectives on both sides of the conflict, even at one point simultaneously dating a Zionist and a pro-Palestinian hardliner. (I mean that's not why I dated them, but it did prove useful for learning two very different perspectives.) I think I definitely would have something offer to the topic area as an editor. But as an admin I knew that I had a choice, at least as a matter of drama avoidance if not of policy: Edit in this area, or admin in it. So I picked the latter. Maybe that's how it has to be. I didn't pose the above question rhetorically, and I think your answer is reasonable. But it does seem unfortunate that people who are knowledgeable about a subject often have to pick either contributing to the encyclopedia's content (better phrasing?) or making sure the topic area doesn't get overrun with bad actors. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 18:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @BK49: I have not yet seen evidence that RTH was INVOLVED with respect to "Zionist land purchases in the 1930s", and I would not hold that his edits with respect to the current war would necessarily make him so INVOLVED. Ultimately, only RTH is able to judge where his personal opinions are strong enough that he shouldn't be adminning. This is my view of his on-wiki contributions. Tamzin, I don't believe the perverse incentive you describe exists; there is just so much one can do as an admin. I've made substantive content edits in a very wide range of subjects. I don't struggle to find admin actions I can take. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the community (and if it were to come to it, ArbCom) can also absolutely weigh in on whether or not someone is INVOLVED. We may not be able to see into someone's mind to know whether their personal opinions are strong enough that he shouldn't be adminning but we can judge their actions and say, whatever their own internal monlogue, that we believe them INVOLVED. So in that sense I think this thread is useful to RTH (and others) and I would hope RTH takes the feedback offered here seriously with future actions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Barkeep49 I phrased that badly; actions on-wiki can certainly make someone INVOLVED regardless of their opinions. However, there are articles where I stay away from using the tools despite my lack of on-wiki involvement, because I know I cannot be dispassionate there: it is the latter category to which I was referring, when I said only RTH can speak to that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Dear admins. If everytime policy comes up, we get these huge discussions by experts who cannot quite agree on how to read them, how are mere peons like myself expected to go ahead editing serenely, when the policies one tries to respect prove so subjective? Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's the rub, yeah. It also applies to admins, who have to decide how to read and enforce those policies. That's one of the reasons I've come to this noticeboard a number of times with concerns about my own involvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've often admired your scrupulousness, even though I sometimes feel threatened by it. But the issue is that there is a natural disparity between admins and editors. The former judge the latter, but not (thankfully) the peonry the former. Precisely for this reason, the rigours of policy-adherence, however interpreted, placed on the generality of editors should be even, if slightly, more exacting for admins. One could write a short sociological tract on how these minor, if important and indiespensable, differences of 'class' play out interactively. But not here. Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree (see also my User:Barkeep49/Elite), but isn't INVOLVED an example of a more exacting standard for admins? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, surely Barkeep, a standard can never be exacting if there is quite some leeway in its application? Aren't many arguments here alluding to Hewart's dictum that a semblance of judicial bias saps the authority of judgments. Latitudinarian defenses here don't appear to consider this important. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I mentioned this below, but my opinion is that the question ought to be "does the topic area have an underlying dispute?" The AP2 and ARBPIA topic areas are ones that mostly consist of a single big dispute - one side vs. another side. There might be a few articles that fall under there which aren't part of those disputes (eg. AP2 areas that don't touch on left-right or party politics at all) but for the most part, there's one core dispute and if you're INVOLVED for that you're going to be INVOLVED for most discussions that could fall in that topic area. Others, like GENSEX, consist of a few interlocking disputes - weighing in on trans issues makes you INVOLVED for that entire dispute, but it doesn't necessarily mean you can't serve as an admin for stuff about the act of sex, say, or gender-equality, which are more tangential. And then there's a few, like BLP, which aren't really about a specific topic-wide dispute at all, where this wouldn't apply and it isn't really possible to be involved in the entire area as a result. --Aquillion (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The question I raised is whether RTH is involved. If so, he would not be able to act in an admin capacity (closing discussions, blocking users and any other non-controversial admin tasks) when editing in said areas of ARBPIA (or subtopics) which the community is figuring out. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally when we seek to hold admins accountable, we need some sort of complaint about their conduct. It's hard to determine whether someone is INVOVLED or misusing the tools when there's nothing on the table to evaluate. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RTH has commented as an uninvolved admin in a number of ARBPIA AE reports, including some I've filed, and one he closed and referred to arbcom (not unilaterally). Those are the specific admin actions at issue here. Levivich (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As part of my support for RTH's RfA just eight months ago, I made the following comment: "I've not landed here completely without reservation and I hope the candidate in their future mop work takes on board what I see as a number of constructive comments. I'd opine that at this point a reluctance to wield the mop in the arena of US geo/politcs broadly defined might be appropriate." Rather than being bogged down in definitions of involved, is there so great a shortage of admins that RTH making a good faith offer to agree not to undertake mop work in the topic area would have dramatic effect? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Involved/uninvolved issue aside, AE is chronically understaffed in all topic areas. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So not a "dramatic effect" if one less in one topic area, yes? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This kind of sounds like the opposite of what SFR is arguing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the involved issue should be decided without taking into account admin attendance at AE. That said, it will have a significant effect on staffing at AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm fully aware that your diligence has led to an unenviable situation of overwork. That is clearly unfair. But I also think that even increasing the number of admins present, if their job to include following articles closely, is no solution, rather to the contrary. A casual click on two of the 100 articles I listed (a small sample of those created after Oct 7, reveals an edit count varying from 150 to 15,000 (Israel Hamas war)depending on the article. The temptation is to focus on editing by familiar names, a score of editors, on a baker's dozen of articles, and ignore the contributions of several hundred who have edited without notable problems arising. If that is the working rule, it creates a circular feedback loop that will confirm the hypothesis that the area is 'dominated' by regulars who have a battleground mentality. As I said, the sheer volume of editors in well over a hundred articles created and developed over this period argues statistically against the theory that the IP area is governed by a handful of warring regulars. The place works relatively straightforwardly without minute capillary monitoring, which in any case is not what we need from admins. If there is an impasse, or stubborn misbehaviour, yes, by all means. Historically, admins stay quiet, look on and only intervene when disputes become intractable and parties resort to ANI/AE. In 18 years I have gained absolute trust in admins, a good many, I never see in the IP area except when reports are arbitrated. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm pretty sure if RTH comments "above the line" in the regular editor section instead of "below the line" in the uninvolved admin section, AE will not be significantly impacted. For example, I filed 5 AE reports, RTH only commented in 1 of them, and it was the one he closed as refer to arbcom; the others were processed fine without his involvement. If RTH had commented "above the line" on that one, the only thing that would have changed is maybe we wouldn't have that ARCA that's open now (which I obviously don't think is helpful). Based on those 5 reports as a sample size, and I'll add Nishidani's as a 6th (where RTH gave credence to an obvious sock's obviously bad report, which lasted until the obvious sock was blocked as a compromised account), I would argue that moving RTH to "above the line" for ARBPIA (or at least for the war) would improve AE not harm it. Levivich (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If RTH hadn't commented as an uninvolved admin you'd still have had 3 other uninvolved admin agreeing to refer to arbcom. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Further evidence that RTH commenting above the line would not have made a significant difference.
      Personally I'm not so sure we'd still be at ARCA, but even if we were, it wouldn't have been the same ARCA filing (someone else would have had to write it and maybe would have written it differently, maybe with different parties, maybe with different issues, and maybe even with some evidence) or made at the same time (without RTH, maybe you would have finished your review of the diffs and posted your thoughts on them, who knows what might have happened).
      Also not for nothing but you know what the other 3 admin all have in common? Recent significant conflict with me. That may not make them wp:involved but I don't think they're quite "uninvolved admin," either. Levivich (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What stopped me from finishing my review of the diffs - the part of which I'd done and already indicated I found trouble with - was this comment which suggested to me there was no way to keep that report focused on האופה. I'm also sorry to hear that your thinking that because I disagree with your definition of tagteaming, while agreeing that at least some of the conduct in the diffs you provide violate conduct expectations, and not for nothing agreeing that RTH needs to think differently about INVOLVED, is a signficant conflict with you because it would not have registered as such with me. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The reason there was no way to keep the report focused on the reported editor was because some of the reviewing admins kept talking about other editors who weren't named in the report (that diff you linked was made in response to such comments). Up until that happened in my fifth report, everything was fine (we had no problems in the first four). The "significant conflict" between us I was referring to was the arbcom case last year. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I think it's obviously a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Full disclosure, I have had conflict with Red-Tailed Hawk on this subject in the past - they previously closed several WP:RSN discussions on sources with a clear bias in terms of left-right politics and AP2 in particular, despite having previously been fairly active in those areas themselves and having reasonably discernible perspectives about both it and its sourcing; and disagreed when I suggested to them that they were INVOLVED. My opinion here is the same as it was then - we have a thousand admins, and Wikipedia covers a vast array of topics; there is no need for them to administrate topic areas where they've expressed opinions in the past, which inevitably creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. Many topic areas (GENSEX, AP2, and of course ARBPIA) are themselves large unwieldy ongoing disputes; serious involvement, at least to the point where an broad opinion can be discerned, constitutes involvement in that underlying dispute in a way that should generally bar admins from acting there. There are a few WP:CTOPS that aren't really disputes in the conventional sense and where this wouldn't apply (BLP, most obviously, isn't a singular dispute), and a few that can be broken down into multiple distinct disputes (expressing an opinion on the trans dispute shouldn't make someone WP:INVOLVED for unrelated articles about sexual activity), but those are exceptions - for most topic areas, there is one core, identifiable, underlying dispute, and once you've expressed a discernible opinion on that dispute you're WP:INVOLVED for the whole topic area. Certainly the expertise of someone who has edited the topic area extensively can be useful - but they can provide that as an ordinary editor, and leave the final decisions to someone with an intact appearance of neutrality. --Aquillion (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For such a long discussion, I'm not seeing a consensus for any particular course of action other than possibly having a broader discussion of what the involved admin policy means in CTOP areas, which, if we need to do that, would seem to indicate that RTH is not "involved" in the currently understood sense of the term. I am about as hawkish (no pun intended) as a person can be as regards INVOVED admin actions, and I'd be the first in line calling it out if there was a "smoking gun" here, but there is not. This is basically a long-winded way of saying I think people have talked enough; I wish they'd stop. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you're not seeing any consensus in this discussion, I'd ask you to look again:
      • 11 editors said yes wp:involved: me, Shushuga, Vanamonde93, voorts, Zero0000, Sean.hoyland, Nableezy, Tamzin, Aquillion, RAN1, and starship.paint
      • 5 editors are a "maybe" or "probably": Liz (who thought Zero's suggestion was sensible), valereee ("very possibly yes"), Chaotic Enby ("editors making many non-trivial edits are also involved"), Goldsztajn (asked whether, definition of involved aside, RTH would "agree not to undertake mop work in the topic area"), and Barkeep49 ("RTH needs to think differently about INVOLVED")
      • 3 editors said not involved: RTH, SFR, and BilledMammal
      • 4 editors commented on the issue but without opining one way or the other: you, Nishidani, Arkon, and Novem Linguae
      Apologies if I've mischaracterized or miscategorized anybody, but it seems like pretty clear consensus to me that yes, RTH is wp:involved, with only 3 editors saying no vs. 11-16 saying yes. I think all that's left to determine is what the scope is of the wp:involved topic area: (1) ARBPIA, (2) the current war, or (3) something else. (My vote is first choice 1, second choice 2.) Levivich (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What I actually said was I'm not seeing a consensus for any particular course of action. So, you are responding to a point I wasn't making. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What you actually said was more than that: I'm not seeing a consensus for any particular course of action other than possibly having a broader discussion of what the involved admin policy means in CTOP areas, which, if we need to do that, would seem to indicate that RTH is not "involved" in the currently understood sense of the term. And I responded by saying no, there is consensus--clear and overwhelming consensus (a 4:1 or 5:1 ratio)--that he's involved in the currently-understood sense of the term. As for particular course of action, we all know what the particular course of action is when an admin is wp:involved: not acting as an admin in the involved area. Levivich (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I clarified above that I think this is a nuanced issue so I should not be in the yes involved camp. I'm not opining on whether RTH is or is not involved at this point, but I did find the specific diffs that we discussed above and at my talk page to be unpersuasive. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just for the record, I withheld my private opinion, which I gained after just two exchanges with Red-tailed hawk when he questioned me in the Icebear report against me. I thought he had made up his mind already that I had a serious civility problem, at the very outset of the case. But this is just the way I read between the lines, and is highly subjective. Because of that, and the fact that I am completely incompetent in opining on policy issues, I have refrained from 'voting' in this thread, and remain technically neutral for that reason.Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For such a long discussion I'm impressed with how clearly reached the consensus is without any proposals or bold faced voting. If RTH acknowledges the feedback and says "I will consider myself INVOLVED in <insert one of Levivich's scopes> in the future" I bet this thread would be promptly closed by someone. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Involvement is with disputes. That does not mean real life disputes - it means disputes on-wiki. There is no policy or guideline basis to force an editor to declare themselves involved with respect to an entire topic area - and in fact, multiple recent discussions should show that there is no community desire for this sort of "admin action topic ban" to take place. I have seen no evidence that RTH has acted as an administrator during a dispute/discussion which they commented on as a regular user or were involved in a non-administrator capacity. The mere fact that RTH has edited in the topic area does not mean they are involved with respect to administrator actions/discussions that do not involve articles they've edited or a content dispute they have opined on.
    That all said, it is no surprise that this discussion was started. The user who started this discussion did so quite quickly after they commented on the current ARC/A request that RTH made with referral of long-term issues with editors in this topic area from AE. About half of the editors on the "yes involved" camp are "coincidentally" those being suggested as parties for the likely arbitration case to result from that request. To take such a drastic action based on a consensus of users who are definitely involved in this issue as they are being suggested as parties to an arbitration case that RTH arguably initiated... that's not only a wild abuse of process but is only encouraging those users to continue weaponizing noticeboards for their own benefit.
    This is a contentious topic for a reason. There is no wider community consensus that an administrator should be barred from a whole topic area just because they have made non-trivial edits on some parts of that topic area. Unless evidence is provided that RTH has actually violated INVOLVED by operating administratively in a dispute they are actually involved in, this should be closed with no action whatsoever. And even if that evidence is presented, the proper place for that, in my opinion, is arbitration - where the actions of administrators can be evaluated along with other users. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    About half of the editors on the "yes involved" camp are "coincidentally" those being suggested as parties for the likely arbitration case to result from that request. That's false. Only one editor in the "yes camp" is being suggested as a party for the likely arbitration (Nableezy). Conversely, two editors in the "no camp" are being suggested as a party (BM and SFR). There are very few (five) named editors who have been suggested as parties. (BTW, you are just as involved in this topic area as I am. If you and I get a vote, then so does everyone else who's involved in the topic area.) Levivich (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Berchanhimez my motivation to create this thread is absolutely motivated by the ARCA case; however I had even raised my reservations long prior, which Goldsztajn alluded to here as well in this thread and in their RfA 8 months ago. I cannot enclose wikidiffs due to (unrelated) revdeletions, but you can find our concerns here.
    RTH has a strong world view expressed through their edits and discussions on Wikipedia in American Politics and Palestine-Israel related articles. As an editor, their American conservative positions can provide a valuable and unique perspective, but it's an inappropriate use of their admin tool belts in the exact same areas, and their unwillingness to listen to feedback of multiple good-standing editors/admins who say they are WP:INVOLVED, is why we have this longer thread here.
    From the 90+ comments I've seen so far, without any formal proposals, there is no strong consensus to consider the entirety of ARBPIA itself a single dispute/sub-topic, however there is strong consensus here that RTH is WP:INVOLVED with Israel-Hamas war dispute and has acted both as admin and editor in this capacity. RTH offered to close several RM discussions in same area of Israel-Hamas war, which would be explicitly inappropriate going forward. I am hoping we can close this thread amicably, without going to Arbitration review. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You conveniently ignore yourself and Nableezy as suggested parties. I have nothing further to say to you about this other than trying to ignore the disruption by yourself and others that has been brought up during that request doesn’t make this witch hunt any more legitimate. In fact, this sort of comment makes even clearer that this request is simply weaponizing policies to remove someone you disagree with from being able to administrate. If you don’t have actual evidence of RTH misusing administrator tools, you may wish to “quit while you’re ahead” here and not sign your name to blatantly false information like this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 10:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A conflict of interest doesn't require misuse of admin tools, the appearance of conflict is sufficient. Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Involvement is with disputes. That does not mean real life disputes - it means disputes on-wiki. This is untrue. WP:INVOLVED simply says "disputes"; furthermore, the rest of the first paragraph makes it clear that "disputes" is meant to be interpreted broadly, saying This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings - someone who clearly has strong feelings about eg. the Arab-Israeli conflict or AP2 is WP:INVOLVED in those disputes and cannot act as an administrator in them. And, indeed, it goes on to say Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute (emphasis mine.) What does "disputes on topics" mean in this context, if not to say that eg. someone whose edits reveal strong feelings on the dispute underlying the topic area has involved themselves for that entire topic area? --Aquillion (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the evidence provided so far, I don't think RTH has edited extensively enough in the topic area to be considered involved in everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I do think there's evidence that he is involved with Israel–Hamas war and closely related articles. In general, I think that contentious topic areas were identified and delimited by either ArbCom or the community to encompass broad areas in which disruptive editors were editing disruptively. The extant contentious topic areas have lasted because there are still disruptive actors. It is valuable to the community to be able to topic ban disruptive users from these broad areas. I don't think it is sensible to use these categories—ones built specifically to counter disruption—to limit the participation of non-disruptive admins. I'd feel different about the very narrow topic areas (I'm remembering the Shakespeare authorship question topic area). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:INVOLVED is about winning disputes through use of the adminstator toolkit. Simply editing in a subject area, even a contentious one, does not constitute involvement in a dispute. I am not an administrator, but I assist with edit-a-thons where I employ some of the tools to help others (mainly through uncontroversial page moves) and feel a ban on this would be an overreach. Moreover, just because you don't edit in controversial areas does not mean that you have no opinion. While I tend to agree with the sugestion that you should consider yourself involved if people say you are, I note that ArbCom has explicitly rejected this argument in the past. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A problem with the 'you should consider yourself involved if people say you are' test is that it is premised on the notion that the people doing the considering pass the 'reasonable person' test. This is true in Levivich's case, but in contentious areas, the evidence (and there is a lot) strongly suggests that this is very often not the case. If we had advanced AI bots with admin rights that carried out both content editing (including enforcing content policy compliance) and admin tasks in the PIA topic area, I would expect a substantial number of editors would consider it both involved and either pro-Palestine or pro-Israel rather than pro-Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As an admin being told I was involved by multiple editors, I'd be looking at whether the folks telling me I'm involved are all on one 'side' of the argument, or am I being told that by both sides/by uninvolved editors? If everyone telling me I'm involved is on the side of a dispute I just found consensus against, I'm putting less weight on it. Still a data point, but I'd be looking for input from uninvolved editors, probably here at AN. Valereee (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don’t know about that, if we assume that everybody here is selfish then the people who you’re siding with are also selfish in wanting to maintain an admin on that side. But as far as I know, nobody is objecting to RTH's content here, it isn’t an issue of do his edits reflect a partisan motivation that could translate into enforcement actions. It’s just that there are edits that show they are involved in the topic area. Once upon a time BilledMammal would close ARBPIA related moves, for example Talk:Carmel (Israeli settlement)#Requested move 14 March 2023. Now nobody would believe at this point that BilledMammal does not have strongly held views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but even then they had previously been involved in editing the topic. And I objected to the close on that basis. Or when KlayCax closed an RFC at Talk:Israel, and closed it in the way I had voted for, I also objected due to their past involvement (here and the surrounding edits). You either edit in a topic or you administer that topic, not both. Full stop. nableezy - 13:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Valereee The data point has a bias created by RTH himself in drawing up a list, suggesting problematical behaviour, where only 4 of those named could be identified with a pro-Israeli POV. he created the sidedness, and it is in noway anomalous that many of those haplessly named among the majority replied suggesting he was involved.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Valereee, then how about the converse? If I were an admin being told I was uninvolved by multiple editors, I'd be looking at whether the folks telling me I'm uninvolved are all on one 'side' of the argument, or are they also admins also administrating the topic and already in agreement with? starship.paint (RUN) 00:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Re: If I were an admin being told I was uninvolved by multiple editors, I'd be looking at whether the folks telling me I'm uninvolved are all on one 'side' of the argument, yes. Re: or are they also admins also administrating the topic and already in agreement with, sorry, not following? Valereee (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Valereee: [3] [4] starship.paint (RUN) 13:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, must not have enough coffee onboard yet. I'm still unclear on what you're asking me. Valereee (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Right Valereee, so one of the most controversial actions RTH took in this matter was initiating the reference of several editors in the ARBPIA topic to ArbCom at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_(AE_referral). SFR agreed with RTH's 'refer ARBPIA editors to ArbCom' direction and by his own admission SFR already felt that way before. So if you're taking involved editors' opinions with a pinch of salt, wouldn't this scenario also lead to some caution? starship.paint (RUN) 02:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I may simply be too stupid to understand this question, but it seems like you're saying
      1. RTH said it should go to arbcom
      2. SFR agreed
      3. Therefore SFR was implicitly saying RTH wasn't too involved to take it to arbcom
      4. But since SFR had already agreed that's where it should go, RTH might not want to take this as a data point?
      If that's what you're asking, I don't think the simple fact someone agrees with you about an action, regardless of whether they agreed with you before or after you suggested that action, has anything to do with whether you're too involved to take that action yourself. Is that even close to what you were getting at? Valereee (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, Valereee, I wasn’t referring to anything implicit. There was an explicit reply to you by SFR above: What if their involvement in the topic area was minor enough that over seven months of working ARBPIA at AE went by without any of the regular editors thinking to raise concerns about involvement? Does this affect RTH's involvement? No. Then again, whether involved editors are claiming RTH's involvement similarly does not affect RTH's involvement. It's just about weighing the opinions. Nevertheless, I would like to apologise for having confused you (and possibly confusing you yet again). starship.paint (RUN) 13:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • INVOLVED is acting as an editor and admin in the same area to the extent that one cannot be sure they are acting neutrally when taking an admin action. RTH's edits regarding the Israel-Hamas war are significant enough that he should not be acting as an uninvolved administrator in that topic. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I can't I spent part of my night reading through this long discussion. Aside from the section right below these comments (RM comments), what I sense from this discussion is I believe that User:Red-tailed hawk needs to be conscious of the concerns raised in this discussion and to be thoughtful of their actions knowing that a variety of editors have raised concerns about some of his actions. But I don't see any proposals being made to take any particular action and it looks like this discussion has lost its momentum.
      A bigger consensus is that there needs to be an update in the wording or our understanding of INVOLVED to provide better guidance with today's make up of Contentious Topic areas that didn't exist when INVOLVED was codified. That is a larger discussion that needs to happen on a policy talk page. That's what I see. Liz Read! Talk!
    • There's another problem with INVOLVED which is that an involved close is usually overturned, whereas "I think this close was wrong" is usually endorsed. This makes INVOLVED one of those irregular verbs:
      I made an obvious and uncontroversial close after some trivial edits in a tangentially related article.
      You sailed a bit to close to INVOLVED there and should be more careful in future.
      He made a blatantly abusive INVOLVED close and ought to be reverted, desysopped and cbanned.
    • It would be wise to hold an RFC on VPP, advertised on CENT, that seeks to clarify INVOLVED enough to de-weaponise it.—S Marshall T/C 20:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RM comments

