Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	0	18	18
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	0	43	43
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 20 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 8 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 7 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 119 sockpuppet investigations
• 25 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 39 requests for RD1 redaction
• 142 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 24 requested closures
• 102 requests for unblock
• 2 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 21 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 7632 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Cliff Cash 2024-04-29 15:24 2024-06-04 12:22 move Persistent sockpuppetry: extending Ohnoitsjamie Michael D. Aeschliman 2024-04-29 06:44 2024-05-13 06:44 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Anachronist Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia 2024-04-29 03:24 indefinite edit,move Drop prot Pppery White Colombians 2024-04-29 03:17 2024-05-20 03:17 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: straight to WP:ECP due to involvement also of several confirmed accounts El C Government of Iran 2024-04-28 20:25 2025-04-28 20:25 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/IRP ToBeFree Everyone Knows That (Ulterior Motives) 2024-04-28 17:30 2024-04-30 15:20 edit Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: increase requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Draft:The Car Accident Lawyer Group 2024-04-28 08:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Jimfbleak Battle of Ajmer 2024-04-28 06:42 2024-05-05 06:42 move Don't move an article being discussed at an AFD discussion Liz Khymani James 2024-04-27 21:35 2025-04-27 21:35 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Minouche Shafik 2024-04-27 18:35 indefinite edit,move oops, accidentally full-protected Daniel Case User:Travism121212/Privacy law - Group D 2024-04-27 06:36 2024-05-04 06:36 move Stop moving this article around. Submit to WP:AFC for review Liz Travism121212/Privacy law 2024-04-26 22:17 2024-05-03 22:17 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Connecting Humanity 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Mirna El Helbawi 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C User:Samory Loukakou/Erin Meyer 2024-04-26 18:29 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD 24 Oras 2024-04-26 18:25 2024-06-26 18:25 move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD Nasimi Aghayev 2024-04-26 17:17 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: sorry, WP:GS/AA, that is (so many AAs!) El C Atrocity propaganda 2024-04-26 17:09 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR, WP:PIA and others, I'm sure El C Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 April 2024 – present) 2024-04-26 16:49 indefinite edit,move and it continues... Robertsky Beit Hanoun 2024-04-26 14:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AELOG/2024#PIA Malinaccier Rangiya Municipal Board 2024-04-26 13:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by sock of Rang HD Dennis Brown Siege of Chernihiv 2024-04-26 12:40 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR Filelakeshoe Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer) 2024-04-26 03:31 indefinite move Repeated article moves despite recent RM discussion Liz Carlos Handy 2024-04-26 00:14 2025-04-26 00:14 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States 2024-04-25 22:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Israa University (Palestine) 2024-04-25 17:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Blu del Barrio 2024-04-25 17:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Daniel Case Gaza Strip mass graves 2024-04-25 17:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Red Phoenix

Closure review of the Skeptical Inquirer RSN RfC

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

---

Last month the RfC on SI's reliability at RSN (archived thread) was closed. Since then there have been concerns at WT:RSP (thread) that the wording of the close is too vague to provide meaningful understanding of the consensus when dealing with the source's reliability in discussions and/or listing at RSP.

The bolded text in the closure was I believe that the discussion establishes a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy, which really doesn't mean anything, while various parts of the close mentioned the source's area of expertise without mentioning which area this is. As Newslinger summarized, [s]ince the closing statement does not specify the topic areas (e.g. general topics vs. politics) or aspects (e.g. staff vs. contributors) of the source that the options apply to, it is up to us to interpret the closing statement and the rest of the RfC in a way that would fit the format of this list. It has been a month since the closer (Eggishorn) has been active, so me and other editors believe it is in the interest of the community that the close be reviewed and reworded to be clearer (or if need be overturned).

Concerns were brought up in the closer's talk page that the close had served as a WP:SUPERVOTE (thread), but I will not comment on that as a party to the Arbcom case. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn, to be reclosed by a more active editor. Generally, if an editor wants to close a discussion they need to be available to clarify the close, and to address concerns about the close. As this close needs additional clarification and Eggishorn is not sufficiently active to provide it the close should be overturned on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  "by a more active editor" sounds rather too much like nonsense to my ears; they were certainly active enough at the time of the close, and they replied on their talk page at the time. There is no requirement for closers to be indefinitely available afterwards: should we also overturn all closures made by editors which are since inactive, "on procedural grounds"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  In this case, editors are uncertain how to implement the close; in general, closers should be active long enough to address any timely requests for clarification that are made - I note that the closer agreed to provide such clarification a month ago, but due to inactivity has not been able to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  With all due respect, I'd restrict the critique to the substance of the close; I think that has merit. I share RandomCanadian's qualms about reading in an "activity requirement" to closing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  You make a good point; my issue with the close is that it is too vague to be implemented - my references to activity were due to the belief that the vagueness could have been addressed through clarification by the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  As an addition to BilledMammal's comment, I didn't bring the closure here because I wanted the close to favor my vote, but rather because we have waited a whole month for the closure to be clarified. Without that clarification the close is genuinely meaningless. What does use [...] with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy mean apart from "This is a source, which you can use. Sources are used in Wikipedia according to policies. Follow those policies when using this source." What policies? What was the consensus in the discussion regarding BLP sourcing policies affecting the source's use? MEDRS? Editorial oversight and WP:QS? It was clear in the discussion that there was disagreement among editors as to how those policies apply to SI. As the closer did not address those disagreements we all leave the discussion feeling like our perspective is backed by consensus, even if it is not. I think that SI is a QS outside its coverage of skepticism, so should I act in discussions regarding the source arguing that is the consensus? I mean after all is WP:V not existing sourcing and content policy? That is why clarification from the closer is needed and as he has not provided such clarification this closure review is necessary. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 19:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  I do AGF that you didn't raise this in order to get your way on it; you weren't a major "partisan" in the ArbCom case. Sometimes, Wikipedia just doesn't provide an algorithmic formula for evaluating sources. As you note, "there was disagreement among editors as to how those policies apply to SI." There may, perhaps, not have been a consensus about it that a closer could elucidate without making a supervote. Let's see if such disagreements really do lead to ongoing problems, and we can always re-discuss the issue if need be. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  I've struck a sentence because I just learned from below that the user is someone who, under a previous username, was the subject of a finding and a reminder in the ArbCom case. This decreases somewhat my feelings of AGF regarding the exchange that follows. I don't want to re-litigate the case, or the exchange below, but I do think that there is quoting of the RfC close here that is presented out of context. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  If there was no consensus for how the policies apply to SI then the close should have explicitly mentioned no consensus regarding each of those policies. Discussions at RSN are literally about how the policies apply to a source. How I see it the current close is just a way to end the discussion without actually judging consensus in the discussion. The fact that the closer mentioned strength of arguments without even outlining said arguments means we can't even critique how they evaluated points brought up in the discussion. It is about as substance-less a close as one can give in three paragraphs and does not clarify the consensus in the RfC at all, in my opinion. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  The reference to "strength of arguments" was made in finding that there was a consensus against options 3 and 4. The close goes on to say: The discussion below as a whole makes it clear that usage of this source is subject to qualification in the same way that all sources are qualified. It is impossible to determine a priori whether a particular usage will be contextually acceptable or unaceptable but the discussion below endorses our existing general guidelines on source usage. That's a clear and affirmative statement of consensus that the usage is subject to evaluation on a case-by-case basis. It's not a finding that there was consensus to select some particular subset of policies and guidelines to evaluate this particular source, and it's not clear that a different closer would have discovered a consensus for such a special rule. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  I see it as a clear and affirmative statement that PAGs on sources exist. That's really all it does.

  • The discussion below as a whole makes it clear that usage of this source is subject to qualification in the same way that all sources are qualified. - I'd be terribly surprised if this source was not subject to the same standards as all other sources on Wikipedia.
  • It is impossible to determine a priori whether a particular usage will be contextually acceptable or unaceptable [...] - Correct, but I'm not sure anyone assumed otherwise. There are wide topic areas (e.g. negative BLP coverage, MEDRS, etc.) where uses fall into a similar context and additional considerations apply but the scope of the RfC never was particular usages.
  • but the discussion below endorses our existing general guidelines on source usage - A finding otherwise would imply the RSN RfC has power to overturn guidelines such as WP:RS, which it does not nor did anyone make that point in the RfC.

  Additionally, no arguments were described in finding that consensus against 3 and 4. It is also a bit problematic to me that the close declined to make any distinction at all between marginal and general reliability (The dichotomy between Options 1 and 2, however, is more of an apparent divergence than an actual one.) when there is currently community consensus for the existence of that distinction. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse Seems like the OP here (and other editors) is asking the closer to make a general binding ruling on when and where usage of the source is acceptable, when this is of course a matter of case by case like with any source (i.e. even such generally reliable sources like the BBC or press agencies like Reuters are not "100% use without any other consideration"; and of course with academic journals there's the subtle difference between primary sources like case studies and secondary ones). The closer correctly explained the reasons why they did not provide such a ruling (it would indeed appear to be a SUPERVOTE, as that was not the question that was asked at the RfC and many of the participants did not express a very detailed opinion on that), and I see no reason to overturn the close on those grounds. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'll agree that the close seems somewhat unclear and could use with a rewording or additional clarification of its main holding (i.e. the source is acceptable for use on Wikipedia, but general considerations which apply to other sources similarly apply to it, including in BLP or other more complicated contexts [for ex., to take one from the discussion, when the source is reporting on a lawsuit it is involved in it is obviously not an independent source - but such obvious concerns apply to other sources as well: the NYT reporting on a lawsuit it is involved in would similarly not be an ideal source]), but on its merits the close seems a reasonable reading of the discussion and of policy, so hence the "endorse". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn I appreciate the emphasis on generally reliable and on the notion that all sources depend on context, but this was a step too far.

