Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Open tasks
V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 9 | 49 | 0 | 58 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 2 | 29 | 0 | 31 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
- 6 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 7 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 6 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 6 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 142 sockpuppet investigations
- 12 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 0 Fully protected edit requests
- 7 Candidates for history merging
- 27 requests for RD1 redaction
- 25 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 46 requested closures
- 163 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 22 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
RfC at Talk:Ruble
I feel like TCG has used the consensus from the RfC at Talk:Ruble to legitimise their rouble predilection, especially through CorwenAv (Examples: Special:Diff/1131561427 and Special:Diff/1131577807). The RfC makes it harder to eliminate the impact from TCG's disruptive edits since "rouble" would arguably be entrenched into BrE pages. I propose we overturn or re-run the RfC to plug this loophole, especially when we consider the fact that "ruble" is also used in some British sources including Britannica and the Cambridge dictionary as the principal spelling - where "rouble" is only offered as a British alternative - showing that "ruble" is also (somewhat) acceptable in BrE. Moreover, page 138 of the 2020 version of the World Bank Style Guide - deemed "a very high quality RS" (examples: source 1 of Russian ruble and Belarusian ruble) - also favour "ruble" for the Russian currency, indicating the universality of the "ruble" spelling. Thank you. Not·Really·Soroka 03:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Content dispute. Admins don't rule on content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- But this refers to an RfC, and I heard that RfCs could be appealed to here. Not·Really·Soroka 04:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- The RfC was closed over three months ago. Nobody is going to 'overturn' that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to me that this is handled by MOS:ENGVAR and doesn't need to be relitigated in any case. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- It does seem like the argument by NotReallySoroka here is that, within the parameters of ENGVAR, "ruble" is still acceptable and preferable to "rouble" for British contexts. If others share this perspective, a separate RfC to determine whether rouble is an appropriate spelling in British English articles may be appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 16:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah :) NotReallySoroka (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- It does seem like the argument by NotReallySoroka here is that, within the parameters of ENGVAR, "ruble" is still acceptable and preferable to "rouble" for British contexts. If others share this perspective, a separate RfC to determine whether rouble is an appropriate spelling in British English articles may be appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 16:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to me that this is handled by MOS:ENGVAR and doesn't need to be relitigated in any case. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- The RfC was closed over three months ago. Nobody is going to 'overturn' that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- But this refers to an RfC, and I heard that RfCs could be appealed to here. Not·Really·Soroka 04:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Content dispute. Admins don't rule on content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging ScottishFinnishRadish, the closer (sorry for not notifying you in advance). Not·Really·Soroka 04:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Is there any issue with the close itself, or concern that it was not an accurate reading of the consensus? We don't ignore consensus because a disruptive user agrees with it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish Although I thank you for your good close, I believe that my points (as raised here) means that we could at least re-discuss the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Is there any issue with the close itself, or concern that it was not an accurate reading of the consensus? We don't ignore consensus because a disruptive user agrees with it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- It sounds like you're asking for a fiat in order to deal with a disruptive user, and that's not a valid reason to overturn an RfC. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- So, there are two, entirely orthogonal issues 1) Is the user in question correct (in regards to them following the letter and spirit of the RFC in question) and 2) Is the user in question following behavioral norms. These are unrelated matters. Issue 1 is really not dealt with here in any meaningful way, and has very little bearing on anything we need to assess about the user in question, at this point of the process. Issue 2 can be dealt with on its own, without worrying about Issue 1. --Jayron32 18:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Why do you feel the need to pursue this? TCG has already been blocked, his behaviour is out of the question but the RfC has been conducted fairly. You seem to have a very particular bone to pick with them, which started almost a year ago with the thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1103#Belittling behaviour and bad faith on several currency related articles where you filed a frivolous IBAN towards TCG for making a beginner's mistake. The last few notices on their talk pages are all posted by you too. Not to mention the sockpuppet investigation. Also, as Jayron mentions, you are disputing content. The consensus, derived by the closer SFR (i.e. was it an appropriate close), should be your issue and not what TCG is doing, or has done. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 21:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The C of E Tban appeal
This is an appeal against my topic ban from DYK (imposed here. Having been over a year since it was imposed, I recognised that my conduct back then was unbecoming and the drama I caused was unacceptable. I know that what I did back then was wrong and I apologise again for it. I have been working with WP:ITN to show I can be productive and avoid drama. I would love to be able to return to help build preps and restore goodwill to help the project. My previous appeal was rejected on the grounds that I had not been clear about what I had been looking for to be done.