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

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

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

    Proposals

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

    Pinging past participants

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

    I do not think this board has the ability to find consensus for proposal 2 and proposal 3 would be merely advisory. This feels like a mal-formed process and so I stand by the comments I made above - which state my opinion this - without devolving into bolded voting in an unfair way (where's proposal 4: Red-Tail hawk is not involved?). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49 Outright Opposing Proposal 1 would be the way to say he is not involved. The same way other editors have endorsed a proposal and opined that it should be more or less strict. As to whether this is a legitimate discussion, the closer can see the remaining comments by 30 people and weigh the proposals accordingly. I do not expect the results to contradict each other much. If a proposal/question raised is missing that couldn't be addressed by supporting/opposing a proposal, those would be best added as new proposals then. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't addressed the fact that this WP:LOCALCON can not do all the things you want it to do and I'm glad we agree that this is completely unnecessary to a closer finding (or not finding) consensus for closure because what a waste of the thoughts and time of the number of editors you've pinged if those comments wouldn't matter for consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to close this, but will wait a few days to see if Shushugah's new proposals go anywhere. - Compassionate727 at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area. I see Proposal #2 as "RTH is WP:INVOLVED in WP:ARBPIA", whereas Proposal #1 is "RTH is WP:INVOLVED in Israel-Hamas war." I don't think either pose a WP:LOCALCON problem. As written, Proposal #2 somewhat suggests "anyone WP:INVOLVED in any part of WP:ARBPIA is WP:INVOLVED in all of WP:ARBPIA." I still don't see why that's a WP:LOCALCON problem, but if it is, it doesn't need to be decided in order to decide the scope of RTH's WP:INVOLVEment, if any. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What Levivich said. My first proposal is hyper-specific to RTH in the most narrow sense, whereas yes the second proposal would have wider reaching ramifications for other editors editing in ARBPIA area, RTH specifically as well, since this is a line he argued. I would like to avoid spending/wasting more of the community's time, repeatedly coming back here because we never addressed the broader question of whether ARBPIA is a singular topic or not.
    Sure, an updated wording of WP:INVOLVED would help clarify that, but right now we have genuine confusion from editors who narrowly and broadly interpret the existing wording and previous applications in practice, so asking this question for ARBPIA is not about creating an improper local consensus. But if this is something the closer disagrees, they will take this into consideration and inform us whatever other venue there is. There's been helpful discussion here about other CTOPs, which I do not think went to waste as it helps inform the parameters here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposal 2 is explicitly a general statement about INVOLVEMENT rather than a specific judgement about RTH. One of those falls with-in the scope of this board (conduct of an editor) and one of those does not (take your pick of contentious topics being ArbCom's and INVOLVEMENT being a policy that would need to be discussed in appropriate policy forum). So if the intent was to give people two bites at the "RTH is INVOLVED" apple, the proposal doesn't do it very well in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think AN(I) can declare an admin involved, but this thread would have some use if RTH would say if after reading the views expressed here if he considers himself involved or not. And if not and other feel otherwise I think the only recourse available is ArbCom. nableezy - 15:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the community can absolutely form consensus about an administrator's conduct and as a conduct board this board could absolutely come to consensus that RTH is/isn't INVOLVED. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, a consensus can be, and IMO has been, formed. But any teeth for an admin conduct issue is in one place, and it isnt with the community. nableezy - 16:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If an admin took an admin action in an area after there is documented community consensus asking them not to, I don't expect them to remain an admin very long. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Valereee (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree with Barkeep on this. BilledMammal (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per BK49 above, I believe Proposals 2 is out of scope for this discussion, and 3 can have no material impact on any actual revision of the policy. As such I don't think we should be spending time on them. More generally, I strongly dislike the notion of determining the scope of involvement a priori: it's a sure-fire way to increase dramatics and wikilawyering, when the whole purpose of a CTOP designation is to reduce that. There does appear to be clear consensus about RTH's involvement here, which is, in my view, the process working as it should; the community telling an administrator that their contributions to an area are substantive enough to make them involved. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think we can have a perfect red-line definition of involvement, but I am concerned that some people seem to feel that the word "dispute" on WP:INVOLVED refers solely to disputes over wiki content and not to real-world disputes; that, at least, is a relatively straightforward question and obtaining an answer to it would settle most of the underlying issues here while avoiding problems in the future where eg. admins whose edits show clear, strong opinions on specific real-world disputes feel that they can still act as admins in areas where those disputes are the focus. This board isn't necessarily the place to answer that question, but I do think that we should answer it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree the use of the word "dispute" is sub-optimal - indeed I don't think it should be used at all, because involvement can occur even in completely uncontentious areas. But this noticeboard cannot amend the wording, and a proposal that the wording should be amended does nothing to amend it, so we should be spending time on it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1

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

    • Support (I am obviously involved here) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (involved) - Creating, moving, editing, etc. an article about Israel's invasion of Gaza; 40+ comments on Talk:Israel-Hamas war, incluing multiple content disputes, voting in RMs and for an RM moratorium; being a top author of articles about the war; having articles about the war be among RTH's top-edited articles/talk pages ... all of this is unequivocally involved at least in the topic area of "Israel-Hamas war". Levivich (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (involved) per Levivich, and the Requested Move comments are enough to establish involvement already. starship.paint (RUN) 12:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (involved) per Levivich. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Define it more clearly. Suggest we decide he's involved until the sooner of (a) a week after the end of hostilities or (b) two calendar years have elapsed.—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (uninvolved), per my comments above. RTH has made substantive edits to a wide swath of pages about the Israel-Hamas war, and is therefore INVOLVED with respect to that war. I explicitly am not saying this makes him involved on all of ARBPIA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (involved due to previous conflict with RTH over an analogous issue; see my comment above.) Some contentious topics are fairly singular disputes with clearly-defined sides, such that someone whose edits seem to align with one side or the other is involved for the entire topic area. See my comments above. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support RTH should not be taking admin actions in the ARBPIA area. (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (uninvolved) as with buidhe. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I reviewed the comments above and they are all minor, therefore, RTH is not involved and may act as admin in this area. Andre🚐 06:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (as another involved admin) for the reasons I have stated on this page. Zerotalk 06:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This I believe should be decided by Arbcom. On the merits: RedTailedHawk made some very good, even piddling edits and no negative implication should be made from any of them. Clearly he felt that the current INVOLVED rules did not cover his opining and editing and they did not. However, if this is indeed properly decided here, I support the view that he is involved because I believe that administrators editing in the topic area should not act in the topic area as administrators. That is my opinion and the opinion of others here. I am not sure that our opinions matter, that the consensus here matters, but if it does, he should not be taking admin actions in the topic area going forward. However, this does not reflect upon, nor should it impact in any way whatsoever, his actions in this topic area as an administrator. If he took some action as an administrator in this area it should not be retroactively revoked. He was following the rules. But in a contentious topic area, administrators should be careful to show no involvement in any sense of the word. I hope that this logic and concern is applied evenly and fairly going forward. I don't expect it to be, but I can hope. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Striking out my comments. On further consideration, I believe that since this should be determined by arbcom, my opinion on this here doesn't matter and neither does anyone else's. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Per WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator ... whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area" (first emphasis added). I do not believe that RTH has shown bias in this topic area. @RAN1 states that RTH's edits "fall into 3 categories: RM comments, archiving, and minor content questions and suggestions", but only presents evidence regarding category 1. The RM discussions cited above appear to be neutral and good faith applications of WP:AT. Regarding category 3, I do not believe that the evidence regarding RTH's edits that have been presented by others in this discussion show bias for the reasons stated above and on my talk page. I am not sure that ArbCom has sole jurisdiction to declare an admin involved; only ArbCom can desysop (for now) or sanction an admin, but a declaration that an admin is involved isn't a sanction. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @voorts: Commenting on requested moves to "Hamas–Israel war" or "Israel–Gaza war" is anything but neutral. RAN1 (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You raise some good points. I happen to agree with the edits RedTailedHawk made. What I'm saying is that we need neutral, unbiased admins in this topic area. But yes, maybe restricting RTH is going overboard. Maybe. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Aside from voting in RMs and such, there is no way that creating new articles or making 40+ talk page comments is "minor or obvious". Levivich (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The critical point of that sentence is the minor or obvious, not the bias. If showing bias was our standard, everyone could declare themselves uninvolved everywhere, because all our edits are supposed to not show bias. Obviously someone who does consistently show bias should be considered involved, but an editor who consistently shows bias in an area is unlikely to become or remain an admin. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Levivich. If this isn't involved, nothing is. Buffs (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (involved) Leaving aside the question of an admin, if an ordinary editor was editing like that and then tried to close discussions, that would be a no-no. Why? Because conflict of interest. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per V93 and Lev. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any pre-emptive declarations of involvement that are not based on an actual administrator action that was purportedly taken in violation of involvement. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 2