  There is a problem with editors treating RSP as a rule, not just advice or guidance (we ought to make the disclaimer with a 72-point font so that even the blind could see it). Obviously Eggishorn is qualified and he was making a very difficult close, but even very experienced editors may fail and I think this was the case. That is to say, the problem was not the merits of his approach but the result and its practical implication. If we have another RSN discussion on Skeptical Inquirer, we would inevitably see quarreling of editors about the TRUE_MEANING™ of that close (and you know, whose truth is truer), because essentially telling people "look up WP:RS", to which the third paragraph boils down, doesn't help anyone if people have different understanding of how RS applies in practice and different set of outlets they are ready to consider RS. We shouldn't give a pretext for editors to create timesinks. The four-option template shouldn't end in a no-consensus result or without a clear result. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I was pinged to the WT:RSP discussion that led here, and I expressed some concerns there: [1]. I recognize that the close had some significant shortcomings: one has to read most of the way through to get past "why I think I can make this close" to get to the actual description of consensus, and the closer has not been available to answer questions. I think the close, as written, amounts to a lot of need to evaluate the appropriateness of the source on a case-by-case basis. ("It is impossible to determine a priori whether a particular usage will be contextually acceptable or unacceptable...") Some editors, however, very much want a more specific prescription for when to use or not use the source. And there is a legitimate concern that editors who were dubious of the source during the ArbCom case may be looking for a close that better reaffirms their position. So, if some brave soul were to step forward and re-close the discussion, there will be a rock-and-hard-place dilemma of making the reading of consensus more specific but not too much more specific. I think it may be best to leave things as they are, for the time being, and see how "case-by-case" works out in practice over the months ahead. If it leads to a mess, then there could be a renewed discussion, based on that experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm going to update my comment to specify Endorse. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse close per RandomCanadian. There is no compelling evidence that the close was flawed. That some editors, including the OP, would have preferred a different outcome from the RfC is clear, and seems to me at the heart of this request. I further endorse Tryptofish's suggestion that we leave things as they are and proceed in good faith with the "case-by-case" strategy. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I'm a bit puzzled by the comment opening this thread. The statement in the close about a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer is informative, not vacuous: the close pointed out that options 3 and 4 of the standard set drew less support than options 1 and 2. I don't buy the procedural argument that a close is somehow devalued because the closer is taking a wiki-break; nor do I find the statement of the close unactionably vague. Rebooting the whole discussion just to get a line we could lazily plug into WP:RSP doesn't seem like a good use of anybody's time. XOR'easter (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  XOR'easter I agree with you that 3 and 4 gained less support than 1 and 2. I don't think anyone is disputing that fact. Option 2 is Marginally reliable for supporting statements of fact, or additional considerations apply. Which additional considerations apply in this case, backed by consensus, as specified in the close? Also, how can a close indicate support for two different options that are not equal (general and marginal reliability), in your opinion? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 19:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn - Or at least clarify. Needlessly vague and meandering, there is a big difference between option 1 and 2 and how we can use the source on the pedia. From what I can tell it did not address many of the concerns voiced in both the pro and con arguments. Specifically its use for BLP articles, other than stating we should follow our core policies. Which is unhelpful in this situation. Given the amount of discussion and overall participation paired with a whole arbcom case on the subject we need something with a more reasoned and thought out close. Anything else is honestly insulting to those who did participate and give their opinions since they seem to be largely ignored, that compounded with the closers refusal to answer any legitimate questions on it does not sit well for something so contentious. Also I don't think anyone is asking to reboot the discussion to be lazy and plug it into RSP, that is nonsense, what is being asked is someone to actually evaluate the discussion that already happened. Finally is a close cannot be deciphered, does not answer the question asked, or ignored the arguments it is flawed as it does not set out to do what a close of an RFC is meant to do, which is to interpret consensus on a topic. I honestly don't care which way it goes, but I do care that we actually have something to point to going forward, this close will not give any clarity as it can be used by either say to say "well see I am right!". PackMecEng (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse basically per RandomCanadian and XOR’easter. Pretty sure I can decipher it and although I can see others would have preferred a different outcome, that’s not a good reason to overturn it. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller: Can you explain your understanding of the close? BilledMammal (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn. There is compelling evidence that the close was flawed: that it didn't actually summarize whether or not there was a consensus for any particular option that was offered. If it were to simply say that there were no consensus between Option 1 and Option 2, or if it were to find consensus for Option 1 but also that it is considered a biased source, or some other consensus, then it would at least be capable of summarizing the discussion. If you look at a closing summary that doesn't actually address the RfC question at all, on the other hand, you've found a substantially flawed close. If somebody closed a deletion discussion with "there is a consensus to apply WP:Deletion policy to this article" it would be seen as patently ridiculous. As Ixtal notes above, closes are almost entirely meaningless without actually summarizing the discussion and ascertaining consensus on the RfC prompt. Failing to do so makes for a bad close. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse. Close seems reasonable given the RfC input; sometimes discussion results don't fit neatly into a dumbed-down WP:RSP-esque format, even though as Doug notes "others would have preferred a different outcome". Note that the OP here is the user formerly known as A. C. Santacruz. Alexbrn (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Why does OP’s former username matter? I don’t really see how this would affect the question of whether or not the close was a bad. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    Because an innocent onlooker (like me, initially) might think this is a request from a new, uninvolved editor, rather than from the one who was maybe more partisan & involved than any other in that RfC and its environs. Alexbrn (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    Let me rephrase: what does the editor have to do with the substance of the arguments regarding why the close was bad? You seem to be listing the editor's former username as a way to support your endorsement, which feels odd from a policy standpoint. We don't tent to discard arguments just beacause of the person making them. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    "You seem to be listing the editor's former username as a way to support your endorsement" ← No. But knowing who is writing something is useful context that can inform understanding. How, you decide. Alexbrn (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    And how does it inform your understanding in this case? I'm struggling to see why the user's former username is relevant; would you be willing to help me understand? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    I'm not answering for Alexbrn, but I'll point to my own comment above, where I struck something I wrote before I found out about this (thanks, Alexbrn, for pointing it out). The username, per se, is not relevant for me, but it's very relevant to find that I have to take "I didn't bring the closure here because I wanted the close to favor my vote" with some, well, skepticism. There was definitely some history going back to the ArbCom case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    Tryptofish and Alexbrn, I did mention in my initial comment on this thread I was a party to the case and openly disclose the renaming at the start of my user page. While I would hope you look at the close objectively and in isolation when judging it during review, I can see how one would wish to consider their personal bias against me an important component of the close in-and-of-itself and seek to return to the battleground behaviour that was characteristic of the dispute. I just don't think it makes for a strong argument in or is beneficial to the review, is all. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    I do not have a personal bias against you, and I was never a party to battleground behavior. Indeed, it was you who pinged me to ask that I initiate the discussion here; you also noted that it might have been problematic for you to initiate it: [2]. It's really a simple thing: if you had been more transparent about who you were, I wouldn't have felt misled. (I shouldn't have to research your user page to find it out. I just assumed this was someone else, whom I had not seen in the ArbCom case, and I just figured that this person might have made an opening statement at the case.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

    Please WP:AGF. I also note that I consider the close too vague to understand which position it favours. BilledMammal (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

    Of the four options on offer "It is overwhelmingly clear by both the number and strength of arguments that the discussion participants rejected the latter two options". So, somewhere in the area of Option 1 or 2. I don't think it's reasonable, or even possible, given the discussion, for the closer to have decided on precisely 1 or 2. Alexbrn (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Alexbrn, Given your reading of the close how would you summarize it? PackMecEng (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't. That's rather the point of "sometimes discussion results don't fit neatly into a dumbed-down WP:RSP-esque format". Ultimately, there's no prohibition on using the source, but it should be used in a WP:PAG-aware manner. That the enthusiasts at WP:RSP have invented non-policy concepts like WP:GREL, and like arguing about colour schemes and icons, should no be allowed to backwash into closers' abilities to write non-simplistic closes, not on editors' abilities to intrepret them WP:CLUEfully. Alexbrn (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  See that is the issue, if the statement of the close is that we should follow policy it has no value. Obviously we follow policy, that is why we have it. Every source is subject to that. Lets ignore RSP for the moment, that is not relevant to this discussion, and focus on what we are supposed to do with the information that close provided. Given your summation, it seems less than helpful, and certainly less than required given the sheer amount of information covered in the RFC itself. That is the core issue at play here, while we do not need a simple consensus is on option 1 or 2, we do need more information that accurately summarizes community consensus and the best way to apply that which, I am afraid, this close clearly lacks. PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  We can't ignore RSP because the RfC was explicitly framed to place SI in an RSP category (WP:GREL, WP:MREL etc.). It doesn't fit. I don't have any difficulty understanding the consensus that we "use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy", even if it doesn't fit into an RSP box. Alexbrn (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  Did... anybody in the discussion actually argue that it doesn't fit into either some RSP box and/or that it was between two RSP boxes? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  There were some "x, maybe y" type comments. But once a RfC has got going with people selecting from a menu of four options, !voting with an option that's not "on the menu" is a way to get that !vote ignored; so people don't. As I said at the time, the RfC was a bad idea. The way it was done compounded the problem: sources like SI, and the issues around it, really do not fit into a "four option" template rooted in discussion of news sources, so as ScottishFinnishRadish observed this kind of general RfC was not appropriate. Alexbrn (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  I was trying to not take part in this, because as I also observed, We don't need the same group of people having the same discussion again. I think the result should be overturned specifically because there are concerns and questions about the close that were not addressed, and remain unaddressed due to the inactivity of the closer. I can't say if the problem with the close is also based on what the closer stated, because we haven't gotten to the point of getting clarification. Because of that, we're left to interpret the close as written, which simply isn't great. I also think Mhawk10's statement above, If somebody closed a deletion discussion with "there is a consensus to apply WP:Deletion policy to this article" it would be seen as patently ridiculous. is fairly spot on. It's unfortunate that the close didn't actually address the RFC, because what we'll be left with is even more discussions among the same group of editors about the same things over and over again.

  Reading the whole close, in my eyes it's basically saying, "There is no consensus on the reliability of SI. Most respondents believed it was reliable for WP:PARITY use, and in areas of its expertise. Many respondents expressed concerns about the use of SI to make controversial statements about BLPs and for statements on medical topics. Opinions sourced to SI should always be attributed. Editors are reminded to familiarize themselves with WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:PARITY, and WP:FRINGE when using SI as a source." The close, however, dodges the specifics by going with Various commenters made clear statements about use cases they saw as not acceptable - areas outside the source's area of expertise or opinion usages or specific articles later thrown into question.