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

    • Support (I consider myself involved as well) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (involved) - As many have pointed out, there is no part of Israel-Hamas war that isn't part of WP:ARBPIA. I mean, it's a war between the two sides in that conflict. It's shaping up to be the biggest war between those two sides probably since 1947-1949. There is so much overlap between the current war and the ongoing conflict that it's impossible to separate the two. This isn't necessarily true for all CTOPs, but it is true for this one. Levivich (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (involved) per Levivich. The current war is one culmination of the past events. starship.paint (RUN) 12:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (involved). This is much closer to a one-dimensional dispute than other CTOPs, with editors and sources often being described as "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Palestinian", and an editor being WP:INVOLVED on one aspect of the dispute can reasonably be believed to be on the same "side" on other aspects of it. Of course, I'm not saying that one-dimensional partisanship is universal, but the appearance of bias can already be enough to make someone too involved for a closure or administrative decision. There isn't anything equivalent for (most) other CTOPs – you wouldn't divide the editors into, say, "pro-BLP" and "anti-BLP". Although out of the scope of this discussion, it could be interesting to consider which other CTOPs might fall under a similar situation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are other contentious topics that refer to ONE hypertoxic dispute. The Falun Gong. Race and intelligence.—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      no opinion on this dispute but Armenia-Azerbaijan is another example of a largely single-axis CTOP ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think that the idea here is worth considering, but I don't think that we can actually define how policy as a whole is interpreted here; to the extent that this applies just to this one specific case, people can express it in their rationales above. Beyond that, I'm not sure I agree that PIA is unique in this regard, as the wording implies; I think several CTOPs are fundimentially about one underlying dispute (eg. AP2, PIA), and several others are bigger than that but do contain a number of clearly-defined disputes, such that someone who is involved in one of those disputes should stay out of at least that one (eg. GENSEX). Ones like BLP where there are no underlying disputes are more rare. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Chaotic Enby said it better than I was going to. (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (uninvolved) It might be that the exact language here could be tweaked (FWIW the proposal does not say "unlike *all* other", but perhaps could have been better written as "unlike many other"), but the intent to recognise a clearly observable phenomenon - regular participants' viewpoints across all Israel-Palestine topics are generally quite consistent - is valid. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Arbcom, and not editors, should determine this. Andre🚐 06:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. ARBPIA covers the collection of articles about a single long-running dispute. This is historical fact. It is also confirmed by the editing patterns of participants. No administrator who takes part as an editor in a dispute over one aspect of ARBPIA (which includes things like voting in RMs) should perform administrative roles in other aspect of ARBPIA. Zerotalk 06:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This should be decided by Arbcom. However, if it can be decided here, I lean in favor of support for the reasons others have stated above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Striking out comment to be consistent, since arbcom should determine. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose PIA defines an "area of conflict", i.e., "[a.] the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and [b.] edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ('related content')", whereas BLP defines a topic area: "All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles are designated as a contentious topic." Both topic areas are to be broadly construed. This drawing of an analogy between the two CTOPs and attempting to define their scope in terms of disputes is more confusing than helpful. Additionally, as CTOPs are designated by ArbCom through its decisions, only ArbCom can amend the scope or definition of a CTOP. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "broadly interpreted" is a troublesome phrase, but there's no way this isn't part of it. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Levivich (uninvolved) Buffs (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (involved) The topic area is one big interrelated area, editing a part of it is like editing all of it. That's why we have "broadly interpreted".Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multiple editors have stated above that this proposal is out of scope for this noticeboard. This would amend policy, which requires a central policy venue and an advertised discussion. But I guess we're !voting anyway, so I'm noting that I oppose, principally to ensure we don't declare a pseudo-consensus that leads to subsequent drama. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I assume the policy that this proposal would amend is the WP:INVOLVED part of WP:ADMIN, but I don't understand what part of WP:INVOLVED would be amended by this proposal? More broadly, why is this discussion not the right discussion to determine the scope of an admin's involvement (if any)? Levivich (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know where we would put this in the text of the policy, and I don't particularly care. INVOLVED as written is completely independent of the CTOP designations, and is only concerned with the area and nature of an admin's edits. This proposal is saying that in one specific area of the encyclopedia, the scope of an admin's involvement is determined a priori. That is a substantive change to policy, one which many community members may be interested in. This is a noticeboard intended to handle behavioral issues (which many community members avoid, with reason), and this proposal is embedded deep inside a discussion of one admin's conduct. It is not an appropriate venue. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But what if you interpret this question not to be asking a question about all admins' involvement, but to ask a question about this admin's involvement? Because I agree this can't change WP:INVOLVED, but I disagree that it's trying to make any change to WP:INVOLVED, I think it's just trying to determine the scope of involvement for one particular editor. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see how that's the question being asked, so this is a bit academic. But FWIW I'm still weakly opposed. I don't like defining the scope of involvement based on the nature of the CTOP rather than the nature of the admin's edits, and single dispute or not, there's a difference in degree between, say, the second Intifada and the geographic distribution of the Palestine sunbird. I also don't like treating any given CTOP with a degree of exceptionalism: we have many other narrow CTOPs. We should examine an admin's behavior as it arises. I've said my piece as to where RTH's edits show involvement; if that involvement is wider, then that should be documented first. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I hear you, but Palestine sunbird isn't part of ARBPIA anyway. I respect your right to disagree on the scope of the involvement, but I think there is a big difference between deciding that any admin who is involved in any part of ARBPIA is involved in all of ARBPIA (which would be out of scope for this discussion), and deciding that this particular admin is involved in all of ARBPIA because their involvement in Israel-Hamas War == involvement in all of ARBPIA (which I think is in scope for this discussion). As to the latter, editors can of course disagree, but I don't think it violates global consensus in any way. Levivich (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just for clarity, absent a specific dispute, I wouldn't consider a page without the Arbpia/CT notices as part of the conflict. So the sunbirds are safe for now. Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The notices are an administrative matter that we don't always handle well. I'm not saying the page as a whole is ARBPIA, but a section which contains the sentence "The expansion of Jewish settlements in Israel over the last century played a significant role in the spread of the Palestine sunbird throughout the region, with cultivated tropical plants becoming more common in urban gardening." is absolutely covered by the CTOP. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      OMG, save the sunbirds! You are right but still, there is no active dispute there or someone would add the notices (a "partial"). Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      None of God's creatures are spared. Levivich (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The ambiguous interpretations of Proposal 2 is unfortunate and my fault. I summarize the two different ways it can be construed.
      1. Based on RTH's specific editing activities, he is not only involved with Israel-Hamas war but ARBPIA topic broadly.
      2. Anyone who is involved anywhere in ARBPIA is involved broadly in the entire topic area, including the POV pushing sunbirds.
      The first interpretation would naturally be relevant to discuss here. In order to answer it, we would require a specific examination of RTH's edits (his explanation that Re'im festival massacre is unrelated to Israel-Hamas War) is one of my specific concerns with his attempt to wiki-lawyer and carve multiple topic areas even within the period between Oct 7 to present, let alone anything happening Gaza since 2006 or Palestine since 1948.
      Whereas the second interpretation would broader ramifications for all admin activity in ARBPIA and would be out of scope here as wise editors points out above.
      I am generally inclined to suggest dropping proposal #2 either way, because there's a proposal to change WP:INVOLVED which is detached from the personal circumstances here and solicits feedback from broader array of CTOP we have, including other comparable CTOP areas like Armenia/Azerbaijan, Falun Gong and other less comparable areas i.e GENSEX, MOS, American politics. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So we move to 4 instead, that it? Selfstudier (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Proposal 1 and 4 both are relevant questions here. I do not understand precisely the exact meaning of proposal 4, but someone else asked for clarification already. Proposals 2/3 can be ignored. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as the proposal is incorrect, as pointed out by S Marshall. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - this proposal amounts to "I think the most important thing is someone's POV on this one part of the conflict and want to remove someone who disagrees with me on that to make it easier to push my POV". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 3

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

    Proposal 4

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

    • Support: This proposal made SEVEN DAYS LATER: It's gross overreaction to declare that merely because an editor has made edits on specific talkspaces and namespaces inside Contentious Topic Areas, they have formally involved themselves broadly across the entire CTA. I've looked at many of the linked edits above and I have found nothing in RTH's work which reveals or demonstrates consistent bias so disqualifying themself. Further, not providing this proposal demonstrates an implicit failure of AGF against RTH. BusterD (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It was Barkeep49's suggestion an uninvolved proposal should appear. I agreed and created one, however inexactly. BusterD (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To be exact, Barkeep49 at 14:39, 9 September 2024 (in response to Shushugah's mass ping at 12:37, 9 September 2024, intended to draw literally INVOLVED editors) says This feels like a mal-formed process and so I stand by the comments I made above - which state my opinion this - without devolving into bolded voting in an unfair way (where's proposal 4: Red-Tail hawk is not involved?). This is before almost anyone had asserted an outcome in this polling. Now we're a week along, we have three affirmative proposals 1) RTH is involved comprehensively, 2) RHT is involved to some extent, and 3) we should change the rules to INVOLVED (which is phrased as sarcasm). Several editors have expressed disagreement, but the proposals themselves don't really allow much disagreement. That's a malformed way to divide the discussion. The pinged people have !voted so NOW it is a simple matter to say the !votes are in agreement. Now I'm interested in how someone proposes to act on this kangaroo broadbrushing? Didn't really get the numbers you hoped, did you? BusterD (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      BusterD: "failure of AGF...many other AGF errors here..."
      Also BusterD: "how someone proposes to act on this kangaroo broadbrushing? Didn't really get the numbers you hoped, did you?"
      Thanks for your contributions to this discussion... Levivich (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're quite welcome. Your many informed contributions to this discussion certainly help us understand your positions more precisely. BusterD (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - creating the article about the Israeli invasion of Gaza, having multiple articles be among their top-edited pages in multiple namespace categories (mainspace and talkspace, including the main war article being their #3 all-time most-edited talk page), being #1 author or in the top ten on multiple of the most high profile pages in the topic area (including #1 at Kfar Aza massacre, #6 at Re'im festival massacre), making 40+ edits to the main war article talk page (Talk:Israel-Hamas war), voting multiple times on one of the most high-profile and contentious issues in the entire topic area (what to name the war), voting on an RM moratorium... if these sorts of edits don't make a person WP:INVOLVED, then no edits would make a person WP:INVOLVED. Downplaying the extent of the involvement demonstrates an implicit failure of AGF against the multiple editors (including other admins) raising these concerns. It's also unnecessarily bureaucratic and a little pointy: we don't need a "not involved" option because if the "involved" options don't have consensus, then "not involved" would be the outcome. Levivich (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Levivich spells it out. It's hard for someone to be more involved than this and still have a breadth of involvement elsewhere in WP. Buffs (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Levivich and because the topic area is really quite intertwined, the events have the past have culminated in the events of today, and various countries remain tied to the conflict, for example, Egypt with Gaza / Syria with Golan Heights / Lebanon's Hezbollah / Yemen's Houthis / Iran / Islamic Resistance in Iraq. starship.paint (RUN) 14:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on proposals

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

    I have created Proposals 1-3 and saw you created Proposal 4. Thank you for creating this section. The community is giving feedback in Proposal 1, and a number of people have commented in Proposal 2, but a number of admins also mentioned Proposal 2 is in wrong venue, so while the feedback is useful, it is not actionable. Proposal 3 is more an advertisement for a broader policy change. For the closer, I imagine reviewing outcomes of Proposals 1 and 4 is most concrete, along with any other conclusions from larger discussion. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your collegial response to my feedback. BusterD (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Why I was banned

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

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

    Plans for work in non-article space

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

    • I have prioritized student editing and committed to reviewing all significant edits by students on my team.
    • I have created a protocol to put all new pages through articles for creation (AfC) rather than directly moving them to the mainspace.
    • I have put COI - PAID talkpage banners on all of the pages we have edited and are editing substantially.
    • I have described additional COIs on talk pages as necessary and have required students to do the same.
    • I have adopted new and stricter procedures about the use of reliable sources.

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

    • We will no longer edit pages about living people who are currently BYU employees.
    • I have secured assurances from my supervisors that I, as Wikipedian-in-residence, have the right to refuse any internal request because it may violate COI or because a subject is not notable.