  Basically, a question was asked via RFC, there was no consensus on the answer, so saying I believe that the discussion establishes a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy. is a cop-out that doesn't respect the responses that dozens of editors gave to a specific question because it ignores the actual question being responded to.

  I don't actually generally edit in the areas where SI is used, and my attention was drawn to it because of the BLPN threads that have popped up around it, so the close doesn't much bother me one way or another. I'd love to go to every article where we're sourcing negative information on BLPs to yellow journalism from a source that clearly doesn't have consensus as being generally reliable, but it's not really worth the time of having another RFC with the same people about the same source. And that's the biggest problem with the close as it stands, it's just passing the buck and setting up yet another one of those clusterfuck discussions with diminishing returns, as uninvolved editors don't really seem to give a shit. We got the most participation we're going to see on the topic in that RFC, and it was summarily ignored in the close, and any further discussions are going to be back to the same group of editors with the same opinions divided down the middle.

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  That sums it up pretty well. In the not to distant future I will add an RSP entry to reflect the findings of this talk. We can point to this discussion as well as the RFC, since this discussion is a reasonable clarification on the subject since the closer is no longer active. PackMecEng (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  It would be quite a bad idea for someone who participated in the RFC to do that. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that seems ill-advised. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  A lot of people participated, its fine. Any of you are welcome to do it as well. PackMecEng (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn​​ or clarify per PackMecEng. I don't think this is so much to ask of the closer to avoid another ARBCOM case about the Wiki group linked to this publication. I oppose any close of this discussion with the current participants as representative of community consensus. CutePeach (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Discussion

I have requested closure of this review. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this was a premature closure request. This discussion should run for 30 days, and I think it needs participation from more uninvolved editors to be representative of community consensus and effect any change on RSP. CutePeach (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

CutePeach there had been no meaningful discussion in 2 weeks. An active closure request does not prevent editors from participating and I left it up to the closer to decide when the discussion is stalr enough for closing. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 09:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Close reviews do not have any set timeframe and so they should generally be closed when consensus is clear (SNOW) or discussion has stopped. I should also note that RfCs themselves don't require a full 30 days (and in theory if discussion is still regular at the end of 30 days could go longer too) according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Duration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Understood. I still think this discussion needs wider participation from the community. We need to avoid a situation where a small group of editors exploit the lack of participation from the wider community to push through their agenda slant our coverage, particularly of BLPs. CutePeach (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know any additional ways to increase participation, but if you have any I'd encourage you to go ahead, CutePeach. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Where should the counting begin for Wikipedia:Silence and consensus ?

In a hypothetical situation, there could be two editors, one who tries to use the talk page and the other who reverts and stays off the talk page. If the individual using the talk page wants to invoke Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, where would the count begin for the seven days? Do the seven days stated in Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus start from the last talk page comment where the other individual is pinged and won't respond, or do they start from seven days after the last revert?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Whatever is longest. It is not a count down. If you have to ask it has not been long enough, or maybe its just time for both to stop editing on that article/subject. Jeepday (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• Asking a "hypothetical" when it's not is bad form. Quick review of contributions shows this question is related to a very specific content dispute. Seek a third opinion or start an RfC. In fact, WP:NOTSILENCE seems to have been met already and no timeframe of inaction by the other editor invalidates their concerns or prevents them from re-stating them if you add the edit back in.Slywriter (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, where are you reading any mandatory seven day waiting period? Wikipedia:Silence and consensus makes no mention of such a rule, it merely notes that if no one disagrees with you, then no one disagrees with you. The functional text of that page is the phrase "until disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)" Being reverted is sufficient to establish that consensus is in doubt. If you're just asking as a general idea "how long is long enough to wait after I ping someone or notify them on their talk page that their input is needed?", I generally check a person's contribs list. If they have been active sufficiently, and aren't responding over a couple of days of active editing, I assume they had the chance to read any necessary comments. Depending on the depth of the dispute, pinging may not be as useful as directly leaving a message on their user talk page. Best practice is to make sure they've been given a legitimate chance to respond. If the others choose not to do so, then proceed. If they come back and say "hey, wait a minute..." then self-revert and give them a chance to discuss. Also, per Slywriter, there is no time limit on objections; you don't get to say "you missed your opportunity because you didn't respond fast enough" as though you get to ignore objections. Once people dispute something, take it seriously no matter when it happens. --Jayron32 16:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Silence and consensus is only an essay, and a rather questionable one. And it doesn't seem to mention a time period. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Jeepday and Johnbod, thank you for explaining.

Slywriter, I've never started an RfC or a third opinion. I have voted in RfCs and once was rather active at AfD, but to the best of my memory have never participated in a TO process. I am not sure these or similar formal processes in general would resolve such a situation because an editor can just refuse to agree to an RfC or TO. The form of resolution I've seen in the past is where after enough time, a third party steps in and the disagreement is resolved in what ever direction the third party says. Once earlier I asked a general question which also pertained to a specific situation, and did not get reprimanded for that. I have come across the pattern of one person discussing and the other person reverting from time to time over the years, not merely in the present context or topic, and not necessarily involving me. This isn't a concern I have about just one specific article. If I state that something exists in the abstract, I hope that does not get understood to indicate that it doesn't also (possibly) exist in the concrete.

Jayron32, I remember someone stating that seven days was a safely long enough period to assume WP:SILENCE, but sure enough that isn't on the WP:SILENCE page. I can't remember the context, maybe it was an inference from PROD which is formally set at seven days. I've wondered about the general idea too; thank you for explaining about the several days. I would like to acknowledge disputes seriously, but wonder how to do it without a talk page discussion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why you would say an RfC isn't binding. They establish community consensus and any editor editing against that consensus will be looked at poorly by the community(and admins). My concern with presenting a hypothetical when actual controversy exists is the specific facts may have an impact on the guidance given including directing to a notice board better suited to handle the matter, along with concern that the community giving advice on such hypothetical would lead to you pointing to this AN thread as confirming your position and being used to forestall another editor's concerns by saying AN supported my position, when the community hasn't actually weighed in on the specifics. With all that said, an editor repeatedly reverting without engaging in meaningful discussion could be a behavioral issue as listed in disruptive editing Slywriter (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

For RfCs, can't an editor just refuse to give consent to an RfC to keep it from being held in the first place (in a lower traffic talk page)? And if I were to go ahead with an RfC without consent, I'm concerned that would count as tendentious.

"...AN thread as confirming your position..."--I actually went and did that once, but I forget what the topic was. It didn't make a difference in the outcome though. So that is a reasonable concern. I did not intend on doing that this time around in any of the articles (spanning more than one topic) with on-going or recently stale disputes I can think of--for a variety of reasons that I don't need to get into here. Johnbod's comment about WP:SILENCE being questionable rings a bell. By asking an abstract question about WP:SILENCE which relates to concrete problems, I am able to get a handle on the questionable aspect of WP:SILENCE--before I decide what to do.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Refusing to participate in the RfC would almost certainly constitute WP:SILENT being met and unless you started an utterly frivilous one, the community would never take a good faith RfC as disruptive editing. As for low traffic pages (and really all RfCs), a neutral notice about the RfC can be shared with related projects to encourage wider participation. Additionally, some editors are signed up to recieve RfC notifications.Slywriter (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining; I understood it wrongly.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Where should the counting begin for Wikipedia:Silence and consensus ?

 – More suitable venue for discussion to continue, unhampered by the topic ban proposal. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:28ED:E3D4:1C9:B47 (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover's behavior

While Epiphyllumlover was not kind enough to notify me of this discussion on my Talk page, some IP (thankfully) did.

Epiphyllumlover's Talk page WP:BLUDGEONING has gotten to the point that I have seriously considered asking for a topic ban, but I don't have experience with those. That behavior makes it a horrible waste of time to even engage with an editor who clearly cares more about pushing their POV that Abortion is not safe rather than improving articles. Others have said that as well: [3]

This behavior has been occurring on the talk page of the Abortion article for almost three years now, but they have now carried it over the the Roe v Wade article, which is what this "hypothetical" discussion is about.

Even after an RfC [4] was started on the subject (safety and Aborion), and it was closed with 12 arguing yes and Epiphyllumlover and one other arguing no, Epiphyllumlover stated that they would be ok with closing the RfC if we agreed to Epiphyllumlover's 15 conditions.[5].

After the RfC [6]was closed by the initiator, (15 February 2022) Epiphyllumlover has continued to harass the initiator (User:NightHeron) that this was an improper close:

2022-03-21 "My rationale for unreverting is that the RfC was closed by the opener. In order to account for this unorthodox procedure, belated comments should not be penalized by reverting, but should instead be discussed separately from the RfC."

2022-04-20 "I am concerned about taking it to RfC given the circumstances of the last one: an overly broad and vague question, respondents who appear to come to the RfC from a single noticeboard, and you both opened and closed the RfC instead of waiting for an independent closer."

2022-05-05 "The recent RfC did not follow the rule against self-closing, so it shouldn't be considered binding...."

This continuous type of behavior has led me clearly understand that this editor is not interested in discussion, only attempting to get content they want into articles (at least in the Abortion space, I haven't seen their contributions elsewhere).---Avatar317^(talk) 22:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the abortion talk page, Epiphyllumlover is exhibiting textbook WP:IDHT, wikilawyering about the RfC close for months despite consensus clearly against them (to be clear, if I were to close that RfC I would give the "no" arguments essentially zero weight since their arguments are not based on any guidelines/policies). I think Epiphyllumlover is very close to an abortion topic ban. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't even go to the main Abortion page (didn't seem likely that WP:SILENCE would ever be valid there), which is far worse conduct than the smaller page in the same topic area that I suspected the hypothetical was about. Mostly disappointed in wasting good-faith discussion of RfCs with someone who clearly knows about them and is looking to wiki-lawyer their beliefs into article space, however sympathetic to those views I may be.