    Work on other subjects

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Yes, I would like to make several changes to how we have approached Book of Mormon pages. However, some of these ideas are not ones I would implement right away. I would first try to establish some consensus with other editors in the LDS editing space. That said, these are my current ideas:
    • I would take a deletionist rather than a conservationist approach to pages about Book of Mormon people (i.e., rather than trying to "save" pages, merge or delete them).
    • I would seek consensus for a style guide for the lead sections of people and books from the Book of Mormon (which could mention that Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon).
    • I would make changes to clarify any literary analysis that assumes an "in-universe" narrator comes from a faithful viewpoint.
    • For example, on the Book of Omni page, instead of starting the Interpretation section with "According to authors Fatimah Salleh and Margaret Hemming, Omni wrote in order to maintain a record of the genealogical line," I would include an introduction of several sentences, and hatnote a new page I would create on "bracketing" as a scholarly approach to scripture:
    • The introduction to the interpretation section on the Book of Omni page would say something like: "Members of the Latter Day Saint movement accept the Book of Mormon as divinely inspired scripture compiled by ancient prophets in the Americas [wording taken from Origin of the Book of Mormon]. Literary and social analysis of the Book of Mormon includes an assumption that the stated narrator is the actual narrator, even from scholars outside of the Latter Day Saint tradition, in order to participate in discussions about the meaning of the text." Then I could link to a separate page on bracketing within religious studies.
    • The "bracketing" approach is used in Mormon studies as well as broader Christian studies. In How Jesus Became God, Bart Ehrman, a secular historian, argues that the historical Jesus was not seen as divine during Jesus’s lifetime. To make his book useful to both scholarly historians and Christians, Ehrman writes: "I do not take a stand on the theological question of Jesus’s divine status. I am instead interested in the historical development that led to the affirmation that he is God." Biblical criticism similarly defines a certain kind of Biblical analysis: using critical analysis "to understand and explain the Bible without appealing to the supernatural."
    • This is how I believe that Wikipedia, like other scholarly and reference sources, should look at the Book of Mormon. However, because of the nature of the text of the Book of Mormon, dismissing a supernatural explanation for the book could result in dismissing the entire book of scripture. I acknowledge that the secular interpretation of the Book of Mormon is that it was written by Joseph Smith, possibly with a collaborator. However, I also believe that finding the intended meaning of the Book of Mormon requires a literary approach that considers the meaning of its narrative. Most Mormon and non-Mormon literary scholars who write on the Book of Mormon use this bracketing approach.
    • Mark Thomas, in Digging in Cumorah, also tries for a bracketing approach, acknowledging that apologetic interests often interfere with the interpretation of scripture. He imagines how people of differing Christian faiths could agree on how to interpret the Book of Mormon without referencing Joseph Smith’s biography or archeological evidence: "they must find a way to talk about what the book actually says." Talking about what people think the Book of Mormon actually says is part of my motivation for summarizing Book of Mormon literary criticism on Wikipedia. Some interpretations of the Book of Mormon (using techniques of narrative or typological analysis) are different from the traditional interpretations of the Book of Mormon taught by general authorities. I believe that scriptural interpretation ought to be varied, and that reading how other people have interpreted a text can lead to interesting new ideas (of course, I am happy to summarize analysis that references Joseph Smith’s biography or archeological arguments when they are notable--but I only know of one source that does this). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of what you've written above is that the damage, in this case, is that the intended meaning of the Book of Mormon and its constituent parts are not communicated clearly enough on Wikipedia. The correction you propose is to introduce new guidelines and text that emphasize exegesis in writing about the Book of Mormon (i.e. explaining the meaning of scripture) so that the intended meaning of the Book of Mormon is adequately conveyed to readers. To quote your response to another editor below, I've noticed that there isn't very much interpretation of scripture on pages about scriptures on Wikipedia. I think that should change. I can see how that might be intellectually enjoyable for you and consistent with your interests and employment. But I don't see how consuming other editors' time on a mission to shift our encyclopedia's policies and guidelines toward exegesis helps the encyclopedia. I oppose lifting the topic ban, and encourage you to keep working on the millions of other topics on offer here. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I understanding you correctly that you believe that summarizing exegesis (adequately sourced) is inappropriate for Wikipedia? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you need to develop new guidelines to support what you're trying to do suggests that what you're trying to do is not consistent with our current policies and guidelines. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that we as a community should have a larger conversation about what kinds of content we want to include on Wikipedia pages, and I would like to be a part of that conversation. Maybe we don't want to summarize exegesis on pages about scriptures. But that shouldn't be decided by this conversation. And if we do decide that, we should make that information easy for other editors to understand, so they don't have to make the same mistakes I made. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, limited to edit requests. I felt that this topic ban was a bit heavy-handed by prohibiting edit requests on talk pages. As I pointed out at User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)#Topic ban, the whole reason the edit request template exists is for COI editors to use on talk pages, and it's nonsensical to ban its use by COI editors who have properly disclosed the COI. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Anachronist The problem is that Rachel is apparently incapable of understanding why the financial situation she and the BYU editors are involved in makes proper adherence to our PAGs impossible. Victoriaearle ran into this issue on a completely-unrelated-to-LDS subject. I agree with Indignant Flamingo above—the restriction is working, and I absolutely don't want to end up here again when BYU editors inevitable start tilting the content back to conformance with their church, because they have a financial imperative to do it. There's no damn way around it, and they should be kept well clear. The proof that this cannot work is the entire editing patterns of Rachel and those in her employ. The old saying about insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result is apt. Especially when Rachel specifically says above I would like to collaborate with other editors on-wiki to develop guidelines for editing pages about scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon. Nope, I think our PAGs work fine, she's trying to essentially legislate her way into compliance rather than changing her actual behavior. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope, I think our PAGs work fine, she's trying to essentially legislate her way into compliance rather than changing her actual behavior. Yes, that is my exact reaction, too. Grandpallama (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the proposer of the TBAN, I'm in between weak support and neutral, I think? I remember being pinged to this discussion by Victoriaearle, which I'm not really sure what to think about; I'm also guessing that the timing of the appeal is related to the upcoming start of the academic year, and if true I would have preferred that to be outright stated. Willing to be convinced either way. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was involved in various threads with Rachel's students over the summer, mostly content related but also to do with PAG: talk page thread here where one started by posting a COI & I reverted some of their edits (i.e, changing a section heading to one not reflected anywhere in scholarly lit I can find, and various citation changes). Rachel did not post in that discussion & my sense is that the student was receiving guidance off wiki - which is ok, of course, but disconcerting. Also becaue the student is paid & has a boss/supervisor, the words of the unpaid volunteer who pops up on the talk page hold less weight in my view. There's a bunch of discussion on Talk:Louisa May Alcott (and Rachel did pop up there). I have some concerns about the work being done on that page specifically to do with sourcing (very in the weeds, so I'll leave it out for the moment), but felt really icky putting well-meaning young people in an uncomfortable position (i.e. asking them to follow our policies, engage with the unpaid editor on talk, please engage in discussion of sources, etc.) so I disengaged. There is clean-up work to be done there, I've had to order books via ILL (because, well, I'm not employed by a library) and now have visitors, so will get back to it when my unpaid volunteer time allows. Not sure that I should add an opinion because I'm not at all in favor of paying young people, calling them "students", telling them how & what to edit, and when their "job" is finished asking for a relaxation of a topic ban. In other words, all of this gives me a very bad taste and I wish it weren't happening at all. Therefore, fwiw, oppose. Victoria (tk) 13:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One concern is the apparent the copyvio on the library page, the library which Rachel Helps represents or works for. Yes, that page was tagged for copyvio in 2017, but from the very small interactions I had with her and paid students during the summer, it's clear there will clean-up that will need to be done by an unpaid volunteer. If there clean-up needed anywhere where Rachel Helps et. al. have edited, then that should have been the very first bullet point in the request - the request, which shouldn't even be considered until the proper time. However, I have to echo Levivich's comment. Victoria (tk) 23:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The copyright violation on the Harold B. Lee Library page occurred before my employment in the library. After the copyright violation was discovered, the page was deleted. I rewrote the page to remove the copyright violation, and so a page would exist. This was a conflict of interest. Other editors reviewed my work. I have no plans to make further edits to the library page (and my current TBAN applies to it). I am only asking to be allowed to participate in discussions on LDS-related topics, like to help with sourcing, develop best practices, or raise issues where there are errors. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm genuinely perplexed by editors having a positive reaction to this request. The TBAN (which, per the closer, attracted significant participation and was heavily supported) exposed a giant mess, and it's strange to me that we would genuinely entertain reversing even a part of that decision so soon. There are some real red flags here.
    • I would like to collaborate with other editors on-wiki to develop guidelines for editing pages about scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon. Uh, what? Why do we need, or should we be developing, special guidelines for editing such pages, and why would someone who was topic banned from a subject ever be an appropriate choice to build guidelines around the editing of that subject?
    • Previously, I have collaborated with other editors off-wiki, which has caused some suspicion of my off-wiki correspondence. This partial reduction of my topic ban would allow me to collaborate more transparently. This brushes off as not very problematic or serious the very real concerns about inappropriate collaboration as "some suspicion", and it suggests that the TBAN is only preventing Rachel's "transparent" participation in editing the topic-banned subjects. That's not reassuring--that's incredibly worrisome.
    • I would also like to attempt to make positive contributions to discussions about Mormon studies to try to build community trust in my work on those topics. This just seems unwise. Rachel should be editing other, unrelated topics in order to build community trust in general at this point.
    There are an infinite number of topics and subjects in the world, and there is no good argument here for why Rachel (or her students) specifically need to edit Mormon- or BYU-related topics. They should actively stay away from such topics, because there will always be at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, and it's not as if there is a dearth of other subjects needing attention. Indignant Flamingo has summed it up perfectly (As it stands I'm inclined to say that that topic ban is doing exactly what is best for the encyclopedia by harnessing the energy and money of students and sponsors in creating content unrelated to their sponsoring agency.), and I strongly oppose even a partial lifting of the TBAN. Grandpallama (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Grandpallama. You are absolutely right, there are plenty of other topics that we can edit. If this appeal is denied, and even if it is granted, we will continue to edit pages outside of Mormon studies. Why would anyone want to to work with me to develop guidelines for editing Book of Mormon pages? I believe that even though I was topic banned, that I have developed expertise in both Book of Mormon studies and editing Wikipedia that could benefit both communities. These guidelines could benefit not just LDS editors, but editors of pages about scripture across Wikipedia. I've noticed that there isn't very much interpretation of scripture on pages about scriptures on Wikipedia. I think that should change, but that the best way to start that is to develop guidelines with community consensus. You say that I've brushed off "very real concerns about inappropriate collaboration". Can you tell me more about that? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would anyone want to to work with me to develop guidelines for editing Book of Mormon pages? That is not the question I asked. I asked why the community should want/trust someone topic banned from a subject to be developing editing guidelines around that same subject. Grandpallama (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For developing guidelines, I think she is referring to things like WP:LDS, WP:LDSMOS, WP:NCLDS, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement/Temples, and WP:LDS/RS. Epachamo (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Epachamo, that is not what her responses to Indignant Flamingo suggest to me. The more she explains, the more signals I see that the TBAN should remain in place. Grandpallama (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - As long as we meet any time requirement for appeal that might exist. Collaborating on the talk pages seems like a good starting point to build trust with the community. As far as being paid, there are LOTs of topics in the space that need working on that are not controversial, such as biographies of various women in mormonism, an area that is incredibly deficient, and one that Rachel Helps did a lot of good work on before her topic ban. As long as she steers clear of inappropriately introducing any controversial Mormon church narrative, I see a lot of good work that can be done in this space. Epachamo (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to oppose this appeal basically per Indignant Flamingo, David Fuchs, and GrandpaLlama. We already allow for coverage of what secondary independent sources say about scriptures - the problem I see in the various LDS topics is that there aren't enough non-LDS sources used. This may be because there aren't non-LDS sources covering parts of the topic area, but that doesn't mean we should treat this topic area any differently than we treat other topics - if there aren't independent secondary sources about a specific subject like a particular bit of text from the Book of Mormon, then we don't cover that bit of text. I'm afraid that this appeal doesn't give me the impression that Rachel understands this important policy. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am fine with reducing the amount of information my team previously added to Book of Mormon pages. However, the current policies and guidelines are unclear about who and what an independent secondary source about scripture is. Does a Book of Mormon with commentary written by an LDS person but published by Oxford University Press count as a secondary source? Are all sources about the Book of Mormon by a member non-independent? The topic of sourcing for religious pages (when an author's religion affects whether or not a source is independent or not) is also important for articles about the Bible and the Quran. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - it's way too soon to even think about it, and we as a community have spent way too much time on this issue already. My opinion on lifting the tban is "never" and I would be in favor of increasing sanctions if we can't get like at least a full year of not having to have volunteers spend time dealing with BYU's paid editors. No paid editor who's been doing this for 8 years should need this much help from volunteers to grasp the basics of Wikipedia (like how not to get tbanned, what the standard offer is, and what a good appeal looks like). Levivich (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Levivich. An appeal from what was (as understatedly noted above) "a giant mess", only a few months after its imposition, strikes me as being tone deaf as to the intention behind it. The ecclesiological wall-of-text, AKA breach of the actual topic ban in the middle of an appeal against the topic ban, supports the view that this is neither the time nor the place, yet it occurred anyway. No sense of awareness, either self- or the attritional effect on the community's time and patience. SerialNumber54129 17:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I distinctly remember that big WP:COI report on the the LDS group, that started so slowly. The idea once it was reported everything would be cushtie, which was made worse by their intransigence, later became particularly problematic in light off wiki canvassing. Not a chance. I have no confidence that predatory behaviour will change. scope_creepTalk 18:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Other users can add information to that section. Especially when in control of college students, just seems like a terrible idea to let the fox back into the hen house. Lulfas (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Step one to dealing with a tban is to take on board criticisms. The primary issue people had with Rachel's edits was COI, and it looks like she's devoted a lot of energy to thoroughly documenting not just areas of COI but processes for documenting COI. It's also clear that she is trying to figure out best practices for editing LDS topics -- not just for herself but for anyone who wants to write about the subject. Some may feel the guidelines are sufficiently clear and anyone who says otherwise is just an incompetent POV-pusher, but from all the talking past each other here and elsewhere, it sounds like there are discussions to be had. Step two to dealing with a tban is demonstrating an ability to work in other areas without issue, which has indeed happened here. Now we have not an appeal to edit LDS articles again, but a cautious partial step to discuss LDS topics outside of mainspace in order to start building community trust. Who cares if it's "only" been five months? Some of the objections sound like "you wasted my time before, so I'm throwing away the key forever", which just feels like angry overkill. We typically just see that when someone has been sanctioned many times before or shows no interest in learning the proper way of doing things. I don't see either of those here. To the contrary, a partial appeal to a first-time sanction, combined with an interest in continued feedback about her approach to editing, strikes me as quite reasonable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose No doubt this appeal is made with good intent, but this is about more than just an individual appellant. If sovereign states, political parties and corporations fund the elaboration of work here we are extremely cautious. A religious, private institution with no open accountability to a general population (unlike an instutution such as a public library) raises no less concern. In part it is also as much what might be done as what is not done; a Wikipedian in residence at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is far more likely to work on an article about Russia-UK relations than the Katyn massacre (or if they do, we know the viewpoint). That's a structural reality which cannot be avoided. I'm averse to the idea of the coordinated elaboration of articles from an institution which has a direct interest in the content of those articles. In this particular case, I see LDS BLP issues as far less sensitive than anything related to religous interpretation. It appears to me we are being presented with choices here - a proposal to work more on scriptual issues at the expense of others, but this is precisely the most contentious area of concern regarding the COI. One has to wonder; why the concern to edit LDS scriptual matters now given the cosmological scale of areas possible to edit elsewhere? Because of institutional location? That's the nub of the problem. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi, I would actually be happy to avoid editing Book of Mormon pages in the future. I was under the impression that in order to make a successful appeal, I had to present a plan to make reparations for the damage I have done (it appears that assumption was incorrect). I would like to be judged based on my actual edits, not what edits I might make. If Wikipedia editors decide that the Conflict of Interest guidelines apply differently to Wikipedians-in-residence from private institutions, that's fine, but this is not the place for that discussion. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My response began with "we are extremely cautious"; I did not elaborate a generalised opposition. My opposition is specific to this circumstance due to the consequences which have been discussed here and elsewhere in detail. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose at this stage. The conversation at User_talk:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)#Paid_editing_on_American_literature_articles and corresponding links on the Alcott page (courtesy @Victoriaearle: show that while Helps means well, she's still struggling with best practices around paid editing. Until that is fully resolved I don't think a return to LDS topics is helpful. Star Mississippi 13:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be useful if someone could articulate, in no more than a sentence and without broad references to entire policy pages, what Rachel needs to be doing differently. In the last thread and this one, I see a range of opinions and interpretations of PAG as well as references to some very long, complicated exchanges where the desired upshot isn't plain. It seems like she's trying to satisfy people's expectations, but not succeeding. I can't tell if that's due to a misunderstanding or an attempt to satisfy the wrong (or conflicting) requests. BTW this is under Star Mississippi's post, but really directed at anyone who's opposing but not in the "never" camp (while I disagree with it, I at least understand the "never" perspective). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Rhododendrites in my limited experience it's an issue of clean up. Take a look at Harold B. Lee Library, (specifically the sourcing), Rachel's pasted in version here, created a year after she began editing here, which I asked about about up-page. As for student editing, surely Rachel is aware that when students edit there is always clean up to be done? Whose job is that? There are sourcing issues, citevar issues, Rachel's odd methods of communication. And finally, as you mention, the many very long threads. It all adds up to a time sink. Victoria (tk) 15:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • This isn't looking like it's going to succeed, but a response nonetheless. pasted in version - How else should someone move a draft into a page that already exists but was full of copyvio? specifically the sourcing - Yes, lots of primary sources there. It sounds like a big part of what Rachel wants to do is sort out expectations for sourcing on LDS topics not just for her but for other people interested in the topic. Do we really think that Rachel is less well equipped to do that compared to random new LDS editors? As for student editing A bit of an aside, but I think it's important to distinguish between student employees and the kind of student we usually get (editing Wikipedia as part of a class assignment). Expectations for the students and advisors/teachers are different in each case, so it's worth highlighting that here we're talking about student employees. Each paid editor should be held to the standards of policies on the subject, whether or not they're a student. If student employees' work is problematic, revert or sanction as needed. I don't see how tbanning Rachel could possibly help that situation, as it removes the possibility of her doing cleanup for others who aren't tbanned (even if we argue that Rachel managing student employees while under tban creates WP:MEAT trouble, it's clear there's great interest in editing Mormon topics at BYU. Do we want them winging it, or do we want them to have some guidance, even if that guidance has a lot of room for improvement?). Ultimately, the tban wasn't a proposal to stop paid editing at BYU; it was a proposal to prevent its most experienced user from helping paid editors. This particular appeal would allow for some of that help, and for sorting out the thorny existing questions about sourcing. If it doesn't succeed, Rachel cannot ask the community what they think about sourcing for these topics and thus can't provide good advice. Anyway, I see that this is unlikely at this point, but I might as well say my piece for when this inevitably comes back up down the road. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just to be clear: before Wiki ed was set up, Wadewitz and I were each separately editing here with students. So I'm familiar with that dynamic, having gone through it with hundreds of students. You asked about policies. Re sourcing, I mentioned the sourcing needed to be looked at on Louisa May Alcott (not an LDS subject, but she grew up in a transcendentalist family), meaning, in my mind, that sources from the early 1900s should be swapped. In this post Rachel says "Since you brought up sourcing at the Alcott page, Heidi reviewed some of the sources and found that there was some consensus that the Saxton biography focused unduly on the effect of Bronson's parenting on Alcott." Until Rachel mentioned it on her talk, I didn't see any discussion anywhere of that source and as I said earlier it's a content issue and very much in the weeds and needed robust discussion, but instead we get an edit summary that the source is biased. It's not; the author simply reaches a different conclusion and as a major bio the perspective should be mentioned instead of being removed throughout. And to be clear, consensus may have been reached somewhere but not on Wikipedia as far as I can see.
              As mentioned earlier it's difficult if the paid editor has to satisfy the employer - the student's employer is Rachel, presumably - and the random person on the talk page. In my view this is a misunderstanding of sourcing. And in fact for NPOV the source should be used. There's clean-up to done there, and I now have the books to do it, but I've been ill and don't like having to spend unpaid time doing the clean-up. I get that that sounds whiny, but it underscores the dynamic shift between paid editors and unpaid editors.
              As for the Harold B. Lee Library page - for the third time, why not ask in the very first bullet point of this request for some leeway to clean up articles? That page has a GA icon, but it's clearly far from GA. Also, this really really is a time sink. Victoria (tk) 15:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: They are a paid editor who has essentially shown that they cannot be trusted to comply with Wikipedia's strict COI policies. A topic ban is an appropriate measure to prevent disruption. Until they have shown a significant (at least 6 months' worth, in my opinion) amount of constructive contributions outside of their work as a paid editor (i.e. edits to unrelated topic areas, entirely on their own accord), it should remain in place. Concrete evidence, like constructive unpaid contributions, that show they understand how this type of editing is disruptive to the project should be required here. C F A 💬 03:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose after reading the previous discussion which led to the TBAN along with the responses here, I believe that the topic ban should remain in place. -- Mike 🗩 19:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This appeal gives me no sense that you would follow the restrictions on paid editing. In particular there's no mention of edit requests, which would be the only proper way for you to touch mainspace in the topic area as long as you remain employed by BYU - you say We will no longer edit pages about living people who are currently BYU employees, and no, that is wrong. Irrespective of your topic ban, as long as you remain a paid employee of BYU, you will never edit any mainspace article related to the LDS church or BYU in any nontrivial fashion, and this is non-negotiable fact. It isn't something you can "appeal"; it is the standard of behavior you should have been adhering to previously, which got you topic-banned because you couldn't follow it. A hard promise to adhere to that as a red line ought to be the bare minimum before any appeal could be considered. Beyond that, previously, I have collaborated with other editors off-wiki, which has caused some suspicion of my off-wiki correspondence feels like an "I'm sorry you were offended" sort of comment. --Aquillion (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I would love to start making edit requests. I could give an example, but this would be a violation of my TBAN. I understand that my TBAN currently applies to "any mainspace articles related to the LDS church or BYU in any nontrivial fashion." You're right, I do think that accusations of canvassing against me were unjust, because I never asked other editors to vote a certain way in a discussion I was participating in. I did discuss Wikipedia topics in multiple off-wiki locations. That is allowed! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, "I have prioritized student editing and committed to reviewing all significant edits by students on my team." none of the edits by students should be reviewed prior to publication, this editor clearly does not understand the issues the community has with their program. We want basically no supervision of these students, no direction, no control, and no pre-publication review. We want you to have almost nothing to do with them besides education, you may not direct their edits on wikipedia whatsoever. Employment is not an exception to meatpuppetry, you as their employer may not direct or restrict their activities on wikipedia in any way... You must interact with them respectfully as editors, not as students or employees and all discussions about actual edits to wikipedia between you and these students must be held on wikipedia not offsite unless there is a pressing reason not to (which it does not appear that there would be in this context). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I read this more generously with regards reviewing edits after they were published so as to avoid encouraging/leaving messes if any. I agree with Horse Eye's Back expectations on impartiality of fellow paid student editors. I do have general concerns about this TBAN being partially lifted but haven’t decided yet. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      you're right, I don't understand. My students are not meatpuppets. WP:MEAT is about recruiting people to take your side in a debate. I have never asked a student to contribute to a debate with a specific for or against opinion in order to bolster one side. In fact, I've never asked another editor to do that (that would be canvassing). Like instructors on a Wikipedia assignment, I do assign my students pages to edit. I review student edits in their sandboxes and on live pages. After the exchange with Victoria, I have started to make written feedback to my students public on talk pages, like on Talk:The High King and Talk:Work: A Story of Experience. However, this ANI discussion is not about whether or not I should be allowed to interact with my student employees about the Wikipedia pages they work on. It is about if I should be allowed to participate in discussions on talk pages about LDS-related topics. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would cease assigning pages/edits and allow them to self direct. You can also not tell them what not to edit, if they wish to use their paid time to edit pages about Pizza and not topics related to the BYU library that is perfectly OK and they can not be redirected or disciplined in any way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, they won't be paid... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That wouldn't actually be a valid option policy and guideline wise, you can't financially coerce your fellow editors and we don't currently have any exceptions to that for situations like this... If Helps (or any other editor in such a situation) chose to financially coerce a fellow editor to achieve an editorial aim we would almost certainly permanently community ban them. I can't threaten to get you fired or get your pay withheld if you don't make my desired edits, Helps can't either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's tricky. I'm an academic and have thought carefully about directing my students to do work on Wikipedia. At some point I may do so. But doing so on a religious topic where the students would be evaluated feels very problematic. Even absent the problems that have occurred in the past with this editor (which I have not looked at closely) I'd be very hesitant about such editing. I'm just uncomfortable with students being asked to write about a controversial topic and be evaluated for doing so. So oppose, mostly due to the spirit of COI, at least as things are currently formulated. Hobit (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Here's what Poketape said previously: My edits do not fall under original research, even though you say they "quite obviously" do. NOR does not apply to "routine calculations" and checking if a title is listed in a table falls under that. see WP:CALC --FMSky (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that being Poketape's explanation, however, I see no relation between that part and the edits at hand. Even if there were no original research, the reiterated lack of connection between the number of peak concurrent players and sales would still exist, making it also an issue of relevance (and MOS:RELTIME for the Draugen edit). I don't want to be in an edit war until one of us ends up in the corner of 3RR, so this needs a third-party intervention. Daisy Blue (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see the issue here since it's apparently the source that makes the claim rather than an editor? You can disagree with the source's conclusion but that still takes precedence over your own and it seems to be properly attributed. You say "The peak number of concurrent players says little to nothing about the sales." but I'm not really seeing an argument backing that statement beyond what seems to be your personal opinion on the matter.
    You also say "Lastly, the figure does not reflect the numbers on Xbox, PlayStation, and Epic Games Store" which is a fair point but can be easily solved by properly mentioning that it only refers to the numbers on steam which is already something that was done, at least in the diff that introduced the change.
    Overall, it seems like it's entirely a content dispute so I'm not sure what you expect from WP:AN. I mean, you could have gone for other dispute resolutions since the issue seems to have been barely discussed on the talk page, especially since you don't seem like a new editor. Yvan Part (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are talking mostly about three separate parts of content. For the first one that cites Eurogamer.pt, I've never argued that it's original research. It's Poketape pointing out the raw SteamDB concurrent players figures or a game's absence on top charts that relate to that. For the Eurogamer part, apart from how there's no common sense in connecting the peak concurrent players number to sales, the source does not say anything about sales either, so it's not my personal opinion. Daisy Blue (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is perfectly reasonable to connect concurrent player count to number of sales. While concurrent player count won't directly reveal sales, it can be used as an indicator of general sales performance. You keep stating things like "quite obviously original research" and "no common sense", but these aren't logical arguments, they're just your opinions that thus far nobody else has shared. I'd appreciate if you don't bludgeon users that disagree with you. poketape (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User Zxcvbnm characterized you citing the charts as POV pushing and explained why. An unregistered user described it as original research and explained why. The same cannot be said for you continuing to undo with no edit summary or talk page activity. Daisy Blue (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found that his statement did not clarify either way, as his full post was "Directly citing charts needs to have an actual purpose besides dunking on the game. It's not typical to mention that a game failed to chart, because most games fail to chart, though in the specific case of the Steam charts, it had an article devoted to it, showing that it did notably poorly. In contrast, a game can not be on the charts and still be successful, raising the question of why it is mentioned. Removing POV pushing is definitely improving the article." In the case of this game, an article was made and the other tables were provided to provide supporting material, which you had requested when you stated the article did not comment on other platforms.
    I do not trust an unregistered user, as I mentioned in my edit summary it was suspicious that an unregistered user would make this edit out of the blue and is seemingly aware of Wikipedia rules like NOR, which was your argument. I noticed that in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 141#Talk:Michael Greger#Removal_of_sourced_content, a discussion you were also involved in, a user stated "As a point of administrivia, I am not convinced that Bluemousered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ciopenhauer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ckrystalrose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cschepker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Iloveinfo22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are separate people. If they are, then the arrival in short order of several limited-purpose "warriors for The Truth™" may indicate offsite solicitation, not uncommon when Wikipedia critiques evidentially unsupported but lucrative claims." I notice that you changed your username from Bloodyrose to Daisy Blue, when Ckrystalrose was one of the suspicious users, who only ever made one contribution, that exactly mimicked yours of removing a section of an article you disagreed with. poketape (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a lot of mischaracterization in one comment. Firstly, me saying that paraphrasing a source has to stick to what it actually covers (Steam in that example) rather than making broad statements is not me requesting anything else, let alone original research.
    Secondly, I've never had any other account on Wikipedia and I don't remember ever making edits without being logged in, unless I wouldn't know (definitely not to Dustborn). Either way, I'm open to any checkuser reviewing my whole history and checking it against anybody else. From there, I'm hoping for action against your derailing and baseless accusations. Daisy Blue (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are free to be upset but I am fully within my rights to question your history of getting involved in multiple Wikipedia fights and convenient edits by short-term/sporadic users. You are continually hypocritical. First you mention me in this post without notifying me. Then you state my edit history must be investigated yet complain when I investigate yours. The fact that you're calling for retaliation is quite offensive, so I respectfully ask that you behave yourself. poketape (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made sure to revert your edit to Draugen, per Wikipedia:Counting and sorting are not original research. poketape (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no counting or sorting in the edits. You cite the raw data or its lack without relying on articles that talk about it in the context of sales (or in any way). Daisy Blue (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not an admin, but I see nothing (in the original request) that requires admin intervention, as this is simply a content dispute and can be handled on the article talk page, or other dispute resolution boards. Poketape's accusations of sockpuppeting is a bit egregious, but the overall issue does not need admins to step in.Natg 19 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no reaction on the talk page of Dustborn until the WP:AN notification placed on FMSky's user talk page. Looking at FMSky's edits since then, they still rarely come with edit summaries, making it very difficult for anyone to engage in dispute resolution involving the user. Daisy Blue (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Close review: X blocked in Brazil

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

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

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

    Closer

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

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

    • WP:ITN/A

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

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

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

    Ultimately, we are left to circle back to

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

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

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

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

    Non-participants

    Formatting this as a reply to make it clear that this portion is my personal interpretation. While editors decide their !votes by analyzing the circumstances subjectively, the closer's quote confirms what should already be clear: discussions at ITN are still subject to Wikipedia's standards around consensus, meaning that the !votes should backed by P&G. Breaking down the !votes, I see:
    Support rationales:
    • It's considered prominent by reliable sources (Nsk92, RodRabelo7, Nice4What)
    • It has significant ramifications or directly affects many people (PrecariousWorlds, Ad Orientem, Nfitz, DarkSide830, Slowking Man, The Kip)
    • It's notable (Chaotic Enby, Happily888, Flipandflopped)
    • No rationale or disagree with opposes (Kcmastrpc, Khuft, BD2412)
    • It's newsworthy (BD2412)
    Oppose rationales:
    • The event was preventable but it was Musk's fault (Masem, AusLondoner, AbcMaxx, Skyshifter, A.WagnerC, Gödel2200)
    • The event was preventable but it was Brazil's fault (Scu ba)
    • Quality too low for the main page (Hungry403)
    • Not worth posting because examples of similar things failed to be posted (PrinceofPunjab)
    • It might become more common in the future (Black Kite)
    • Not interesting or not worth posting (CFA, Midori No Sora)
    • Wait until the investigation ends (31.44.224.222)
    The way I see it, most of the supports argue that support from WP:RS, WP:IMPACT, or WP:GNG is sufficient reason to post. Nearly all of the opposers invoked some variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and have no legitimate reason to object beyond personal preference. Other opposes use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:CRYSTAL. This close review is essentially deciding whether IDONTLIKEIT !votes can be used to cancel out policy-based !votes on Wikipedia in this fashion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn (uninvolved): I'll note that I intentionally avoid ITN because the one time I tried to nominate something, it was SNOW closed with the reason that "consensus will never develop", notwithstanding that most of the !votes in that discussion relied upon an argument that is expressly listed at ITN's arguments to avoid. So, while I'm uninvolved in this discussion, I'm glad to see that ITN is finally getting some outside scrutiny. That said, I disagree with @Bagumba's contention that [t]his is not like WP:AFD, where arguments that align with WP:P&Gs are weighted higher. ITN has a set of criteria, including, as noted previously, a list of common arguments to avoid. Notwithstanding that WP:ITNSIGNIF says that decisions on significance are highly subjective, there has to be a way to weigh between arguments, and indeed, there is: applying the other ITN criteria and our other policies and guidelines. It's ridiculous that one of our projects—which is empowered to post (or to not post) things to the main page—can operate on vibes alone. There were clearly strong arguments for posting here and they can't just be hand-waved away by saying "there are two sides with about equal numbers, and they disagree, so there must be no consensus". That's not how we evaluate consensus on the rest of Wikipedia and that's not how consensus should be evaluated at ITN. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To add: I think criteria and a way to evaluate consensus based on argument is particularly important at ITN, which of all the aspects of the main page probably has the most likelihood of being biased toward the Global North. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Overturn (uninvolved) - "This is not like WP:AFD, where arguments that align with WP:P&Gs are weighted higher" - Yes it is. WP:CONSENSUS applies at ITN. Those oppose arguments were very weak and should have been down-weighted. After down weighing, there was consensus to post, per nom's analysis. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (ECx2)As usual Levivich has gotten straight to the point and provided a piece of evidence that all on its own means it has to be overturned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Overturn Wow, I read through the actual discussion and those oppose reasonings are...incredibly bad. And made by several long-standing editors, which makes them even more disappointing. Since when was "it was an avoidable event, so it's not news" even an argument? The vast majority of the Oppose votes even in closing should have been tossed in the bin. SilverserenC 16:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ECx2)Overturn, the closer appears to not have done the sort of job we would expect from a competent editor. Whether this is a one-off issue or a ban from closing should be considered is unclear. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn (uninvolved). The close can't be called a good one, as so many of the oppose !votes were completely disconnected from policies and guidelines and shouldn't have been counted. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I generally agree with the closure. However, what this discussion demonstrates is that there is no real P&Gs governing ITN. There is article quality, but no clear criteria for posting, so it can just be based on project consensus. WaltCip has an essay WP:HOWITN which clarifies the ITN culture, but there are few "official rules" to this project. Natg 19 (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ITNSIGNIF offers several factors beyond article quality that should be used to evaluate whether something is significant, including:
    • The length and depth of coverage itself (are the articles long and go into great detail, or are the articles short and cursory?);
    • The number of unique articles about the topic (does each major news source dedicate its own reporting staff to covering the story, or are they all simply reposting the same article?);
    • The frequency of updates about the topic (is the article posted once and forgotten about, or is it continuously updated, and are new articles related to the topic appearing all the time?);
    • The types of news sources reporting the story (is the topic being covered by major, national news organizations with a reputation for high-quality journalism?).
    Additionally, ITNATA provides several arguments that should not be made at ITN. There are clearly ways to evaluate significance and obviously bad arguments (e.g., irrelevant ones) should be discounted. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest changing ITNSIGNIF to make it clear that the community gives closers discretion to weigh !votes with these, or other factors. As written, I don't believe it exists. —Bagumba (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't understand that closers have that discretion across the board and are not vote counters you should refrain from closing... If you don't understand that you don't understand consenus which worries me as this is a consensus based project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Consensus" is explicitly called for at ITNSIGNIF, and we have a whole policy on achieving and determining consensus. We can add a more explicit point on this into ITN's guidelines, but that doesn't mean admins currently have no leeway. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn: Not only were a lot of those Opposes garbage, there are some bad rationales here as well. No matter what bad habits are at play, we ought not need special policies to compel closers to weigh quality of arguments over headcount. We ought not need special guidelines to compel editors to advocate sensible rationales over irrelevancies. Nor ought we need reminders that ITN isn't somehow magically exempt from Wikipedia rules. (Nor ought it be surprising that, as in most other areas on Wikipedia, ITN's culture is heavily shaped by those who show up.) And ultimately, the close is not immunized against the community's ability to review it, gauge its worth, and reverse the decision if we find it wrong. Ravenswing 08:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is it garbage to consider the reason for the block as integral to the significance of the story? AusLondonder (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Colloquially "garbage" arguments are those which are not based on our policies or guidelines. What would be the policy or guidleine based argument behind considering the reason for the block as integral to the significance of the story? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What policies or guidelines apply to assessing the significance of a story for ITN? AusLondonder (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The main policies mentioned in the discussion and associated ones appear to be WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. In general WP:V and WP:BLP also apply, but don't appear to have been brought up by any of the involved parties. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I understood WP:RS to be the foundation of many support votes. Then the other side of that coin would be WP:OR, which would be violated if editors are creating their own analysis of a subject independently of sources. Which they are. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. ITN has no clear policies and guidelines, and the consensus of those participating in the discussion is the only yardstick by which a closing admin can operate. Years of precedent have established that there are no specific criteria that guarantee a posting. Coverage in all the major papers worldwide certainly isn't enough, otherwise major media stories such as Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination would have been listed. Similarly, assessments of "notability" by the usual Wikipedia standards don't guarantee a posting. This appeal is effectively just trying to say the view of those who supported the Brazil Twitter story are to hold more weight than those who opposed, but without any sort of rules-based justification other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No reasonable admin interpretation of this discussion could have seen a consensus to post, and any other close would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How can a consenus be achieved outside of policy and guideline based arguments? If there is no clear policy or guideline then there can be no clear consensus and this is a consensus based project, not a precedent based one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no policies and guidelines to draw on when making the decision about what's significant enough to post as a news story on the main page and what isn't. None of the sitewide rules bandied about above have any bearing on this because selecting blurbs in this fashion isn't something thay applies in article space. It's a unique process which happens to also have very few written rules. As such, unless you can prove obvious gaming, socking or vote stacking, it comes down to how many people support and how many oppose. When the counts are neck and neck like this we call it no consensus and it doesn't get posted. You can cry that this is not the Wikipedia way as much as you like, but we have nothing else to draw on. There are no policies and guidelines. Your opinion on this story isn't more valid than those who opposed the posting just because you say their views are "weak".  — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are no policies and guidelines to draw on when making the decision then you aren't on wikipedia. Here everything falls under some collection of policy or guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse per Amakuru. No basis to discount poor arguments in ITN discussions. Consensus in absence of controlling policy means reading the room. If we wanted to add a novel policy dealing with a new area we could not form a consensus because there'd be nothing to go by when weighing !votes due to a lack of an existing policy for that area... Or...—Alalch E. 15:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a novel argument but moot because if its on wikipedia then its under controlling policy, WP:NOT for example was cited by the strongest oppose arguments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN is not the encyclopedia proper. It is part of the main portal. A portal is a web thing, not an encyclopedia thing. It is not the encyclopedia. Wp:NOT doesn't apply to ITN. It's already NOT by virtue of its very existence. —Alalch E. 19:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NOT appears to cover the entire encyclopedia, not just the encyclopedia proper (for example I don't think anyone would accept the argument that NOT doesn't cover talk pages) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn due to the number of extremely weak oppose votes. I'd have personally assigned near-zero weight to !votes in the vein of "this is just a tantrum from Musk/the Brazilian government". For better or worse, ITNSIGNIF gives wide leeway for blocking stories at ITN—but it's not a straitjacket that confines admins to only assigning equal weight to all participants. Consensus is not vote counting. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As currently set up, ITN/C is not fit for purpose. One problem is the low-grade but constant toxicity, sure. The moronic US vs UK feud that roughly 1/4 of the people won't let die (on either side) is another. But also, like scripture, policy can be made to support any side of any ITN/C discussion; which specific policies people quote in each discussion is primarily determined by whether they instinctively want that thing posted or not. Now that I think about it, kind of like AN/ANI. Now that I really think about it, kind of like Wikipedia in general. If someone wants to blow up ITN/C and start over (or AN/ANI. or Wikipedia), more power to them. But history suggests there's too much inertia to succeed, and in the meantime please don't imply Bagumba is a bad admin or has done a bad thing for doing what every other admin does, in one direction or another, on a page without a rational organization. Closing that as they did is not crazy. Leaving it open would not have been crazy. Closing it as "Posted" would not have been crazy. The dysfunction is in the page, not in the admins doing the best they can, and getting shit about it no matter which direction they close something. If I was to BOLDedly support any action, it would be focus less on relentlessly arguing that something that was a week old at the time should be on the (lol) "in the news" section. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we should have a policy named "Featurability" which says: "Everything featured on the main page represents and is featured only because it is a legitimate achievement of Wikipedia editors such that enhances the image and public reception of Wikipedia." —Alalch E. 23:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This would basically eliminate 95% of ITN and 95% of "newly created" DYKs. It would effectively abolish both of those and we'd have to replace them with something more useful and higher quality. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      DYK is featurable because creating a new article of a reasonable (or passable) quality in the span of seven days is a legitimate achievement of editors and the entertainment value of the hooks enhances the image and public reception of Wikipedia insofar it reaffirms the notion that Wikipedia is interesting and should be read (there are other "newness" criteria for DYK, but basically WP:DYKAIM is at least a good start in explaining why and how DYK is featurable content). I could excuse On this day too. I can't excuse ITN because it's extremely weird. Weird weird thing on the main page. —Alalch E. 00:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, I think you might be on to something here. Removing ITN and adding a higher quality requirement for DYK (although the hook thing is cool, it can stay) would be a net improvement for the main page. Maybe not compared to a perfectly ideal not-a-news-ticker, but the current state of ITN is arguably too dysfunctional to be a net positive. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn per the weakness of the Oppose !votes in a consensus-building process. This should have been taken into account. Any suggestion that all points of view have equal weight is odd. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 00:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse clear case of no consensus. Also the event is now stale as older than the oldest ITN on the front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse the review standard suggested above and in various ways of 'quality subjectivity' is an unworkable non-starter, or an oxymoron. Indeed, the overturn argument seems in actuality a complaint against subjectivity, but subjectivity outside of articles is governed by no article content policies. (And there is no a priori reason for barring subjectivity from a community - not article - page, although there may well be, and probably are, better ways we could collectively do things). Nor can I credit the closer 'did not follow WP:ITN the right way' as it appears they did, at least within reason - so I conclude the problem is not the closer or what the closer did - change or discard ITN, if it needs it, as it appears it may. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse a subjective process will have subjective closes. Who cares? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the time was a few days ago, I absolutely would have firmly voted overturn. What I see here is a form of mob mentality, where people without much of an idea simply follow the easiest belief of two sides without doing some research into the matter. But now it's too late. I guess someone close this entire thread since there's no point in this anymore? — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd close it myself since the discussion has moved to Wikipedia talk:In the news#RFCBEFORE: removing significance criteria, but I don't know if it's appropriate for me to do so as the one who opened the discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn Levivich's argument sums it up well. These were some VERY weak opposes. They seem highly politically motivated as well. While this is pretty stale, it shouldn't be dismissed as anyone who politically opposes something can always gin up enough support in the short term to make a story go away long enough to get the same result they wanted. While this isn't a court, it's a miscarriage of justice (procedure). Buffs (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Participants