Side note, can the archive box of the talk page be modified to show the archive pages? It was very difficult to find the February RfC, ended up using page history.Slywriter (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The RfC is here [7]; I don't know how to modify the sidebox, but the archives are also listed at the very top above where the archive search box is. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There are two more examples of Epiphyllumlover WP:BLUDGEONing, WP:BADGERing and WP:SEALIONing the process here and here. Both are pages are about the abortion question. I've been trying to assume good faith for several days now, but he continues to repeat the same things over and over so so much. I haven't had a chance to review his other behavior but I have felt for a couple of days now that his inquiries into WP:SILENCE are because he is hoping that I will drop the stick by giving up and being silent so that he can make the undue edits that he has been planning all this time. He appears to be a WP:SPA and since he hasn't been editing on the mainspace of the page I have been hesitant to bring this issue to the noticeboard. I too think a topic ban is worth considering in this matter. Thank you to the other editors for standing up. Kire1975 (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Kire1975, I dropped the matter after my May 17 comment on the 2022 abortion rights protests page because I realized it would not be accepted. I am still not sure if the other editors will accept my proposed sentence, reject it, or change it on the Dobbs page, regardless of me being topic-banned. Possibly what happens with the text depends on whether there are any future, similar incidents or not.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The matter Epiphyllumlover was not dropped from the 2022 abortion rights protests page. It was copied and moved to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization page where your proposal was "rejected" by the evidence more than half a dozen times yet he just comes back repeating the same unreliable and unverifiable things over and over and over and over again. His failure (or refusal) to acknowledge this part is indicative of his bad faith behavior that needs to be addressed by the topic ban. Kire1975 (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I posted it at 2022 abortion rights at 03:24, 16 May 2022 and then at Dobbs at 04:12, 16 May 2022, before anyone had commented at 2022 abortion rights. The first response at Dobbs was at 04:47, 16 May 2022, it was advice that maybe the content should be at 2022 abortion rights. The editor must have been unaware that I had already posted it at 2022 abortion rights. Then later you weighed in against it at 2022 abortion rights. Later still, at 15:38, 17 May 2022, another editor at 2022 abortion rights said this was a discussion for the Dobbs page, not this one. Following that, I dropped the issue on the 2022 abortion rights and discussed it on Dobbs only. When I discussed it on Dobbs, I wrote a comment starting, "Whichever article it goes in..." on 18:31, 17 May 2022.

This and subsequent comments of mine on Dobbs were on the basis that I was indifferent to which article it eventually went in. I was instead feeling out the best wording and sources in a dialectic manner; I thought your 02:15, 18 May 2022 post was especially helpful. You seem to think that me testing out possible sources equates me advocating adding it to a specific article; rather I was looking for criticism to guide the writing of the sentence.

I advocated adding it to the Dobbs article during one comment following this, on , on 22:56, 18 May 2022, because another editor made a sentence which seemed similar in its general topic. But I did not press the issue after you rejected it. I tried to get a good, unobjectionable text, and found a local TV news source and another letter written by officials. I asked, "Can you accept this text?" looking to see if you approved it as a a suitable wikitext. I understood that even if you liked it, it might not go on the Dobbs article for other reasons. Now that I think about it, maybe the best place for adding a carefully worded, Wikipedia-compliant and referenced sentence is neither article, but instead April 8 or 2022.

If discussing this topic was really such a problem, I wouldn't have been given the sort of advice I was given from two separate editors thinking independently on two separate talk pages. Instead of saying it belonged somewhere else, they would have told me it has no place anywhere, sitewide.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

There you go again with an extraordinarily detailed, selectively edited, wall of text. Making it about whether I liked it and other editors approved of it and not that a story that cannot be verified by reliable, independent sources has no place on wikipedia is just another demonstration of the premise that you intend to wear us all out until we are silent long enough for you to post your civil pov. Kire1975 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The subject matter we are commenting about was partly verified and partly not verified.

The specific group's existence and exactly which events should be attributed to it are not verified. I did not understand this at first, but after others (including you) looked over the sources I understood it.

That there was an incident of arson and graffiti in Madison, Wisconsin on May 8 was verified by reliable and independent sources; likewise it is verifiable that specific public officials made comments about it. At least some of the comments or letters from public officials were reported by independent sources; although I have not checked the reliability of articles about the public letters against the list of disallowed sources.

I accept that it still may be WP:UNDUE to place a mention of the May 8 incident on either Dobbs or 2022 abortion protests. Before (or "if", given that it seems I will soon be topic banned) I put a line about the incident onto May 8,2022, I will ask on the respective talk pages if others think this has a place on wikipedia, or if it is unverifiable. The incident is already described at Wisconsin Family Council. I will not badger people about it if they disagree and say it has no place on the website. I will also be good to the Dobbs talk page by not using it as a sandbox for writing things which pertain to another article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

You say you dropped the discussion on the protest page and that it may be undue on the Dobbs page here, but you haven't given any indication of that on the talk pages. Kire1975 (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

This is from the Talk:Abortion page:

It seems an incredibly poor idea to disrupt a talk page to try and get an employer to reveal themselves. For starters, it seems likely most of the time it won't work. Even if someone is really paying people to comment, most will be smart enough to avoid that page like the plague, not because they're on to anyone, but for the simple reason if you're going to pay someone secretly you want to minimise connections to yourself. But also, frankly people making undisclosed payments to editors just comment must be very rare by itself. But one of the paid editors contacting some other random person other of the blue asking for payment to comment sounds like the sort of thing so rare that you're probably more likely to win lotto. Far more likely such an editor is either making crap up with some dumb scheme to get paid or is trolling. Either way, and this gets to the heart of the issue, your wasting other editors time by disrupting a talk page. I mean even if the implausible scenario really is true that an editor being paid to comment really did contact you to ask for payment and you actually have a decent chance of getting the employer to reveal themselves, it still seems that disrupting a taLk page is simply not worth it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

By now, I don't think this particular employer was serious about minimizing connections with the employee. It seems to me the employer enjoyed weighing in on talk pages and felt good having an ally. The employee was more of a buddy being paid to be around and supportive rather than as a pawn in some sort of article domination scheme.

Now I know, don't I? Editors on this particular talk page were motivated and willing to carry on longer sorts of conversations. In general I did not expect the editors I personally talked with most of the time on the talk page to implement the changes I proposed directly. Yet I thought that somehow they might be able to modify it on their own anyway, or might become willing to compromise if another editor would just join me out-of-the-blue. The latter was something I hoped for but generally didn't happen.

The paid editor contacted me first off-wiki in response to a paid gig offer (also off-wiki) I had put out; which was to see if he could translate something from English into his native language for me. (The translation was unrelated to the topic here.) During the interview I asked him about his experience and he said he had prior experience on wikipedia. He shared his username so I could verify his experience in translating. I checked his edit history and was underwelmed because it was a bunch of talk page comments which he copy-pasted into Wikipedia. He lacked the skills to do the extensive sort of translation I was looking for, so I never hired him. Rather than do serious translating, he was interested in the same sort of employment situation from me. I saved a screenshot of the messaging conversation with the employee if you need to verify it somehow, but would need to censor it slightly to protect the identities of the guilty because of my concern about retaliation. I would also need to share it in a private way somehow, such as via one of the chat relays.

The typical conversational pattern on the Abortion talk page went like this: 1. Another poster starts it, maybe with some discussion before I come around. 2. Me being supportive of the other poster 3. Others challenging me 4. Me trying to argue or compromise one way or the other, or find sources others will accept. 5. The others appear friendly, though in disagreement, so I continue discussion. 6. The others seem to get tired of it, and start raising what seems to be extra issues (from my perspective) and would also cite various policy or essay pages against me, with tone darkening. 7. Lastly, I continue trying to make dialog but then give up, or an RfC is started which would not end in my favor. To get the employer/employee to show up, I needed it to both get to an RfC and at least be somewhat close in the voting, or for it to be the sort of conversation which had multiple editors on both sides with a larger number of newer people weighing in. (So when the phase of the discussion got to #5, my hopes would be raised.) The article and talk page was never on my watch list, so I would drop in from time to time; sometimes there was a gap between the initial poster raising a concern and my attempt to support it somehow. So as you can imagine this took a lot more time than I would originally anticipate.

I also spent time running the various other editors on the page through a tool, looking for relationships. The tool showed me that all editor interaction replacements could be explained by other editors coming to the page from a particular noticeboard, but not any other sockpuppet relationships aside from who the sockmaster to the employee was. I am new to identifying socks, so there was a learning curve and it took more time than it would for someone who was experienced in that sort of thing.

I was afraid of reporting it directly because the employee has my real name, and I was concerned about revenge. I hoped that I could both identify the sockmaster/employer and find a second employee. That way I would be able to report the second employee along with the employer without fear of retaliation. Now it seems likely there wasn't a second employee to be found. I felt like my time was wasted since neither turned up on the page again. On the other hand, I feel like I learned how use the editor interaction tool to find socks, so I gained some experience at least for the time and effort.

As I learned what the expectations were for dialog, I made sure to avoid actually starting the talk page discussions myself because I thought that would be disruptive or tendentious. Instead tried to support things others started in the hopes that the initial poster and I could work together. Yet typically the initial poster would not continue responding, which meant it didn't work. If you go through the talk page archives, you will see that I tended weigh in on other's conversations rather than arbitrarily re-opening identical issues to ones already in the archive.--An exception to this was on occasions where I had found new research/sources for others to consider and thought that others might use it on the article.

Even for the list of 15 changes (which was as an offer in exchange for agreeing to end an RfC early), I hoped that the other editor would select certain ones and make them as a compromise. I thought with a larger list of changes, the likelihood that some of the items in the list would be acceptable as compromises would be larger. If you look through the list, you will see that most of them are rather small, so a compromise was not an unrealistic hope. At the same time I hoped the RfC would continue for my sock investigation, but when it was obvious there was no interest in compromise, I did not insist on keeping the RfC open indefinitely, but instead to follow the normal rule; the RfC was kept open for longer than the rule would have required anyway.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming ("The typical conversational pattern on the Abortion talk page went like this:...") that you have also behaved in another tendentious way exactly as I would characterize but didn't state above: you understand that your preferred statements are against the consensus for the article, so you wait (and hope) that new editors, unfamiliar with the previous discussions, reasoning, and consensus, will come to the talk page and bring up the same issue again. When that invariably happens, and those new editors are explained the reasoning, they stop discussing, but you never do...you try to continue the same failed discussions, over and over...**AND** (to my recollection) this pattern of your behavior has been going on for almost three years now (on the Talk:Abortion page), not ONLY in this one year recently. ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought that Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. I disagree with your statement that I was looking for unfamiliar visitors. I don't think the more transient editors left the page because of the superior explanations so much as other factors. There are many reasons to leave, one being that sometimes multiple days passed between when they posted and when I responded; they might have thought there was no one around who agreed. If they really thought the explanations were superior, they would have indicated as much.

By "new" I meant new for the time being. They could be either new to the article and talk page, or have been past commenters or editors. Some of the discussion topics I participated in were new ones, which despite the extensive history of the page, never had a consensus position.

Many of the regular discussion comments in the talk page archives over the years show a diverse group of opinions, even among editors who are savvy with wikipedia, and I thought some would come back if there was a meaningful discussion; I was pleasantly surprised when it happened. Some of the consensus positions came out of rather dynamic discussions ranging from 90%–10% to roughly 40%–60%. It isn't unrealistic to expect that the result may come out different sometimes, especially for issues where the balance was closer to even. Especially when I saw posts from others I thought there might be a possibility things could come out different.

"pattern of your behavior has been going on for almost three years now"--I disagree that my behavior pattern is the same. I became more active on the talk page in August 2021 after learning about the paid commenter earlier that summer; my longest commenting gap since then was a little over a month. Other gaps were one or two weeks. Before that I was not as significant in the discussions, and there were longer gaps in between my periods of participation on the page. The longest gaps were from September 19, 2019‎ to January 3, 2020 and from November 1 2020 to August 8, 2021. Although I'm not sure it makes any difference, your longest commenting gap during this time was from January 30, 2020‎ to June 12, 2020‎. So your largest gap was between five and six months, while my largest gap was between nine and ten months. If I am not topic banned, which seems doubtful, I will not continue the same pattern on the talk page that you've seen from August 2021 through May 6, 2022; that was me trying to bring out the sock, to figure out who the employer was, and if there were any other employees.

One of the more significant changes in the dynamics on the page during the last three years was that Doc James stopped posting in 2020. His expertise was helpful and he was respected as an authority; this left a social vacuum that has not been filled yet. It would be good if another member of the medical profession editing under his or her own name stepped up to take his place.

I went back over the edit history for the main article page. Some derivation or movement of my edits from January 2020‎ and from June 2020‎ were accepted by the other editors, but my edits in August 2021 were reverted. Since then I have at times proposed text on the talk page. Earlier, in June and July 2019‎, I made two edits, both reverted. I always stated things nicely towards others in my edit summaries, assumed good faith, and did not use all caps to emphasize words.

Do you think the IP editor predicted what your and my responses would be if the IP editor brought us together here? I don't think you like it any more than I do. You and I are both vulnerable to become topics of amusement, and there are better things to do & be. The IP editor from the same geographic location commented in a discussion on the talk page from May 3, 2022 to May 7, 2022; you may interact with the IP editor again and you'll get to decide what to do I guess.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

A recent comment by Epiphyllumlover on their talk page reveals their misunderstanding of topic bans and their unfortunate attitude toward the project: "That topic banning is done for censorship is a rather open secret on Wikipedia." [8] NightHeron (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That was before any of us posted on this noticeboard, and in response to someone else who brought it up on a different talk page before posting on my talk page. I was being friendly by agreeing with another person; not trying to fuel the fire.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Next time I see a similar reverted talk page comment from anyone, I will be better and definitely not link to it in an edit summary so as to not draw attention to it.[9] It looks like you were offering to help someone evade their topic ban because they agree with your politics. Kire1975 (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a saying that misery loves company. Emotional contagion is the closest article I could find for it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Who are you commiserating with here? Kire1975 (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

IP editor 2600..., who seemed friendly--I've never knowingly interacted with the IP editor prior to what you see above.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed TBAN for Epiphyllumlover from Abortion space

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

---

I am proposing a TBAN for user Epiphyllumlover for reasons that can be seen discussed in the above sections[10] (initially started by Epiphyllumlover in response to this edit [11] of mine) and summarized here:

• WP:BLUDGEONING the Talk:Abortion page as well as other abortion related pages. The Bludgeoning was well described by Kire1975 above: "There you go again with an extraordinarily detailed, selectively edited, wall of text. Making it about whether I liked it and other editors approved of it and not that a story that cannot be verified by reliable, independent sources has no place on wikipedia is just another demonstration of the premise that you intend to wear us all out until we are silent long enough for you to post your civil pov."

• As noted in the above discussion, even when an RfC [12] goes against what they want (12-2), they refused to accept it ("I support closing the discussion right away under several [fifteen] conditions from you personally."[13]), and continually[14] harass[15] the closer[16]. ("The recent RfC did not follow the rule against self-closing, so it shouldn't be considered binding.")

• Their continued attempts to add their desired POV additions to Abortion related subjects, such as this huge amount [17] added completely by Epiphyllumlover.

@Epiphyllumlover, Jeepday, Slywriter, Jayron32, Johnbod, Galobtter, Kire1975, Nil Einne, and NightHeron: Pinging everyone who contributed to this thread above.---Avatar317^(talk) 07:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support: I feel that without a topic ban, this user will continue their disruptive behavior, and continue to be a large time waste for the project.---Avatar317^(talk) 07:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support: For reasons stated above, and concurring with especially Galobtter and NightHeron. Epiphyllumlover's last few comments here are replies to me that demonstrate his single purpose is to be "friendly" and "commisserate" with like-minded editors and to wear out anyone he sees getting in his way. He ignores core principles of verifiability, reliability and neutral point of view. He plays WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT every chance he gets. I assumed good faith several times a day for five days here and here. I can't assume good faith, his comments above (11:31, 21 May 2022 and 20:56, 22 May 2022) about dropping the subject on those pages are deliberate, knowing misrepresentations of fact (aka lies). Even he acknowledges that he's not fooling anybody. I am grateful to the others above who already raised the issue of a topic ban before I was aware of this discussion's existence. He has definitely already been a massive time waster and shows no signs of reversing course. Kire1975 (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Responding to Epiphyllumlover's bludgeoning and POV-pushing, for example on the safety of abortion, has been a time sink that does not lead to improvement of articles. NightHeron (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Per my only comment, and the drama that followed. It is time for a separation from this topic. Jeepday (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Other than trying to correct Epiphyllumlover misconceptions about implicit consensus and what it means, I was not at all familiar with this situation, having never worked on the article in question. Reviewing the talk page, however, clearly shows that Epiphyllumlover exhibits classic tendentious editing behavior, and they are clearly clogging up article talk pages, stonewalling against obvious consensus, and generally standing in the way of anyone who might hold differing opinions than they do. I support a topic ban, including page blocks as needed to enforce. --Jayron32 12:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Exactly as User:Jayron32 just above. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Epiphyllumlover repeatedly emphasizes the civility aspect of their interactions, but has failed to grasp the civility is merely a necessary condition for participation—not sufficient. Being politely exhausting is still...exhausting.
  And incidentally, I just don't even know what to say about the whole I refused to accept payment to disrupt Wikipedia talk pages, so I went ahead and did it for free narrative. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

He wanted me to pay him, not vice-versa (not that it makes a difference for purposes here).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Would it make a difference if I gave you a link to a pdf of a medical textbook-like publication of the sort considered to be the best kind of source in the medical content guidelines? It evaluated medical reviews and summarized various medical claims for a wide variety of topics and procedures, including abortion's safety. If you want it I can dig it up again, but looking above I wonder if it matters.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant to topic ban--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment This is a curtesy, and not to ask you to change your votes; letting you know I started a CheckUser request related to this (not directed towards Avatar)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC) The CU request will be declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC) @Bbb23:Thank you for letting me know. If I continue to experience similar issues with IP editors/new editors, I may need to submit a new one someday, please accept that without prejudice. I'm not sure why it will be declined; if it will be declined due to the voting you see above, I should not submit it somewhere else. If it is for another reason and maybe I am supposed to submit it somewhere else, could you explain my options?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Checkusers do not connect accounts to IPs. It's included in bold in the instructions at the top of WP:SPI.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC) @Epiphyllumlover: The fact that it will be declined does not mean it will be rejected. It just means that a check will not be run. Instead, someone will evaluate the merits of the report behaviorally. As Ponyo stated, you should not have requested the CU. Unfortunately, you are not alone in ignoring the instructions, but it's not the end of the world, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Thank you for explaining. I had thought that the CheckUser tool showed who had what IP address, but as you inferred I hadn't read up on it. I feel better knowing it will be dealt with on the behavioral level instead of discarded.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment After you ban me, it would be good to re-establish somehow that Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Summarize_scientific_consensus is a more important rule than Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_"get_the_point"; the bulk of what has gone on so far makes it look like the reverse is true.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  That will depend on whether a consensus of Wikipedia editors agrees that the specific point-of-view you have been trying to edit into the article(s) in question does indeed represent a mainstream scientific consensus. There may be a consensus that your specific point-of-view does not actually represent scientific consensus. --Jayron32 14:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

In fact, one of the main issues in this conduct case is that Epiphyllumlover has insisted on relitigating and bludgeoning the question of scientific consensus on safety of abortion again and again and again. The consensus of MEDRS on this matter is clear, and has been reaffirmed by editors, most recently in the RfC mentioned above. It is the anti-abortion movement, not the scientific community, that promotes a narrative to the contrary.

There has been no contradiction here between WP:IDHT and WP:MEDSCI; we're adhering to both policies if we TBAN Epiphyllumlover from abortion space. NightHeron (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree COMPLETELY with NightHeron. Here is but one example (there are many more) of the type of content that Epiphyllumlover has been trying to get into the Abortion article (this is my reversion of their edit)[18] ---Avatar317^(talk) 16:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Jayron32: The last discussion we had on Talk:Abortion never progressed far enough for a consensus to form about that source one way or the other.

I once mentioned, but never linked to or otherwise discussed the review of reviews. This was during the last discussion in which (I thought) we were collaborating on a paragraph about the economic effects of abortions; it was going to be about mostly or entirely about unsafe abortions in developing countries.

I would have been willing to submit the specific source & its claim that confidence in abortion's safety is low, yet abortion's safety is still affirmed to an RfC. I would have liked to have seen the conversation go in that direction. (Or had another conversation specifically about the source at a later date. I was hoping for interest in the source from other editors, which did not materialize at the time.) Consideration and an RfC was not possible as the conversation derailed. I attribute the derailment to the IP editor's series of comments; and also that I left the talk page and gave up commenting.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Found the source: No. 360-Induced Abortion: Surgical Abortion and Second Trimester Medical Methods. From page 3:

An abundant amount of evidence provides reassurance concerning future reproductive outcomes following induced abortion (Level of evidence: Low)

.