    • I attempted to initiate a discussion on a closure regarding the ITN proposal Arrest of Pavel Durov and @Bagumba suggested I go take the matter somewhere else. I guess we're here now, on what I would consider to be a similarly hasty close.

      To be clear, I support overturning, and would ask the admin in question here to consider whether they're closing discussions without given them ample time to play out. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      What do you consider "ample time"? 5 days of back and forth discussion is pretty of time. The "maximum" time at ITN is typically 7 days before the nomination is rolled off and is archived. Natg 19 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was particularly concerned over the closure of the ITN discussion I linked above, which was less than 48 hours after it was initially proposed. With regards to the Brazil discussion, there has been a drought of ITNs gaining consensus recently which meant the discussion could have easily been extended, especially since the close votes were not all that compelling. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm involved but FWIW here's my 2¢ . I wouldn't have closed it and I don't find the rational persuasive enough to justify an early close. Having said that, no consensus existed to post and I would concede that the likelihood of such a consensus developing was extremely low. That is a pretty common rational for closing a nomination early. And finally, at this point the nomination is so close to stale that I'm not sure what the point of this discussion is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify no consensus existed to post? This seems to be the main issue at hand here that is being discussed. Natg 19 (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The raw votes were near evenly split with 27 in total. Even if you slightly devalue the opposes, as some have suggested, I don't think there is a clear consensus. To post this you would have to almost completely dismiss the opposes, which would be extremely controversial. FWIW, I supported the nomination and was not impressed by most of the opposing comments, but objectively there is not a clear consensus here. Had I been an uninvolved admin I would not have posted this based on the discussion at the time of closing and I think any admin who did would have been in for some sharp criticism. Would I have closed the discussion using Bagumba's rational? No. But to get to a consensus I think we would have needed a significant influx of comments with all, or nearly all breaking in favor of posting. Based on my rather long experience at ITN, that was not likely to happen. I appreciate that there is some disagreement here. But as of this comment the nomination will be archived in less than 24 hours. Sometimes in life things just don't work out the way we think they should and we have to pick and choose our battles. IMHO this is not a hill worth fighting over. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Slightly" devalue? What if you more than "slightly" devalue them, as I suggest? Levivich (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated above; "To post this you would have to almost completely dismiss the opposes, which would be extremely controversial." and "Had I been an uninvolved admin I would not have posted this based on the discussion at the time of closing and I think any admin who did would have been in for some sharp criticism." -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would it be extremely controversial? And even if it was, so what? What's wrong with completely discounting rationales along the lines of 'The event was preventable but it was Musk's fault'? WP:CONSENSUS says we discount votes that don't follow PAGs, how does that rationale track with anything at WP:ITNCRIT, and if it doesn't, why shouldn't it be discounted completely? Levivich (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't see where simply dismissing approximately half the comments because you disagree with them would be controversial? Really? Calling ITNCRIT vague would be an understatement. There is no hard and fast criteria beyond article quality. Any admin who dismissed all of the opposes would almost certainly have been overturned on appeal and likely been served a nice trout for their supper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's exactly what a closer is supposed to do; no, ITNCRIT has criteria besides quality; and no, they wouldn't be overturned, as evidenced by the guy who didn't discount the votes about to be overturned here. Levivich (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relist for further discussion (involved). I would agree that there was no consensus to post at the time of closure, but this was a continuing story and previous !voters may reconsider their opinions in light of the breadth of actual coverage this development received. @Thebiguglyalien:, I take issue with your characterization of my vote, which you lumped in under "No rationale or disagree with opposes". My rationale was: "The contention that the injury was self-inflicted does not change the newsworthiness of the result". Obviously, I am saying that the result was newsworthy, even if prefaced by a refutation of opinions to the contrary. BD2412 T 18:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Noted. I didn't feel comfortable asserting that "newsworthiness" was associated with any one specific policy, so I described it as challenging the opposes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse (involved): NPOV doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned to be essential to the opposes faulting Musk. No consensus is an accurate summary of the discussion. RAN1 (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse, sort of I !voted to oppose this, but that's not really the point - the issue here is that there are effectively no policies that cover rationales at ITN/C (and no real guidelines either apart from WP:ITNCDONT and the ones at WT:ITN). Obviously, if someone gives a particularly terrible rationale ("Oppose: I don't like articles that begin with the letter W") then they can be discounted, and of course the article has to actually be in the news and of decent quality; but otherwise ITNC does tend to lean more towards a vote-count than most other WP discussions purely because of the lack of P&Gs. Black Kite (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse close (involved) Per WP:ITNSIGNIF editors are given wide scope to decide whether an event is significant enough to warrant posting at ITN on the mainpage: "It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits." There has been quite a bit of unfair criticism here of the nature of the discussion, the discussion of the cause of the block (Musk's refusal to comply with the independent judiciary of Brazil) is highly relevant to the significance of the story. A block imposed by the executive for political reasons or censorship would clearly be more significant that a block imposed by a court as part of the normal legal process. The discussion at ITN was open for five days, which is a lengthy time. Per WP:ITN/A "If there is not consensus to post the item and the nomination has had suitable time to run (generally 24 hours), nominations can be closed." This item got five days. It was a textbook case of no consensus. If editors don't like the way ITN stories are chosen, then propose a change. That won't be achieved by overturning this good close. AusLondonder (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A block imposed by the executive for political reasons or censorship would clearly be more significant that a block imposed by a court as part of the normal legal process. Why? If the Supreme Court upholds the TikTok ban, would that be less significant because it had to go through the courts rather than be unilaterally imposed by the executive? voorts (talk/contributions) 09:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is irrelevant to the close but my opinion was that a block imposed partly due to a failure to appoint a legal representative is distinct and less problematic, newsworthy and significant than a block imposed as an act of censorship by the government in a democracy. AusLondonder (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Per WP:_________ [neither a policy or guideline] is generally not a very convincing argument... This sort of more or less baseless argument seems to strongly support the ITN reform arguments which have been made. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse close. I !voted "support" myself, and, while the "support" votes might have been more often backed by policy, ITN's evaluation of significance is explicitly described as being subjective in nature. It makes sense that in such a process, policy-based weighing of !votes isn't as necessary, as the question that is being asked is basically "do you think this is important enough to feature on the main page?" Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    • Almost 5 days of discussion? It’s stale surely. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not really. The court order for block the blurb would be about happened on 30th August Brazilian investigation into Elon Musk. This is after all but the most recent entry about the helicopter crash. In fact per our articles, the block itself came into effect on 0310 UTC 31 August, while the helicopter disappeared at 415 UTC 31 August, meaning there was only about 1 hour between the block coming into effect and the helicopter crash. The discussion happened on the same day in ITNC Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) 2024 Kamchatka Mil Mi-8 crash. The next ITN entry, the opening ceremony of the 2024 Summer Paralympics happened on the 28 August (although the closing ceremony will be posted within the next day or two I suspect). The next entry was on the 24 August 2024 Barsalogho attack and the oldest on the 23 August 2024 Solingen stabbing. Depending on what else happens and how long this discussion takes, it may be too late for the block I guess, although perhaps this discussion would be useful for future closers. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's unclear to me why this was brought here; the OP could have asked Bagumba to have reopen it, or reopened it themselves, and the discussion would have just stayed there until it rolled off the ITN/C page. Which is what will happen if the "close" is overturned here. No ITN discussion actually needs to be closed, it is sometimes done if consensus is unlikely to develop to post (or more rarely, to pull) an item, simply to avoid beating a dead horse. Overturning this will have no practical effect as no admin who works at ITN is going to post something with 14 supports and 13 opposes, that would rightly be regarding as supervoting over a lack of consensus. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      no admin who works at ITN is going to post something with 14 supports and 13 opposes, that would rightly be regarding as supervoting over a lack of consensus. The 13 opposes were exceptionally weak. "This is Elon Musk's fault", which was 6 of the 13 opposes, has nothing to do with the significance or newsworthiness of the action of the Supreme Court of Brazil. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, agree that OP should have taken this to Bagumba's talk page first and asked to overturn per the close review instructions, but since Bagumba has now responded here and said we should proceed, that's effectively moot. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging @Spencer, Stephen, and Masem:, admins who regularly participate at ITN, for their comments. Natg 19 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also @Ad Orientem: and @Schwede66:. Natg 19 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm involved (in that !vote), so I shouldn't comment. Masem (t) 16:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would like an explanation though on your claim that an avoidable situation is one that doesn't count as news, Masem. Does this stance of yours apply universally? Anything avoidable can never count as news (at least in regards to ITN)? SilverserenC 16:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Because overall WP is not a newspaper, so just because something gets reported en masse by sources over a short period does not mean it is appropriate for us to cover in a wholly separate article, nor feature it at ITN. ITN is about showing quality encyclopedic articles that happen to be in the news, not forcing news onto the front page. And in this situation, the overall story is being blown out of proportion by the media, in terms of its encyclopedic value; it would be a far different story if the entire Internet was blocked by the Brazilian courts, which becomes a major free speech/censorship problem, but the situation as it is now is a slight inconvenience to Brazil users of Twitter/X, but doesn't block their free speech at all. Further by flooding the article with short term reactions rather than look to the larger, long-term picture, the article is not really a good encyclopedic article that should be featured. (This is an example of the problem with the excessive detail of current news against the nature of NOTNEWS/NEVENT which not only affects ITN but throughout WP.) Masem (t) 17:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That would have been a much better argument to have actually made at ITN in the first place. SilverserenC 17:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the discussion being reviewed has now been archived. Given that the main focus here is the misapplication of consensus at ITN and the general abuse of the discussion process, I believe that the archival only makes this discussion more relevant, as ITN's arbitrary time limit is often used to suppress criticisms as "stale" once a few days have passed. I don't want to be opening a new discussion here every time ITN does something like this (which happens at least once a week, this one simply wasn't hidden as well), so hopefully we can get more administrative input here? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps the next step is a discussion at WP:VPP on revamping the ITN guidelines to make them more objective. For example, significance can be defined, just as the term is defined for the purposes of SIGCOV. I don't think the discussion should be at WT:ITN given that part of the problem appears to be a LOCALCON as to how consensus is determined. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Multiple discussions at WT:ITN over the last few years have tried to nail down more objective criteria without any luck. It is a sort of perennial concept that we could make them but there's never been consensus to implement them. VPP is not going to solve that. Masem (t) 01:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It can't fail to nail worse than we have. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've started such discussions in May 2023 at VPP and March 2024 at the idea lab. Another major one was brought up by 331dot in August 2023, which led to a subsequent discussion about abolishing it brought up by InedibleHulk a few hours later. There have been a few other examples over the last few years, but I believe these are the most recent. A good portion of the names participating in each of these discussions are the same ITN regulars enforcing the local consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I won't be doing anything like that again. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that most of the past discussions were heavily attended by ITN regulars and a few others, and thus failed to reach any kind of consensus, it might be time to just pick a reform proposal or two (I like Remove the significance requirement entirely and include any article that is the subject of a recent news event from the March 2024 discussion) and put it to the community through an RfC with wide advertisement via T:CENT. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So long as this wider community discussion includes the regulars, I have reason to believe such few will corrupt the many, again. We should all be barred. Not permanently, just this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Usually when there are people whose repeated inability to understand Wikipedia's processes is such that it breaks the process, a CIR ban is the way to "bar" them. You're not one of those people, but ITN sees its fair share of them. For obvious reasons, I have not proposed such bans at ANI, but we're in a conundrum since our typical response is unavailable and we have to come up with something else. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      General incompetence in our niche is a serious-but-other problem (thanks for excluding me, though). All I suggest here is that all ITN regulars (better and worse) be barred from the reform proposal discussion voorts proposed (because we tend to badger and repeat). While that's (potentially) ongoing, I don't recommend dragging any AN/I gatekeepers into "the whole enchilada". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Definitely. ANI would be counterproductive, which is why I'm lamenting our lack of tools to address this, possibly meaning we need to find a novel solution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought advertising an "outsiders only" RfC was the novel solution, so... InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I apologize for being vague. I meant that it requires the additional step of figuring out if/how something like this could work instead of having a standard practice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It could be possible to have an RFC where ITN regular are strongly encouraged not to participate, but the RFC should point to the history of ITN and all previous attempts to derive improved criteria (so that regulars don't have to step in to talk about previously failed proposals), and once any ideas start to gel out of the input from other editors, regulars are still going to have to identify any potential problems with them. Without such, I could see what may seem like simple solutions called out (like putting more weight on the type of news coverage a story gets) that fails the purpose of ITN and NOTNEWS aspects, in addition to minimizing the quality contribution.
      It would probably be necessary to have an informal moderator who is uninvolved but aware of the ITN situation to make sure that regulars are not jumping into the discussion too soon. Masem (t) 03:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree with this. If there is going to be a community-wide re-evaluation of ITN (which is what was proposed), there is no need to gatekeep. Are we sure that the current "purposes" are correct, or that the current status quo interpretations are what the community wants? I see no issue with rewriting ITN completely if that is what is decided. Natg 19 (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What Masem appears to be proposing is the opposite of gatekeeping... The proposal appears to be to open the gate which has been closed by the ITN regulars. To bust down the wall of the garden so to speak. To leave a space with neither gates or walls where everyone can contribute equally (something that is currently not possible with the level of casual ownership around ITN) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not that the past ITN discusses have been closed doors, just that when they take place on the ITN talk pages, its primarily participated by the ITN regulars that participate, and the few attempts at VPP or similar places also draw heavy involvement of regulars. If we're trying to look at this fresh, we would want a discussion where the regulars shut up and see what develops, and once some possible solutions form free of the regulars' input, then get involved in practical application issues (eg making sure that main page quality issues are addressed). Masem (t) 15:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps something akin to the "involved" and "uninvolved" sections used in some cases when consensus is being reviewed? I could see an RfC for "should ITN stop evaluating 'significance' and instead be used to feature articles that have been substantially updated with new information" or something similar (and maybe with more graceful/precise wording), where people who have actively participated in these significance disputes are considered "involved". It wouldn't solve the issue that several long-time editors here (including administrators) have demonstrated WP:CLUE issues about how policy works, but it would allow community consensus to be compared to local consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If anyone has demonstrated WP:CLUE issues it would appear to be yourself, given you believe our no original research, policy, which explicitly applies to articles, and "does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources" prevents discussion about what to post at ITN. AusLondonder (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're welcome to consider references to OR to be invoked alongside WP:FORUM (Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or new information). Or we could acknowledge that ITN tries to wikilawayer its way out of original research issues because they think they are reliable sources about "significance" when they are not. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So referring to the literal first line of WP:OR and it's applicability is "Wikilawyering" now? Make it make sense. AusLondonder (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As a regular myself, I would very much support such an RfC where the rest of the community can weigh in and give a fresh outside view, and where we get the opportunity to listen to them instead of being the ones talking. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really think what we need is a rebalance of power at ITN. On one hand, we have had some nominations closed before they have to be. I do believe it would perhaps be nice to codify a oppose:support ratio at which we close a nomination, as well as a minimum time threshold. I mean, do we NEED to be closing nominations within 24 hours unless they are clearly disruptive? SNOW obviously applies, but is SNOW closing a nomination at 7 opposes/1 support after 12 hours so much better than closing at 12 opposes/3 supports in 24 hours (random numbers, but you get the point). To me, anything but a clear consensus either way after 24 hours should stay open until there is one, or the item rolls off, especially given not all arguments are of the same strength, and many stories nominated at ITN are developing. Conversely, I think we should be empowering editors to make a call when a vote is near 50:50. While I think having clear consensus for posting should generally be required (maybe 2/3 of comments supporting on notability with quality issues resolved), in the case of the Twitter ban nomination (and call me biased here), I just think the support votes were much more compelling. I'll ask the question again: why does it matter the "who" or the "why" if we believe the "what" is noteworthy enough? Would we have not posted the Trojan War because it was largely spun out of marital reasons? Using motives and personalities to supersede actual results seems to me to be ignoring that you're surrounded by trees and thus must be in a forest. I've been told my arguments have not been the strongest at times. While it may generally be a judgement call, I do believe we miss the point of having admins if we don't empower them to call audibles when they believe it's fit. Just my 2 cents. And please, please, PLEASE, let's not bring up CREEP. It's invoked almost every other discussion on ITN processes it makes me think no one actually wants to try any real solutions. Thank you. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At times, ITN is subject to new or infrequent editors that drop support !votes on popular topics (for example, the death of famous celebrities if they nominated for a blurb), which is not a metric we use for posting blurbs, making these !votes the type to be ignored in evaluating consensus. Further, only a small fraction of regulars typically look at the quality of the article before placing a !vote, and many support !votes are overly focused on the significance aspect; quality cannot be overlooked due to being featured on the main page. I'm all for allowing an ITNC discussion to keep going when there is no clear consensus to post either way until the topic is stale (typically, that means only closing discussions which become disruptive after the blurb has been posted), but we should not be judging closing discussions based on the number and distribution of !votes. Quality of arguments must still be evaluated. Masem (t) 03:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used to frequent ITN but I now rarely go there at all, because it is too toxic and it's become about the personal preference of what editors there think is important or newsworthy and not what actually is newsworthy. Recent Deaths has worked very well since "significance" was removed as a criterion and I now think ITN should be closer if not exactly similar(removing or at least reducing "significance" as a criterion). 331dot (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If significance is removed as a criterion, how instead do we know what is newsworthy? AusLondonder (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As newsfolk know. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Except, of course, WP is not a newspaper so going by journalism standards is not appropriate. Otherwise ITN would be filled with US and UK political topics every day. Masem (t) 11:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If those were the only kinds of stories with Impact, Timeliness, Proximity, Prominence, Conflict, Human interest and/or Novelty, that'd be all the newspapers and websites ITN and Wikipedia pull from ever publish. It's clearly not the case. CBC News' top story tonight is just one example. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly the issue. ITN isn't perfect, but frankly I can't see what can be changed that won't simply make it far worse. Eliminating literally any significance requirement would be a disaster. AusLondonder (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll re iterate that the larger problem of lax NOTNEWS adhence across the encyclopedia is a main driver of problems at ITN. It's meant to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news, not a means to feature news. It was created in the wake of 9/11 and the ability to highlight the community's ability to come together to create high quality summary of clearly significant news in a short period of time, and certainly other events since have been highlighted at ITN along those lines (COVID, Jan 6, Oct 7, etc),all events with clear long lasting significance within hours of them happening. Not all major news stories are along the same lines, as coverage is not the same as significance. — Masem (t) 13:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:NOTNEWS applies to article content, not the project space, and so we could absolutely consider journalistic standards in crafting an improved significant criterion.
      Summarizing ITN as being a place to only "feature quality articles that happen to be in the news" forgets three of the four bullet points at WP:ITNPURPOSE. As I've said elsewhere and previously, Masem, I worry that your views on ITN aren't aligned with everyone else. Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They're aligned with mine. Everything shown on the main page is being featured, by definition. It's an axiom. Featured articles are worthy of being featured because doing so highlights editors' ability to create very good content, DYK items are worthy of being featured because the hooks promote the perception that Wikipedia contains many interesting facts, that its articles also have some entertainment value, and they are backed up by adequate, presentable content that was recently created or drastically expanded, highlighting editors' achievements in that respect (but this is more indirect, because readers generally do not know the DYK eligibility criteria). OTD items are worth featuring because "On this day" is a traditional element that counterbalances the lightheartedness of DYK and highlights the vast work of editors who had developed comprehensive coverage of historic events. Another block could more directly highlight new articles evidenced by the fact that the subjects are recent events, so as to impress the visitor with how quickly the community can come up with presentable content, reinforcing the idea that Wikipedia editors are competent and routined encyclopedia creators and that wikipedia's time-honored practices lead to immediately good results. Instead we have ITN, the weird old news panel. Old news and non-presentable articles on "significant events" are non-featurable. So why is Wikipedia featuring something not worthy of being featured? The idea was to feature articles on recent events that are worthy of being featured, highlighting something positive about Wikipedia. —Alalch E. 14:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll quote here Vibber's first response to the question of "What is Wikipedia?": Wikipedia, as a sort of the idea of it, is to be very open to accepting contributions, to the point that a lot of material can be put together very quickly, and it can be updated immediately when events change. For instance, when something important happens in current events, we have an article on it right away. In a more traditional encyclopedia, it might be—you know—the next year they have a yearly update that has it; it's not really in a standard version for years and years yet. The ability to have an article right away is worth highlighting by featuring an item that is actually new. That helps promote the idea that Wikipedia is better than a traditional encyclopedia. But isn't better if the content isn't good. So the content must be good and the topic must be actual news for the purpose to be achieved. That is worth featuring on the main page. Looking at it like that, significance of the event and the pseudo news portal aspect is vastly less important. —Alalch E. 15:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I must say, having a section called "In the News", then immediately pointing to things like NOTNEWS while multiple users and others bring up the staleness and dysfunction of ITN seems counterintuitive to me. So long as the section is called ITN, seems to me like getting nominations of events that are... in the news... is unavoidable. Connormah (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Instead of having a "news ticker" where we debate the relevance of recent news, it would very much be an improvement to feature quality articles about recent events, regardless of their perceived significance. If someone can write a well-sourced, reasonably complete article about a recent event that doesn't fall into recentism, it very much should be featured, even if it is of minor importance in the grand scheme of things – and it would allow the reader to learn about recent events they might not have found about otherwise! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sure an editor could accomplish that, but their progress would swiftly be lost from people editing the article to add in every new headline that comes out. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Some of those purposes cannot be always met because NOTNEWS applies to article content. Not every major story that media presents necessarily equates to having a WP article about it (standalone or not). As such, we cannot always serve the poibt of helping to direct readers to a news topic because it simply may be inappropriate for us to cover it. If we can meet them, great, but because ITN is still a main page feature, quality is as important, and again here, NOTNEWS and other p&g that fall from it expect that we write on news topics in an encyclopedic way, which requires thinking about the long term and not just dumping a bunch of information without thought into an article and call it good. And just like other main page sections, we also want to avoid systematic bias in featured items, which requires significance to be assessed subjectively. Masem (t) 15:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nah, Masem is 100% correct on this. If we were to post anything with decent coverage and an article that is okay quality wise, it would be the wild west, and honestly I would fear people would create fringe articles on purpose to create things that can easily get posted to the main page for clout or whatever. We'd have even more useless celebrity drama articles, articles about minor casualty events that may not carry any real impact, etc. And I think we already have a problem with radical article exclusivity across the site as it is. Any attempt to apply a RD-type criteria for the larger ITN would be a disaster. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I strongly support removing the significance criteria. Let the reader and the sources decide what's significant and what's not, rather than Wikipedia editors endlessly arguing about it. No significance criteria has worked well for RD, it'll streamline ITN/C also. Levivich (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      FYI, started an RFCBEFORE discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:In the news#RFCBEFORE: removing significance criteria. Levivich (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This should be advertised at VPP as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Advertise an RFCBEFORE at VPP? Seems unusual to me but if you want to, no objection here. Levivich (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I opened this discussion, Ad Orientem (admin), Alalch E., Amakuru (admin), AusLondonder, Bagumba (admin), Black Kite (admin), and Natg 19 have all expressed their belief that ITN is exempt from policy in favor of its own project page advice and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I ask uninvolved administrators—or anyone else who has experience with this sort of thing–what the correct procedure is for dealing with this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What a cynical misrepresentation of what I have said. What policy did I say ITN is exempt from? AusLondonder (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Special:Diff/1244643131 you cited ITN advice pages to argue that editors should give their own novel analyses of a subject independently of reliable sources (against WP:OR) and that closers should give these !votes equal weight (against WP:CONSENSUS). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's quite a creative interpretation of my comment. You directly accused me and others of believing that "ITN is exempt from policy" - which is simply untrue. I cited WP:ITNSIGNIF, which for many years has offered guidance to editors about significance for ITN. This is no different to any other project. To call editorial judgement about what to include on ITN "original research" is simply ridiculous. Our WP:OR policy states that "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." It explicitly states that "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources" Yet you're now telling us that discussing what to include on ITN is original research? AusLondonder (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is if you're substituting your judgment as to what is significant for the judgment of RSes. Just like it's OR to substitute an editor's judgment of what's WP:DUE for the judgment of RSes. On article talk pages, when someone says "sure, all the sources cover it, but I don't think it's important enough to include," we rightly ignore those opinions as WP:OR. At ITN, when someone says the same thing, it apparently doesn't even get discounted when assessing consensus. This is how we ended up here. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we all know the only way this will be potentially resolved is through broader discussion about changing how ITN works by removing significance as a requirement. I've said my own view is that eliminating significance would be detrimental; others may agree or disagree. No doubt we'll soon be posting stories such as "Hawk Tuah girl throws first pitch" because objectively that was in the news. AusLondonder (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do we have that article? edit: we do... —Alalch E. 19:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, humans definitely aren't getting smarter... ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Stuff like this is why trying to fix ITN without addressing the problem of lack of adherence to NOTNEWS across the project is the wrong approach. We have news articles with far too much detail, excessive commentary, and unnecessary splits, which is a symptom of multiple factors. Once we get editors to be more discerning of when to actually create articles on current events and write them in an encyclopedic manner from the start, then many of the issues that happen at ITN will resolve naturally (eg we can start on presuming a new current event article should be clearly notable and significant, and reduce that amount of discussion here) There are still going to be issues to resolve at ITN with that, but right now with far too many editors writing WP like a newspaper, those issues are hard to separate. Masem (t) 20:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Once we get editors to be more discerning Ok you've been here for like 20 years, when do you expect this will happen? Levivich (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Prior to ten years ago, it wasn't an issue. Since 2016 it's beconing worse and with several issues just this year (for similiar reasons that 2016 was a starting point) that's enlightened me to what the fundental problems are. While I plan to open a VPP discussion at some point on this NOTNEWS issues (and having to see that it wasn't just me that saw it) I want to make sure I establish the discussion with a suitable statement of the issues, which I have not crafted yet. Masem (t) 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We need to see how it goes without the spurious significance "criterion" that drowns out other much more important considerations. It's better to codify "no viral and stupid crap" and use that as a criterion than to say "well, we have this criterion but you see, it's subjective". —Alalch E. 21:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Thebiguglyalien: you've accused me above of ignoring policy, yet so far nobody has mentioned any policy which the oppose votes at the Brazil discussion can be objectively said to have violated. You're indignant about something which can't be defined. You mention reliable sources and WP:OR above, which is all well and good, but those things only help with article writing and selecting which articles to keep and delete, they don't tell us anything about what's a suitable news story for ITN. Unless you're suggesting that all news stories that meet WP:GNG should be posted... But that would hardly work as the number of stories would be far too many for the template to handle. I have no particular love for the way ITN works currently, I think workshopping and forming consensus around some more clearcut guidelines would be terrific. But until that happens, we have nothing more we can go on. My endorse vote above is reflective purely on reality, not on my philosophical preferences.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To this point, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:CONSENSUS have all been invoked. If the denizens of ITN don't want to be accused of making up their own criteria and inserting personal opinion into curation of content, then maybe the should stop doing those things. I'm not convinced by the argument that the ITN regulars aren't capable of governing themselves so they should just be allowed to keep screwing things up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, all those policies have been brought up, but what on earth do they have to do with ITN? How do they inform the decision about what to post? If you can't answer that question, then all your argument amounts to is that your personal opinion about significant stories is more important than anyone else's. I'm not sure how that fits in with the consensus policy... Once again, I'd be happy to see improvements in the instructions going forward, I'm not a rigid denizen or ITN regular who insists on doing things the old way. But for the purposes of the Brazil / X story, those new yet-to-be-determined guidelines aren't in place yet so we're stuck with whatever people thought in the discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My argument is the same argument expressed by the shocked "overturn" !voters above. We follow reliable sources on Wikipedia. This is not a "yet-to-be-determined guideline". If anyone on ITN feels that the nature of their "work" makes them exempt the community's expectations, then they should be treated just like anyone else is treated when they think their area is exempt or that they wave around random projectspace pages as if they're enforceable. But it looks like community-level scrutiny might occur now, so that's really all I have to say on this until that process is seen out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Have you actually bothered to read any of the policies you keep throwing around? They're about content creation/articles in mainspace. For example, with WP:N: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article" What about WP:OR? "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources". You're pretty clearly misrepresenting policy. Is this deliberate or accidental? AusLondonder (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Instead of replying to me with the same message in two different spots, you might read the reply I already left above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not going to engage with you any further here about this because it's simply not constructive, and you're simply not going to acknowledge that the policies you have repeatedly cited such as WP:OR apply specifically to articles in mainspace and not discussion about what to feature on the mainpage.
      I'm glad an RfC will be started, hopefully this will settle the issue with wide participation. AusLondonder (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm unimpressed by ITN/C too, but could you dial your holier than thou "T-ban them all" populism setting down to like a 6 please? Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Message received. Like I said above, I'm happy to leave it at this point while community scrutiny is taking place. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Plutonical unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

    Two years is a long time, and people can change. Given they were blocked for concerns around diving too fast into projectspace, I think an unblock with a topic ban from Wikipedia: space, appealable in six months is a good way forward. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for HouseBlaster's unblock/TBAN proposal. The contributions to simple Wikipedia look good, but six months without being in projectspace will give Plutonical a chance to show us some good edits in mainspace. @Plutonical: if the TBAN is enacted and you intend to appeal it in 6 months, you should be prepared to explain why you were indeffed and show an understanding of why your actions were wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per above. Your contributions elsewhere show that there's a chance to be welcomed back. Weak support for TBAN on Project space. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: 2 years is more than enough time. Simplewiki contributions look promising and show that they are interested in contributing constructively. I don't really think a a projectspace topic ban is necessary (as disruption anywhere is likely to lead to a re-block) but I won't specifically oppose it. C F A 💬 03:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock with TBAN as outlined above. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Isn't it possible to block from editing specific namespaces? (I haven't done many blocks in a long time.) If so, instead of topic-banning him from projectspace as a condition of the unblock, maybe we could just namespace-block him instead. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is possible to do so. I think framing it as a topic ban has the advantage of giving the community a say in lifting the restriction, but we can enforce the topic ban with a WP:PBLOCK. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As HouseBlaster alludes to, blocking is just a tool that can be used to enforce an editing restriction. From a formal perspective, the community is always discussing if an editor should be restricted, aside from any implementation. isaacl (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    Hi all

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

    Thanks :)

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

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

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

    Change to the Checkuser team

    At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of Doug Weller are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Doug Weller for his long service as a CheckUser, and his continuing service as an Oversighter. For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the Checkuser team