I don't expect an article content decision to be made here. The quote is so you know what I was referring to when I was writing about abortion's safety earlier on. There are thirty-four level of evidence evaluations given in this source, and a few of them could be useful to the article. I am willing to accept the outcome of an RfC about the merits of this source, or whether what it writes about is worthwhile to the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support I was, to my knowledge, one of the first editors to explicitly point this out on Talk:Abortion and obviously not the last. Obvious problems with civil bludgeoning and POV pushing in this topic area. Dronebogus (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• I am not sure if I understand all of the issues here, but I'll just comment that WP:Bludgeoning is not an official wiki policy, and it shouldn't cited for determining whether a user gets banned. Reesorville (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Reply: WP:Bludgeoning, WP:Badgering, WP:Sealioning, WP:NOTGETTINGIT, WP:TIMESINK and WP:CPP etc. are methods of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, prevention of which is the first and only purpose of WP:TBAN. Kire1975 (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's true, not for all of them at least. WP:DISRUPTIVE lists on the page which particular behaviours it defines as disruptive and against wiki rules. This thread should only be citing those ones to make a decision on banning. It shouldn't be citing 'proposed wiki guidelines' as a standard to determine a ban. Reesorville (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Reesorville Disruptive editing is any form of editing that disrupts the project. Something doesn't need to be included in the list of example disruptive behaviours for it to be classified as disruptive. The list is very clear that it is not exhaustive A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following:. See also WP:The rules are principles and WP:Wikilawyering. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the confusion I am having then is that the editors on this page are citing a whole bunch of different things that are not actually policies as though they actually were policies. I personally disagree with the text WP:Wikilawyering, which is also not a policy nor is it vetted by the community: I reason if you are going to go so far as to ban a person, it has to be in accordance with violations of clear rules that are written down, it shouldn't be a matter of groups of users feeling 'the spirit of the rules was violated'; doing so is a recipe for arbitrary and unfair enforcement. There is plenty of material in WP:DISRUPTIVE to refer to; I think there is no reason why the discussion can't keep itself within those bounds.Reesorville (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Reesorville The policy is WP:DISRUPTIVE which covers all cases of disruptive editing, not just the short list of "here's some examples of common forms disruption" given in the section "Examples of disruptive editing". The essays and information pages linked above are various examples of common scenarios and behaviours where the the disruptive editing policies is commonly held to apply. Claiming that WP:Wikilawyering is not vetted by the community is frankly ridiculous, it's a 15 year old essay written by nearly 200 people over 400 edits, with over 7,000 pages and discussions referencing it, it's not some niche or minority viewpoint. Wikipedia is not a court of law and there is no requirement to make sure that someone violates the exact wording of a policy, in fact one of the five fundamental principles of this website is that we have no fixed rules and that principles and spirit behind a rule are more important than the literal wording - WP:5P5. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I should have said 'not thoroughly vetted by the community', which is true and is in fact written on the article itself. In general I would agree that wikipedia as an encyclopedia is not a court of law, but when making a decision about permanently banning someone, I argue it should in fact be like a court of law, hence I disagree with the notion that one should use the 'spirit of the rules' to decide when to ban someone. Otherwise we run into the scenario where banning risks becoming a popularity contest and not one based on concrete guidelines. I am not trying to make an argument here about whether or not the user is being disruptive, as I don't really understand the specific issues. I am disagreeing in the manner that this kind of discussion is being carried out here. Reesorville (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If you have a specific problem with what's being cited, you are free to vet it. Pages marked with the template mentioning the phrase 'not thoroughly vetted by the community' are cited on ANI all the time, though. Other pages that don't have that designation are also cited in this TBAN request. Your barnstar for your work on the "persecution of" the same folks that are generally aligned with the politics that Epiphyllumlover has been POV pushing - and your recent conversations with him discussing the possibility of a future TBAN evasion - is duly noted. See WP:MEATPUPPET. With respect, if you can't come up with anything besides repeating that pages that have been cited to make these decisions for years shouldn't be used to make these decisions, then that's WP:SEALIONING. Depending on how long it continues, we might need to consider a TBAN proposal with a new name on it. Kire1975 (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

wp:Bludgeoning is a policy supplement, and a very widely accepted one. Dronebogus (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I located a third head to the sock, which means I need to fill out another SPI form. I see the individual who has been socking as mostly gratified for personal reasons rather than by dedication to a particular topic. The topic ban may be implemented before I finish compiling things for a new SPI submission; this could take some time. Will that preclude me starting and following-up on an SPI which includes abortion-related socking over the last month?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Hulged (Wahhid) unban request

Hello. Not sure why I'm here today, but let's start this off: Hulged (formerly known as Wahhid) was blocked on 30 March 2021 by Drmies (talk · contribs) as a sock of Wahhid, then banned per WP:3X. They had previously requested an unban back in November here in which the ban was unsuccessfully lifted. Now, it is the 24th of May, the date where Hulged can appeal once more. Below is the copy-pasted unban request from User talk:Hulged#Ban appeal. I hope I did this correctly. Best regards.

* Previous November AN appeal: Read here

Hello. I was blocked on English Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts in March 2021 (SPI case). Since then I have been active on other WMF managed wikis such as metawiki kswiki, simplewiki and Wikimedia Commons. I have already disclosed all the accounts here and on my November AN appeal. For clarity's sake, these were User:Wahhid, User:EditorThanos, User:Ulluly, User:Juslit, User:Ollipinno, User:TheHornbill, User:Majaple, User:Malihajan, User:Malliha and User:Dhonka. This is the last edit I have made to English Wikipedia. I appealed the Arbitration Committee in February this year but they told me to appeal in May. In my November appeal, I was told to appeal after 24 May. I requested Yamla to take this appeal to the AN on May 18 but they said no and I also thought that it is best to wait till 24. I have developed a keen interest in editing wikipedia again and have read the policies. I promise that I won't violate any policies and won't hurt wikipedia in any way. I may be seen with IDHT attitude but I have no intention to waste the precious time of the community. I have learned the lesson and I am willing to help in the development of this free online encyclopaedia.

If unbanned, I would like to be an active member of Wikiproject India, help in counter vandalism and AFC work.

I humbly ask the community to give me another chance. Hulged (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

— 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 17:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The prior request didn't have a strong consensus (either way) and I'm willing to extend good faith here. --Yamla (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• I'm curious to know why Hulged wanted to appeal on 18 May when they'd been told they needed to wait until 24 May. What was so urgent that couldn't wait another six days? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hulged's reply:

  Hi Cordless Larry. Being honest, I thought I might be unblocked per WP:SO#Variations. Hulged (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not really sure I'm any the wiser. Surely it would have been easier to just be patient and wait another six days. I'll leave it there though. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Needs Help

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; and Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Admins already have this user right bundled with the tools, and any help that you could provide would be of immense benefit.
• If you are not an admin and would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 17:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Requesting closure

Despite my topic ban appeal being initiated 50 days ago, and it being listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests at the start of this month, no admin has yet to close it. This leaves me in a frustrating limbo, with no resolution to my request and nowhere to proceed. It would be greatly appreciated if someone would resolve it. While I have made an honest effort of making appropriate positive contributions in the weeks I have been awaiting a closure to this matter, it has grown increasingly frustrating to see the days go by with the matter continuing to be ignored, with no resolution provided to it. SecretName101 (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: your idea for a procedural unblock continues to gain credence. WaltCip-(talk) 18:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Well, this one is a topic ban with an open discussion, which isn't quite the same as an unblock request. Hopefully an admin will see this and evaluate the consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I am really disheartened and frustrated that an additional four-days have passed since I posted this request here, and about three-and-a-half weeks have passed since it was listed at closure requests, and not a single one of the uninvolved admins that have patrolled the two pages in the intervening time have taken up the task of closing the matter. I again implore, will an uninvolved admin please take it upon themselves to close it as promptly as they can.

Until one does, I neither be relieved of my ban (if that is what the closing editor views that consensus), nor do I have access to other solves (such as making a new appeal that takes into additional consideration my editing habits in the last 50-plus days). Without this being being closed, I am left in a purgatory on this matter.

I have made a great effort to be patient, expecting that this would receive a closure within good time. But I am growing increasing frustrated as admins collectively fail to close an appeal for which all discussion has long ceased. It is long passed appropriate time for a closure. SecretName101 (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@SecretName101: I understand being frustrated, but the best path forward is going to be continued patience. This is a volunteer project, none of us are paid to be here - nor are we obligated to work on specific areas or tasks. You will have to wait until someone with both the free time, and interest in working in this area / task comes about. SQL^{Query Me!} 03:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Close request: RfD on redirects relating to 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Would an admin mind closing the discussion on Redirects for Discussion relating to the ongoing invasion of Ukraine?

The discussion has arrived at a clear consensus (only one dissent, remainder in favor of moving), and there has been no interaction for over a week, and in the meantime redirects with presumably relatively high hits such as Russian invasion of Ukraine appear effectively broken to non-wikipedians. I would do so myself by WP:NACD, but I am involved... Thank you! Hentheden (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

UCoC Revisions Committee work

I am pleased that the UCoC Revisions Committee has adopted Chatham House rules. This means I can discuss what happens in those meetings more publicly and so I have decided to start a blog of sorts where I highlight things that I find important from the meetings. They are not going to be complete summaries of what happened. I will also say that while I am exercising editorial discussion about what I note in those summaries, I am going to attempt to factually convey what happened rather than give my opinion about it. I hope members of this community find it useful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping for something like this, thanks. I'll reply on the talk page there. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

RPP backlog

At WP:RPP there are 32 pending requests to increase the level of pretection of a page, including one from May 24; and 2 requests to reduce the level of protection. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done See below. --Jayron32 12:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Backlog at RFPP

There are more than 2 dozen requests that are yet to be handled at WP:RFPP. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Myself and User:El C seem to have cleared the bulk of them. --Jayron32 12:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Block Appeal

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

---

I understand what I done wrong, I know that the sea of azov was occupied by pro-russian seperatists forces on May 18 so I will actaully not attempt to edit that page again or I will put in basin countries Russia [De Facto] and Ukraine [De Jure] If that actually suits you but I understand this Signature:-2A02:214C:8499:E000:A19E:EB81:3A38:CB04 (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

An appeal written in comprehensible English would be a better start. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It's just out of context here. Pinging Ohnoitsjamie, who placed the block. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you won't be editing that page again. You are free to make edit requests on the talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock advice sought

Someone on Viettel - 2402:800:621F:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk • contribs • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google) has been vandalising the twin/sister-city status of numerous articles since last November. I've been reverting and blocking the /64 ranges used since I came across the vandalism in March, but it's obviously simple for them to get a new IP address and avoid the blocks. I blocked the /48 range (above) for 2 weeks from 16 April which stopped them, but they are now back with a vengeance - see today's edits.

I'm aware of the concern over using longer blocks on large IP ranges (WP:RANGE), but wonder if it's justified in this case. It doesn't look as if there would be much collateral damage.  —Smalljim  10:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd support a block on the /48 range; in the last few months, I see very few edits other than sister-city related ones. Perhaps a month or three? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've blocked for a month.  —Smalljim  09:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• MarioProtIV (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from closing, or reopening, any discussion outside their own user talk space. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.
• Chlod (talk · contribs) is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
• Elijahandskip (talk · contribs) is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
• LightandDark2000 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• MarioProtIV is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• A set of best practices for leaders and/or moderators of off-wiki chat platforms to consider adopting

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones closed

Unblock request from Speedcuber1 (previously known as Reece the Hawk)

Speedcuber1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Block log
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive969#Excessive, hasty deletion nominations by a new editor as Reece the Hawk
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive309#ReeceTheHawk Unblock/SO request 2019
• unblock request June 2021 as Reece the Hawk

• Speedcuber 1/Reece was blocked for disruption, particularly at WP:AN and was unblocked following an appeal to the Community in June 2021. (Looks like the 2019 appeals were not successful.) And reblocked not quite three months later for disruption and lost talk page access shortly thereafter. On May 25, 2022, requested unblocking at UTRS appeal #58791. Yamla noted no check user indication of socking. (I guess the checkuser fell off with the June 2021 unblocking.) I advised against any further posting at WP:AN or WP:ANI. I would further advise against any deletion nominations.

• Unblock request carried over--

I was blocked for disruptive editing to the admin noticeboard and making persistent posts there that i thought were ok at the time, but they were actually disruptive edits and i shouldn’t have posted as much as i did and shouldn’t have kept going back to that noticeboard to post about general things, as it was counterproductive. I was then blocked from my talk page as the edits i was making on there were wasting other editor’s time and weren’t productive, if i was unblocked the things i would do differently include possibly avoiding the noticeboards, as they were partly the reason why I was blocked in the first place, and I would also try my best to not make any disruptive edits and i would think before making edits to make sure the edit is generally good, productive, not disruptive and not an edit that would waste any other editor’s time. I will do this by going over it and thinking about the purpose of each edit.

The constructive edits i would make include going to random articles and linking key words or any important words, fixing any general mistakes such as punctuation mistakes or spelling mistakes, reverting vandalism, and also edits such as adding paragraphs to articles if i find any new info on that article that comes from a reliable source. Speedcuber (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is not meaningfully different than the unblock request from June, 2021. That unblock request was granted, much to our later regret. Without a meaningful demonstration of months of constructive, trouble-free editing on another project, I'm not willing to support yet another chance for this editor, given how disruptive they consistently are. --Yamla (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose to me this reads like saying what they need to in order to be unblocked just because it has been six months and they can. I would prefer to see the "constructive edits" and no disruption on another project before we trust them to be productive here especially in light of try my best to not make any disruptive edits which inspires zero confidence. After they were blocked, they lost talk page and email access for being an utter nuisance and having an utter lack of clue. At minimum, pblock from Wikipedia space. Star Mississippi 16:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I too would like a clearer picture of the constructive edits @Speedcuber1: would make. A menu of things that need doing can be found here. There are millions of pages on Wikipedia that have nothing to do with admin boards. Please, select some and let us know so that we can know that unblocking you (again) will not be a mistake. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Response to my request for a clear picture of constructive edits--

  Deepfriedokra, the things that I would focus on out of the 9 things in the open tasks page that you linked me would be fixing spelling and grammar, fixing wikilinks, checking and adding references, adding images, and improving lead sections. Speedcuber (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2022

  --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I remember this editor well having interacted with them a few times around the project after their last unblock. I remember well the constant disruption, the attempts at playing admin, the constant "saying one thing then doing another", the constant over the top drama in response every minor incident, the constant lying about being "harrassed" or "bullied" every time they were criticised, the constant need to screw around with trivial rubbish, the constant changing their mind over literally everything, the constant need to be babysat etc. etc. etc. - their editing here was nothing but a time sink. This is the least committal unblock request I have ever read; they will be possibly avoiding the noticeboards? They say that they will try my best to not make any disruptive edits? Possibly, maybe trying to improve is not sufficient here, they exhausted the patience and goodwill of the community last time they had an unblock, I would expect to see some kind of actual commitments and probably some topic bans here. The edits they propose to make are, for the most part, extremely minor and frankly I don't think it's worth putting up with the constant disruption from this user for the sake of a few links, spelling fixes and a few anti-vandalism reverts. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Next steps on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement guidelines

Cross-posted from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Next steps on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement guidelines

Hello all,

I’d like to share an update on the work on the Enforcement guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct.

In 2022 May, the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) project team completed a report on the 2022 March ratification vote about the guidelines. Voters cast votes from at least 137 communities. At least 650 participants added comments with their vote. A report is available on Meta-Wiki. (See full announcement)

Following the vote, the Community Affairs committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees asked that several areas be reviewed for improvements. A Revision Drafting Committee will refine the enforcement guidelines based on community feedback.

To help the Revisions committee, input from the community is requested. Visit the Meta-wiki pages (Enforcement Guidelines revision discussions, Policy text revision discussions) to provide thoughts for the new drafting committee. (See full announcement)

Let me know if you have any questions about these next steps. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I have questions, but you're not gonna like em. Will this nonsense ever end? And what is even the point? El_C 13:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

PR exercise, I assume, to confidently ask for more (big) donation and continue to use it for everything but Wikipedia. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Assume Goo Foundation! Also: 👴 stop bullying me! I'm just a silly little guy full with a-joyous whimsy! 👴 El_C 15:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@El C the point is to craft a minimum set of expectations around behavior across any Wikimedia project you might go to. I am replying though because I'm curious what nonsense you're seeing - I can think of several different possible answers and just don't know how to read the comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Barkeep49 The main piece of nonsense was that horribly tone-deaf "race and ethnicity" sentence, so I'm pleased to see that's being addressed (I still have no idea WTF the person who wrote that was thinking). I opposed also because of the affirmation and training silliness for advanced rights holders (that's been mentioned as well), and the apparent lack of transparency or right of reply for those accused of infractions - clearly no-one there learnt anything from Framgate. Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your perspective on what you found nonsense Black Kite. I remain curious what El C says because I suspect from the sentence construction it's something else. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I would surmise it was trying (perhaps badly) to address the issues raised, eg. [here]; do races exist as a matter of fact or of human construction, and what implications arise from those two poles with respect to proper/improper discrimination, see also, scientific racism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Endless revisions to an already overcomplicated and convoluted process. The worst part, obviously, is conflating between small, poorly-governed projects and the English Wikipedia, the Foundation's flagship project. Which erodes its agency and autonomy and self-governance. Finally, wrt to the English Wikipedia, again I ask: what is this solution in search of a problem even about? T&S and EMERGENCY seem to be working as intended. Why this time sink? El_C 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks El C, that's helpful. My #1 goal with the this revision is to improve the writing. There was a lot that should have been done before the vote, but was not allowed because there was a deadline to meet. I honestly don't think another revision is "endless" especially because the Board could have taken "yes" for an answer despite the serious concerns and shortcomings you and others have identified here. I'm glad we're revising again because what's in there now isn't good enough.

As for why spend English Wikipedia editors time, everyone should come to their own answer and if your choice is not to participate I can understand why. as I participate because of a combination of a desire to see other projects be more successful and because there editors who feel English Wikipedia is broken and unable to self-govern and I want to make sure those voices aren't the only ones in the room. This isn't to say we're perfect - I think there are times that English Wikipedia acknowledges there's a problem and decides to avoid thinking about a solution because it's too hard - but there is a reason that so many other projects adopt our policies, guidelines, and procedures as their own. We're doing good work in the policy areas of the UCoC and making sure that good work can continue even as other projects increase their capacity matters to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry

For over a month the page has been persistently vandalized by socks of globally banned user Rgalo10. I think it's time to protect it for some time. --jdx ^Re: 15:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Due to repeated disruption for a month, I have semi-protected that page for three months. Cullen328 (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Need advice

I don't know what to do with Seemshale (talk · contribs), who appears, at least so far, to have a sole interest in the topic of transgender people. A couple of days ago, this editor inserted links to Transgenderism in the "See also" sections of Fetish and Fantasy, and both edits were reverted, with warnings given on their talk page. (The fantasy one twice by me, who suspects, from their second edit summary, that the user is unable to distinguish between the literary genre and Fantasy (psychology).) Now the user has created a sandbox at User:Seemshale/list of deadnames that is also problematic—the one entry violates both WP:DEADNAME and an apparent consensus at the article of the person in question. I thought of either blanking the sandbox or deleting it as an attack page and explaining our guideline on Seemshale's talk page; but this is an area where I have no expertise, and I fear that the user is likely to continue to be a nuisance. Can another admin suggest what might be the best course of action here? Deor (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If Seemshale isn't edit-warring? That's good. As for his sandbox? It's his sandbox, so wouldn't be concerned about it. PS - I'm not entirely convinced, that Seamshale is a new editor. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment, GoodDay. WP:DEADNAME says If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. Emphasis added. Plus, they linked to a gossip site. Accordingly, I have deleted that sandbox. Cullen328 (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Very well. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

One of my first actions when encountering an editor such as this, after cleaning up any problematic edits and issuing any standard notices like for unsourced content, is to issue them with a GENSEX discretionary sanctions notice. Because gender and sexuality has significant issues with disruptive editors, this makes it more straighforward for uninvolved admins to issue sanctions in general, as well as for editors like ourselves to file a case at WP:AE.