    Moving problem

    Hello, I have translated the article Charter for European Security from the German Wikipedia and unfortunately I cannot move it to the main space due to the already existing redirection Charter for European Security to 1999 Istanbul summit. Would it be possible to remove the redirect so that the article can be moved? Ovo Sagas (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. For future reference, {{db-move}} is the best way to indicate this sort of move. ​ Primefac (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored the redirect edit now that the article has been moved because I think its history s interesting; see more of my thoughts about this sort of thing in this archived discussion. Graham87 (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Content model change

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

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

    MoreMenu.addLink(
        'user',
        'Editing restrictions',
        url
    );
});

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

    Just FYI, next time you need a JSON subpage, if you create the page with the title ending in .json it should automatically set the content model to json for you. — xaosflux Talk 12:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks xaosflux. I knew that .json pages have JSON content model by default and I'm using .json pages like User:BaranBOT/Task 1/Drives/2024-09 New Page Patrol/config.json; I just wanted one without the .json extension. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule

    Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
    • Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed.
    • We plan to use the following schedule:
      • Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up
      • Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase
      • Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase
    • If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
    • If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
    You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

    –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lost password on admin account

    TommyBoy (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

    This recent post on TommyBoy's user talk indicates that this user has lost access to their account. I don't know the procedure for a case like this or whether the stated request can actually be fulfilled, but someone should certainly look into it. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted my thoughts there. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The account should be blocked preemptively to prevent compromise; this would fulfil half the editor's talk page request too (i.e. that the account be retired). SerialNumber54129 10:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't block an editor because a brand new account pops up and claims to be the original person who wants something. See Joe job. Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the password is lost, as the new account claims, what risk is there of compromise? I also agree with John that this seems fishy. Surely a long time admin would know how to properly request removal of their perms/recover a locked account. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You ask what risk there is. If they've just lost the password, hey probably no problem. On the other hand, if the password and email address have been changed to something the original user has never known, then that's a symptom of potential compromise and a concern. I'm not going to go as far as to say that I endorse the new account, but I don't see any immediate concern here which needs addressing. User:TommyBoy2024 might (or might not) want to contact WP:T&S to get things reset. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but OP didn't say that the email and PW were changed maliciously, just that they lost the PW. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that nothing in the new account claims can be trusted until it's been verified to be the same account holder; as I understand it, this hasn't happened yet. Still, nativity is a cute quality, until something goes wrong. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 13:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    nativity? :) Lectonar (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's precisely what I was saying. If we believe the account (which I don't), there's no risk of anything happening since the account PW is lost, so we shouldn't lock the account at all right now. If OP is lying, then there's actually no risk at all. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if my previous account cannot be formally retired or recovered despite multiple attempts to reset my password over the past few weeks, I respectfully understand that, but would like to continue editing Wikipedia as a registered user even if that results in losing the user rights attached to my previous account. TommyBoy2024 (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The accounts are  Confirmed, so there's nothing nefarious going on as far as I can tell, but as a lost account I have removed the advanced permissions from the original TommyBoy account. If you do manage to get access to the account again, please make a post at WP:BN and someone will get your bits back. However, that's an issue for the WMF tech folks to deal with. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the accounts are CU confirmed as the same person, can't the userrights just be transferred? I supposed "confirmed" actually means "pretty much confirmed, but not certain enough to risk giving them the admin bit"? Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (I'm not Primefac) I'd go with that explanation: there are different levels of confirmation. The person with the new account is at the same address as the original user, and in my opinion is extremely likely to be the same. But there's some things (I hesitate to call them irregularities) for me which don't rise to the highest level confirmation. For one thing, the admin logged in and edited just yesterday. I think only someone with access to credentials or a database can really make that kind of wager. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yesterday? Diff please? — xaosflux Talk 18:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I use the term 'edit' loosely and live in UTC-land. Special:Redirect/logid/164376437. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with your assessment; it is rather unlikely from what I have seen that the old/admin account was compromised (and/or a joe job) hence the lack of a block or anything related, but since access has been lost the +sysop was removed more of a matter of procedure than anything. I would prefer a slightly more backend/database connection to be made before actually transferring the mop to the new account, though honestly it is probably possible to regain access to the old account if you talk to the right folks on the tech side of the WMF (goodness knows they've done it for enough folks who messed up 2FA...). Primefac (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TommyBoy, try to contact ca@wikimedia.org and explain your situation, they may be able to help you with recovery. — xaosflux Talk 23:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your advice. This whole situation has been very frustrating. My laptop computer which I had my Wikipedia password for my User:TommyBoy account crashed two weeks ago and multiple attempts to recover or reset my password for that account on my iPhone have failed, resulting in the loss of my status as a Wikipedia administrator, and the added burden of scouring through nearly twenty years of editing history in order to locate articles that were on my Watch List in order to reconstruct it at User:TommyBoy2024 if log in access to User:TommyBoy cannot be restored. TommyBoy2024 (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TommyBoy2024, I wonder if you could clarify one thing — have you forgotten your password (i.e. it was saved on your computer, so you didn't need to remember it), or do you remember it and still can't get in? Just trying to figure out if it's a lost-password thing or a TFA thing. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was unfortunately saved on my computer and I did not have it written down elsewhere, and as I previously mentioned in this discussion, multiple attempts at resetting or recovering my password in the past few weeks have been unsuccessful. TommyBoy2024 (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming you don't have access to your configured email for password reset - it is possible that the foundation staff may manually do a reset for you - but you will need to contact them directly at their email above. This is not normally done, but they occasionally make exceptions for long-term functionaries. — xaosflux Talk 12:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per xaosflux, I'm not certain why you're having problems resetting. Do you know what email address is attached to the old account? I just emailed you on your old account, you could try doing the same with your new account. (To be clear, I mean use your new account to email your old one here Special:EmailUser/TommyBoy.) If you can find these emails, I'm fairly sure this means you should be receiving the reset requests on the same email address. If you're not it's possible something else is going wrong. At the very least, if you're able to receive emails on the email address attached to your old account, this might help you getting staff to assist. Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, yet another attempt to log into my User:TommyBoy account has failed despite your attempts to assist me in restoring login access to that account. TommyBoy2024 (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Range block needed

    Could someone please block the range which contains the following IPs: 193.106.250.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 193.106.250.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 193.106.250.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 193.106.250.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I warned the last one yesterday (third warning), they reappeared today as 193.106.250.60 and 193.106.250.72 and got blocked for 48h, then as 193.106.250.44 with personal attacks at my talk page (and also got blocked for 48h). It is clear that they are not interested in discussing their edits, nor in stopping IP hopping and sitting the block out. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The overlapping range is now globally blocked as a proxy/hosting service. Perhaps one day someone will want to take over from Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#ST47ProxyBot's retirement. — xaosflux Talk 17:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive User

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

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

    @Southasianhistorian8

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

    RegentsPark Interactions:

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

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

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

    - https://w.wiki/BAyt

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

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

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


    SouthAsianHistorian8 Draft Articles:

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

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

    - User:Southasianhistorian8/Millitancy

    - User:Southasianhistorian8/Attacks

    - User:Southasianhistorian8/sandbox


    SouthAsianHistorian8 Pages:

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


    His Issue:

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


    World Sikh Organisation:

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

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


    Transport for Canada:

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

    If you actually take a look at the article

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

    https://www.worldsikh.org/wso_writes_to_minister_garneau_about_racism_at_transport_canada


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

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

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

    Thank you for your response @Nyttend. If we just start on the initial problem that has arisen because the other stuff will just be a merry go round.
    SouthAsianHistorian8 doesn't accept a Tweet in which a statement made by World Sikh Organization refuting a paragraph he has put within the article. I think first of all, under Wikipedia is this allowed to be used as a reference to show their side of the view. Yes or No due to the seriousness of the statement included. My edit https://w.wiki/BAzH , in which he claims I am promoting the organisation (I have no prior edits on the WSO page since my time on Wikipedia). Is my sourced edit using WSO's tweet allowed. Yes or No ? Thank you ! Jattlife121 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not really following much of this, between the unclear English, and the clear grudges. How about a couple of simple DIFFs that show who violated what policy, when. I also to struggle to see why Anti-Sikh sentiment in Canada even exists? When there isn't more obvious articles like Anti-Sikh sentiment in India. Is it simply misnamed? Could it be merged to Anti-Sikh sentiment (which probably shouldn't be redirected where it is) - similar to Anti-French sentiment? The article in question does seem to be more of an overly explicit list of things that aren't necessarily encyclopaedic. Sometimes I think we should have a blanket policy limiting people from editing political articles relating to their own nation ... Nfitz (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nfitz Thanks for your response. Apologies if there was a lack of clarity, I was in a bit of a rush to respond due to there being constant edit conflicts for reason on this page. I respect your opinion whatever the outcome is, my personal belief is where this issue has just happened is I have responded to an edit with the response of an organisation -> this has been removed and escalated to an Admin -> I was accused of promoting the organisation.
      Whilst I admit this should not have been taken to the Admin board, I was unaware .This was based on an Admin who involved as a 3rd party who already has been involved with the user for 3 years. So I wanted a neutral opinion from this page. Next time I know now, I will make sure to speak directly to Admins who I am comfortable with instead of using Admin Noticeboard.
      Per the Wiki Page, Anti-Sikh Sentiment in Canada exists just as much as Islamophobia in Canada and Antisemitism in Canada exists as pages (all these pages should be deleted then right ?). There has been an murder against a Sikh by Neo Nazis in 1999, racism, leaflets, Sikh Temple attacks/Vandalism which I have used for justification on making this page.
      Due to the shear volume of information just from Canada itself, an Anti-Sikh Sentiment sole Wiki Page encompassing all instances in India, UK, Australia etc.. would make the article far too large. Please note, a sole Anti-Sikh Sentiment page on a summarised level is in the works.
      @Ratnahastin Whilst I am disappointed in the outcome of your response and it seems there is more-so an issue with this raised on Admin Noticeboard rather than discussing the edits on the page itself. I respect your opinion and happy to close whatever this case is, or if needed to answer any further questions.
      Thanks/Tack Jattlife121 (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support boomerang here. This report only raises concern about OP's own judgement abilities and lack of ability to edit neutrally. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections closed

    The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections has now closed, and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

    • The results of any national or sub-national election are a Contentious Topic. Starting in 2026 and checked yearly afterwards, this designation expires on 1 January if no sanctions have been logged in the preceding 2 years.
    • The regular posters on X who associate with Election Twitter are reminded that there is no ownership of articles on the English Wikipedia. They are encouraged to seek consensus on the article talk page, use dispute resolution when they encounter disagreements and refrain from off-site coordination.
    • The Arbitration Committee block of Talleyrand6 (talk · contribs) is converted to an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    • Anonymousioss (talk · contribs) is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    • Anonymousioss is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    • CroatiaElects (talk · contribs) is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    • CroatiaElects is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    • DemocraticLuntz (talk · contribs) is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    • Mcleanm302 (talk · contribs) is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
    • Mcleanm302 is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

    For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections closed

    Help untagging following AfD close

    @DreamRimmer: is handling with AWB magic. Thanks both. Star Mississippi 02:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    anyone around to lend a hand? Assuming you don't disagree with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of statutory instruments of Scotland, 2024 know of a bot or other semi automated tool that can help with the untagging of related articles in the AfD? It broke the closer script as @OwenX also noted, so it had to be a manual close and de-tag. I'll start at the top if you want to work from the bottom. No worries if not. Star Mississippi 02:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked for AWB help here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

    To answer the question, no, we should not. We should treat them as we would every vandal (they're not special), WP:DENY and carry on. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you'll get a lot of people on board for full protection but admins might be open to extended confirmed protection. History of the chair ia regularly the target of vandals and even though it has PC on it, most of the trolls are already auto-confirmed so their racist edits go right on through. Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually put history of the chair under ecp for half a year some weeks ago. Lectonar (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's actually WP:LTA/HR doing all that vandalism with those AC-gamed accounts. I guess WP:PP is really a precisely and closely followed policy because I notice the full protection policy subsection doesn't mention unconstructive edits by EC-gamed accounts as a valid reason and that the Brianna Wu page was fully-protected under ARB/BLP (this may have been an extreme exception because arbitration enforcements aren't listed in FP subsection either). I was wondering if we could apply another exception like this to the pages targeted by LTA/HR though, especially the user and user talk pages of that banned account which I don't see a strong reason not to fully-protect both. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Brianna Wu, that article has had no edits to expand the content since the protection. I would not call that a success at all. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page of that article is also EC-protected indefinitely, keep that in mind. Which, by the way, has had quite a number of successful edit requests on it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but they're all trivial and minor. There has been no content expansion to it. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory it should be easily doable through edit requests. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Theory and practice are different. Protection results in less editing and full protection results in almost no editing. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There were no edits to expand the content even before the full protection. I don't think we're missing much, other than having to oversight every other edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah was going to say the same thing. The changes between now and full protection seem to be [7]. That was about 18 months. The changes for about 3.5 years before full protection when the article was ECP is [8]. I don't see what we've lost between the two. And besides the longer time under review, if anything I'd also expect more in the early part of that ECP period since she was still running for Congress then. (There did seem to be more earlier in 2019 relating with he second Congressional run hence why I stopped with that late 2019.) Yet IMO we've had about as much change in the 18 months of full protection as in the 3.5 years under ECP I showed. Of course changes always tend to depend on many factors including those which could be said to be almost random, so IMO a single example is fairly useless either way, but if you are going to look at it as an example, you need to at least compare before with after. Otherwise I might as well just chose some random article which is unprotected and still a stub after 10 years and say, look how bad unprotection is! Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop user Shadow4dark and its Sockpuppets from misusing Wikipedia

    Closing before a boomerang. HouKorbi, please either file an SPI with evidence or drop this unfounded argument Star Mississippi 22:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The user @Shadow4dark is a person who misuse wikipedia rules. He is changing articles related to Kurds to his desire. for example he is strongly trying to destroy articles related to the Mahsa Amini. It is a long time he is trying to remove or merge the articles about Mahsa Amini. Please investigate the activities of this user and stop and block him and his helpers from damaging articles related to the Mahsa Amini Subject and her death and Mahsa Amini protests. Thanks HouKorbi (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You might want to check out WP:BOOMERANG. Accusing editors of being racist and a sockpuppeteer is a personal attack . Also, you are required to notify editors of discussions at AN on their talk page. I have done this for you. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts The bots like @JJMC89 bot and @B-bot and the users like @Bunnypranav and @@Wikiedits421 and @@Shadow311 are helping @Shadow4dark to do it's destroying actions in those articles of Mahsa Amini. HouKorbi (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    HouKorbi, to avoid a boomerang you should either provide evidence in the form of diffs or withdraw your serious accusations. Whichever you do it should be done quickly, or you may find that you are blocked before you can do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger Their contribution like @Shadow4dark contribution is best evidence to prove it that they are trying to change articles related to kurds specially articles related to Mahsa Amini subject. but as I said they are trying to use wikipedia rules to their desire and Naturally, they don't want to leave traces of their wrongdoings. I have been following their work for a long time. They work very professionally so as not to leave a trace.

    diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5

    All those edits are when it is the Mahsa Amini second anniversary. Why they are editing so many times right now?! There are so many other evidences that prove they are destroying the articles related to Mahsa Amini and Kurds. HouKorbi (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Those diffs are not evidence of anything. You should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidleines before accusing people of violating them. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggesting to bring these "evidence" to WP:SPI Shadow4dark (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continuous removal of sourced content

    On Md Saiful Alam, User:Azbotz keeps removing sourced content. I reverted their edit couple of times, but the user still doing it. Please stop the user or temporary semi-protect the page. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have semi-protected Md Saiful Alam for one week. Cullen328 (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Revisiting § Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

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

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

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

    No objection. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection from me. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removal is a good idea. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Lectonar (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Thank you, Chenzw. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit request

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

    User vandalized "Emily in Paris"

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

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

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

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

    Why is the page protected?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Please rename the correct season number

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

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

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

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

    "Twitter under Elon Musk" edit notice

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

    Pinging InfiniteNexus for input as they created the edit notice. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The usual answer to the question "can someone do something?" is "who do you expect to do anything if not you?" If you don't have the technical skills needed can you at least suggest something better? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood that editnotices can only be edited by admins, that's why I ask here Cambalachero (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Cambalachero said, edit notices cannot be edited by most users: "This is the page notice for Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk. This editnotice can only be created or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers."
    The only recommendation that I can make is that the third line of the system message says "To request a change be made to the page, please submit an edit request, ensure you include a description of your requested change and the reason for the change" which did not occur. However, had it been done at Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk, then it might have been missed as Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter is the primary edit notice that the other one transcludes to. (In any case, this discussion seems to have become the edit request by default.) --Super Goku V (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin page mover) I can do it if there's consensus, although it could be good to put an alert at the relevant pages (Talk:Twitter, Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk and Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter) to get a wider consensus on what's the best way to write the editnotice. (Edit: Relevant alerts have been sent) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1246274164"