In the case of Seemshale, minus the userspace page that Cullen has now removed have there been any suppressed edits? Their contributions page only lists three edits total, all of which were on 27 May. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked them as clearly WP:NOTHERE. I also highly doubt that this is their first account. – Joe (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded here. I appreciate it. Deor (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay to use selective deletion to clear out a bunch of whitespace edits?

This is just a cross-post to the question I've asked at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § IP editors make revision history clutters in various film articles. Normally I wouldn't crosspost to a daughter noticeboard, but this is a somewhat meta-level admin question—"Is it okay to use this ancient feature?"—on a noticeboard that usually isn't for that kind of question. If anyone has thoughts on the matter, please reply there. Thanks. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin case-by-case, assuming that the revisions being deleted this way are completely useless and disruptive (clearly qualifying under a CSD criteria on their own) it should be measured against how disruptive the clean up will be to everyone else vs just ignoring it; for just a few pages I'd say that is within admin discretion. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Well the revisions themselves wouldn't meet any CSD, but the content being added in them, if its own page, would easily meet G1, since they're literally just spaces and newlines. If I were to do this, I'd probably leave the first whitespace addition/removal pair of each spree intact, just for the history to be clear. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin I suppose (again for small number of pages only) I'd look at it with a lense of if they were the only edits to the page, would the page be wholly uncontroversial CSD? These look like repeat whitespace from the ones I looked at, so on that count I'd say yes. (Still need to measure the cleanup disruption). — xaosflux ^Talk 00:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The edits are fairly disruptive to the page history but I don't think it's a big deal either way; I think it's fine to IAR selective delete here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to delete these. Just revert back to the most recent good version, and perhaps semi-protect the page to prevent ongoing abuse. Blocking the IP might also be appropriate. WP:SELDEL says, Selective deletion is generally only done when the revisions contain personal information of a user or some other person (telephone numbers, etc.) or copyright violations. For most kinds of simple vandalism, merely reverting the page to a good version is considered sufficient. WP:REVDEL has similar requirements, which this likewise doesn't meet. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of selective deletion in general except for the most extreme of circumstances (e.g. blatant personal information/libel), which this isn't. It also might be more trouble than it's worth, especially for pages with large histories, because when restoring too many revisions at once you might run in to the 3-second timeout to minimise replication lag (but apparently using shift-click to select multiple check boxes would help with that). The Wikidata links should be checked afterwards as well. Graham87 04:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned that the IP users who did those edits on those edits might do it again, causing even more clutter and disruptive on those articles. Selective deletion may have to happen because of that. BattleshipMan (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It really doesn't "have to happen" it is safe to just ignore the edits in the history. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't see any reason that these sorts of edits fall into the category of needing revision deletion. In my mind, they don't fit the requirements for being deleted. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

There was a recent misunderstanding with one of the administrators about an abandoned draft nominated for speedy deletion. Then I found out today that the permission of autopatrolled was changed from permanent to temporary.--Sakiv (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Review of autopatrolled (Sakiv)

Moved from WT:PERM

Sakiv (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

User:Sakiv, I assigned autopatrolled back in January 2020 and given the ping from your talk page, I went to have a look at your latest contributions. What I see are several new articles without any references. What's up with that? You would be aware that unreferenced articles is a no-no. Can you please let us know if you would like to do something about it? Because if this isn't rectified, autopatrolled would have to be removed. Schwede66 02:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I've gone through a dozen articles now. I try not to leave any article without a source, but most of it is about seasons before 2010, so it takes more time.--Sakiv (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Based on the poor conduct I've highlighted on my talk page, I would advocate for revocation of autoreviewer as a minimum, with removal of reviewer being a distinct possibility for apparently not being able to distinguish vandalism from good-faith actions. I recognise, however, I should not be the one to do it based on his statement that I am engaging in harassment for criticism of conduct. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Schwede66 It seems that no action has been taken on this situation yet. (t · c) buidhe 23:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If someone really wants to follow up on this, this isn't the best forum - WP:AN can handle it as it requires an admin to change it, and it is about the behavior of a specific editor. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Sakiv, I've set autopatrolled to expire in late August 2022. At that point, or shortly before, please post at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled and somebody will review your latest contributions. For anything else, please take action as per xaosflux's suggestion if you consider this necessary. Schwede66 23:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your complaint on my talk page, Sakiv:

• Please keep discussion in one place and don't start a new one elsewhere.
• I had looked at maybe five of your recent articles and, if my memory serves me right, three of them had no references. And that is totally incompatible with being autopatrolled. Since you asked about it on my talk page, at the time of my review, the following articles were unreferenced:

• 2004–05 Deportivo Alavés season
• 2022–23 Stade Malherbe Caen season
• 2022–23 S.S.C. Napoli season

• Please add categories to Latvia national football team results (1991–2019)
• Please omit empty headings as I've done for you at 2022 WAFF Futsal Championship and many other articles I've just looked at; this is a frequent issue with your articles
• Please don't leave bare URLs behind, e.g. at 2022–23 S.S. Lazio season (and that's not the only article I had to tag)
• Many of the articles that I've looked at had a single reference only

Regarding your note I didn't create any articles lacking references after that notice, I did not accuse you of doing so. I told you that you should never do that in the first instance and that I found 3 out of 5 unreferenced is a major red flag. When users do this, chances are they may continue with this, hence it is necessary to keep an eye on this. And now that I've had a closer look at a good number of articles, I find an issue with 1 out of 2. That is not good enough and for now, I shall remove autopatrolled. Please do come back at some point in the future (even the near future; say once you've created another two dozen articles) and ask for a review. And just a reminder what autopatrolled is for: this is a flag given to users who consistently create clean articles that do not require review by others. Please try and create clean articles. The rate at which you pump out new articles gives the appearance of a rushed job. I suggest you aim for more quality over quantity.

And regarding your note The dispute with the administrator is not even related to Verification, but rather the nomination of pages for speedy deletion, I have no idea who you refer to by "administrator". But regardless, you are right. The issues that I'm raising are totally independent of any other disputes that you may have; this is all about the requirements for meeting autopatrolled. Schwede66 01:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

All of this wouldn't have happened if he hadn't pinged you on his talk page. I don't know what its purpose was but I feel like something inconvenient. I can't continue my work here feeling like everything I'm doing is bad and unwanted. This is not the atmosphere I want to work in. I am not the only one who creates articles that need some tags. This is expected from many. I have been an autopatrolled for more than two years and have not misused this permission. Your way of tracing my contributions is not convenient and indicates that I am disruptive not an active user for seven years. What happened today will be followed by actions on my part because I do not know what is happening. At first you convert the autopatroller to temporary and then revoke it completely. This is not encouraging at all to me.--Sakiv (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled is not for your benefit but for the benefit of reviewers. Autopatrolled articles essentially need to be "perfect" and if they need tags, then they do need some review, so autopatrolled is not appropriate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You say: everything I'm doing is bad and unwanted. No, that is most certainly not the case. You add a lot of value. You create many new pages. That's all very commendable. But you focus on quantity over quality and it's not in line with the requirements of autopatrolled. It's still a most valuable contribution. It's just that it requires review by others. I suggest you slow down a bit, do a more thorough job, and you'll get autopatrolled back in no time. Schwede66 01:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Schwede66 said in his summary discussed with user that unreferenced articles is a no-no and this has now been rectified; will review the situation in three months' time. I don't know that happened afterwards.

• Midnight Cop, created by an autopatroller, contains no sources since 26th.
• 2022 UEC European Track Championships, created by an autopatroller, no citations.
• 2022 Leinster Senior Hurling Championship Final, created by an autopatroller, no citations.
• Lot (fineness), created by an autopatroller, no citations.
• List of ports in Iran, created by an autopatroller, no citations.
• Sara Fernández Roldán, created by an autopatroller, no citations.
• Pierre Pasquier (colonial administrator), created by an autopatroller, no citations.

I demand an explanation from @Schwede66: to my concern about what happened after the first action.--Sakiv (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure. After you posted on my talk page (asking me to explain: where are the articles without references?), I took the time to have a closer look so that I could answer your query. That's when I discovered that the problem went further than what I had seen previously. Schwede66 02:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Latvia results, I was busy developing the article and added the category minutes after your edit. I also filled in the URLs for the Lazio, Alaves and PSV articles minutes after your edit as well. Regarding section headings, these sections will be filled with information after a short period of time, and this is regular with many of my fellow editors. The bottom line is that I have responded to all your concerns and have not ignored them. We are here to cooperate and discuss and nothing has to be done quickly. I think it is a misunderstanding. My comment on your discussion page was before I realized that you just switched the autopatrolled from permanent to temporary. And I thought that the topic was related to the most recent articles after the notification.--Sakiv (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 Administrator note moved from WT:PERM. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Xaosflux:. It should have been moved from the start to share with other administrators. The permission has nothing to do with the abundance of articles I have created recently and I never focus on the quantity. I admit that I erred when I left several articles unsourced immediately upon their creation. The root of the problem is the nomination for speedy deletion of a draft that has not been edited for 6 months, but one of the administrators refused to delete. Then I asked him for an explanation. He said that the first nomination was considered an edit, and therefore the 6-month rule began anew.--Sakiv (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Is the following an exception by User:Pictureperfect2 to not modifying a discussion after it is closed?

Is the following edit by Pictureperfect2 an exception to not modifying a discussion after it is closed? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I've re-reverted and warned them on their talk page. In future, you may want to consider discussing things with people on their talk pages yourself before coming to AN. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Reply - I will keep that in mind, however, I put that in the edit description, but to no avail, so I wanted a "second opinion". --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not to hammer on you, because you're substantively in the right here, but edit summaries are not a substitute for an actual discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Edit summaries are useful if an admin looks over a page history to determine what, if any, enforcement is necessary. They can be helpful when dealing with an established user who would know they should check the edit summary of the revert before reverting back. They are completely useless on most newcomers, who don't check the history. 93.172.252.36 (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)