Please let me be clear, I am aware of the strength of feeling about me so I am willing that if the TBan is lifted, to comply fully with the restrictions I was under prior to the TBAN (ie. a ban on nominating LGBT, British/Irish politics or Religion, ban on editing my own hooks in prep and anyone has a veto over my hooks). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - Just as a comment, 17 of the last 500 contributions for The C of E from October 2022 to now have been at WP:ITN, and most of them regarding Recent Deaths in particular, which makes sense since most of his work has been at mainspace. A few of the RDs he participated in have been articles that he has improved to bring up to par for posting. I wouldn't classify him necessarily as a regular participant, but I can attest to occasionally seeing him participate there with relatively low drama. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- What is "relatively low drama"? Shouldn't an editor trying to "avoid drama" and have their topic ban removed stir up next-to-no drama, as opposed to "relatively low drama". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- As an ITN regular I can say I have not noticed any drama in regards to C of E's participation there. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I say relatively low because I haven't seen him engage in any overt breaching experiments, but it's only from my limited point of view and I can't speak for the totality of his activity there. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- What is "relatively low drama"? Shouldn't an editor trying to "avoid drama" and have their topic ban removed stir up next-to-no drama, as opposed to "relatively low drama". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support - but please, please, please C of E, stay well clear of any attempts at humor or being 'edgy.' I am all for second chances, but I cannot pretend I will read any borderline material charitably; no offence intended of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support, with the pre-existing restrictions still in place. Last chance. I also echo what Dumuzid says. Humour (particularly edgy humour) is very hard to do well, so please leave it to people who are good at it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support largely thinking along the same lines as Boing! Courcelles (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support per WP:ROPE and per Boing! said Zebedee. I'd also like to see the proposal from the prior discussion that C of E also refrain from that C of E refrain from "creating any sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content" as well, insofar as if they did so, I would be the first to get in line to reinstate the full topic ban they are asking for relief from. I can confirm that C of E has contributed to ITN in the intervening year: [2] and that their participation there has flown under the radar and has not drawn attention to itself. Honestly, I hadn't remembered seeing them there at all, and I'm there every day. Which is saying a lot about how innocuous and under-the-radar it has been, which I think is kinda the idea. If we saw a similar level of blandness at DYK, I think we'd be fine. --Jayron32 16:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Enough second, third, etc., chances have been given. Everyone is capable of redemption at a point, but I see no remorse, above, for repeated attempts to use our Main Page to promote hatred against various minority groups, as documented thoroughly at the multiple previous TBAN threads. [3][4] I'm aware he isn't appealing the ban that stems from the worst of that, but why exactly do we want someone working on DYK who has repeatedly tried to get slurs and blatant political provocation on the Main Page, and seems to still not see the problem with that? Someone who has pushed every envelope he's been given? The continued full-throated defense of British imperialism on his userpage—right alongside a desire to be an admin someday—does not exactly augur confidence that he understands what is and isn't likely to offend. I'm not convinced Wikipedia needs editors like this at all; we definitely don't need them anywhere near Main Page content. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Tamzin's rationale given above aligns with the reason why I didn't !vote to support despite the evidence of his uncontroversial editing at ITN. It's still not clear to me what there is to be gained on Wikipedia or in DYK by having him return to this area. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm curious, having just looked at his user page, what's the "full-throated defense of British imperialism". Is it the box with the flags and the caption "The 4 nations of the country that helped make the world"? Generally nationalistic (and not to my taste), yes. But calling it something as specific as a full-throated defence of British imperialism is a stretch, IMO. Was there something else on his page that I missed? DeCausa (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support time served. We are all volunteers; this person behaved badly several times and they have been sanctioned. I see contrition in the request and they waited almost 9 months for a second appeal. In closing the first appeal Valereee told them to try again in six months. I am sure there will be many eyes on them at DYK and no harm will come to the project. The upside is that the editor has almost 600 DYKs and will be a prolific contributor. Let's hope they follow Boing! said Zebedee's advice. Lightburst (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support lifting the specific TBAN linked (the one on DYK in general), but oppose lifting the earlier TBAN (the one on British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics in DYK). There was far too much civil POV-pushing over far too long a term for this generic apology and appeal to convince me that it would not return. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am going to Oppose along with Tamzin even though I can read the writing on the wall that this topic ban is likely going to be reversed. This editor has spent nearly 15 years engaging in provocatively inappropriate editing. I remember their shockingly inappropriate disruption of United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster, a fascinating article about the legal and artistic status of gold, and mining gold in the United States, and the use of gold to market gambling casinos in the state of Nevada. This editor creepily reasoned "rooster is a synonym for cock and cock is a synonym for penis", accompanied by "a man named Richard has a nickname of Dick" to make multiple repetitive strikingly unfunny penis jokes, severely damaging an article about a notable topic to advance their puerile and utterly inappropriate agenda, and to try to shoehorn something shocking into DYK, when the stupid "hook" was entirely unsupported by what the actual reliable sources say, all of which discuss a golden rooster statue and none of which make penis jokes. This is not ancient history - it took place in 2021. This is only one of many examples of the grotesque misconduct by this editor which has not been limited to fleeting DYK hooks but also to disruptive editing of actual encyclopedia articles to advance their reactionary, attention-seeking agenda. So, if the community wants to give this editor some rope, I will certainly respect consensus. But I want to go on record as saying that I will forcefully support an indefinite block for this editor the next time they try to pull any vile or ugly stunts, as they have so many times in the past. Cullen328 (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support The ban should never have been placed. Time to remove it. --evrik (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would disagree that the ban should have never been placed. The C of E tested the DYK community's patience multiple times despite repeated warnings and multiple discussions that their hooks were pushing the rules. Even after their topic bans were implemented (the non-DYK ones) the issues continued. If anything, it's not the ban should have never been placed, it's that it's surprising the ban wasn't placed sooner. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose for now - As much as I'd want to support him being given one last WP:ROPE, I'm not just confident that this would be any different from the past. I understand that The C of E dearly misses DYK and I can understand that sentiment, but an argument could be made that enough rope was already given in the first place: the fact that he wasn't topic banned from DYK until years after his original topic bans regarding problematic content (one of which was even ArbCom-imposed) shows that he was given plenty of chances to change. Considering the earlier issues, I'm just not confident that, if the topic ban is lifted, he will keep his promise and avoid getting into trouble.
- Having said that, if the topic ban is lifted per consensus, I would highly suggest that, moving forward, any nominations he does would need a co-nominator, one who would be willing to advise him if the hook and article are good or not. The co-nominator could be some kind of rope to ensure previous issues don't repeat. But again, this is dependent on the topic ban being lifted and, as much as I would want to give The C of E one last chance, at this time I am not confident he can keep his promises. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I have my reasons to be skeptical. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose C of E doesn't have a divine right to participate at DYK no matter how much they wish to, and I still believe the integrity of the Main Page would be better preserved by leaving the ban in place. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Moral oppose per Tamzin and Cullen. It appears it will be lifted, but shouldn't be. There's no indication we won't be back here again, and in addition to the time wasted he'll probably continue to be offensive and a time sink, just as he has in every other time he's been given a last chance. Star Mississippi 12:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Question @The C of E: In addition to the other pre-TBAN restrictions, do you understand and agree that you will have to stay away from "creating any sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content" or other "edgy humour" if you return to DYK, per Jayron32 and Boing? DeCausa (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- @DeCausa: I do and agree that I will stay away from any of those. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support, just about. Got to be the last chance. DeCausa (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose for the record since I didn't !vote yet, although I realize that based on the heavy-hitters putting their support behind lifting the TBAN, it's likely this appeal will be granted. I have the same apprehensions as everyone else, due to the recency of the disruption that had occurred. The fruits of rehabilitation just aren't ripe enough, in my opinion. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope that whoever closes this will judge the consensus solely on the strength of the arguments, and not in any way on the weight of any of the hitters. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I hope so too, Boing, but I also believe your arguments and those of Jayron32 are stronger than those that I may have. Clemency is nearly always desirable if possible, not just because of the easiness of blocking but also the probability that a productive user can return to Wikipedia and contribute positively. I think in nearly all cases in which the offender is both contrite and has had a previously productive background, it's a stronger argument overall. My desire to not unblock is embedded in the disgust at the extreme audacity of the edits which got the user into trouble, which I concede is a somewhat irrational position. So in spite of my presumptuous wording in using the term "heavy-hitters" (and I do apologize for that), I do also think you are very CLUEful and that is reflected by your position. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I think your position is entirely rational. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I hope so too, Boing, but I also believe your arguments and those of Jayron32 are stronger than those that I may have. Clemency is nearly always desirable if possible, not just because of the easiness of blocking but also the probability that a productive user can return to Wikipedia and contribute positively. I think in nearly all cases in which the offender is both contrite and has had a previously productive background, it's a stronger argument overall. My desire to not unblock is embedded in the disgust at the extreme audacity of the edits which got the user into trouble, which I concede is a somewhat irrational position. So in spite of my presumptuous wording in using the term "heavy-hitters" (and I do apologize for that), I do also think you are very CLUEful and that is reflected by your position. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope that whoever closes this will judge the consensus solely on the strength of the arguments, and not in any way on the weight of any of the hitters. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. The C of E wrote an equally apologetic appeal to his initial topic ban[5]. The appeal was withdrawn when it was clear it wouldn't be granted, and that was followed by the behavior that led to the block from all DYK. He had multiple opportunities at DYK to demonstrate his suitability to edit in that area and failed to do so. There is no benefit to the project to give him yet another "last chance". DYK is continuing to function without his input. Schazjmd (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Opppose I'm not convinced that this is a good thing for the project or for CoE - let them edit elsewhere ... I see no pressing need for them to return to DYK. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. They've had rather a lot of chances for me to consider giving them another; and the appeal doesn't have anything specific wrong with it, but it doesn't pass the smell test of sincerity for me, likely because I've seen them brush off concerns with their work too many times. It's a large project; find something else to work on. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cullen328 & Ealdgyth; sure blocks/bans are cheap if CoE misbehaves but, on the other hand, not removing the topic ban is even cheaper and, based on previous activities, better for the project. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 19:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Request for a limited exception to a community sanction (Newimpartial - GENSEX topic ban)
In light of the section of WP:BMB stating that exception
to a topic ban may be requested; for example, to participate in a particular discussion
, and following a discussion about this with the administrator who closed the ANI filing and imposed two sanctions as a result, I am following their guidance[6] and filing my request for strictly limited exceptions to my GENSEX topic ban at this forum.
My request concerns only two pages:
1. I would like to be able to participate in discussions at the MOS:BIO Talk page even when they concern matters within the area of the GENSEX contentious topic, and
2. I would like to be able to participate in editing the MOS:GIDINFO project page, to keep it more up to date (a purusal of that page's history will show my role in "gnoming" it, and I would like to be free to do so).
Background
|
---|
In the ANI discussion, I did mention my concern that my background in GENSEX policy could be lost in future discussions, e.g. here. However, this was a small contribution to a large discussion in which a lot of people said a lot of things, and I don't know that many editors gave thought to determining the precise scope of a topic ban that would prevent future disruption.
So, as noted above, I asked the administrator imposing the sanction whether the precise scope could be changed by them, as it could with a typical Contentious Topics sanction, but they said that they understood that their choice of sanctions reflected the consensus of the community expressed at ANI, and I would have to seek any limited exceptions here. (Full discussion linked above). |
In the last couple of months - even before the ANI concerning my editing was closed, I have avoided causing any disruption on Wikipedia. In line with my expressed intentions, I have made an effort to avoid personalizing disputes and have strictly observed the terms of the (unusual) anti-bludgeoning restrictions that reached community consensus at ANI. Whether or not my request here for a limited exception is granted, I will continue to edit in line with the principles I have articulated, to avoid personalized discussions, to respect my anti-bludgeon restrictions and to stay away from the GENSEX topic area outside of the very limited scope of this request.
Policy development discussions have been an area where I have felt my onwiki contributions to have been particularly constructive, as shown for example in my participation in these [7] nationality discussions [8] [9] As I have seen a new wave of editor energy at the same venue directed to the evolution of MOS:DEADNAME, I feel that my contribution as an experienced (and moderate) voice in this policy domain could be a decidedly positive one. Obviously if I were to lapse into bludgeon or antagonism, that would be disruptive behaviour and I would expect to lose editing privileges in that event. But that is within my control, and I won't do that.
For administrators who are unfamiliar with my P&G contributions, I would point to my prior participation in what evolved into an RFCBEFORE discussion on Subject Notability Guidelines, and this discussion on language for policy implementation post-RFC (the latter being within the GENSEX domain) as additional examples to illustrate how I have participated in the WP policy-development process in the past, inside and outside of GENSEX. Unlike, say, some of my contributions to deletion discussions or on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I haven't often become antagonistic in my participation in P&G development onwiki and my participation in such discussions has not led to disruption.
So I hope that a consensus of uninvolved Administrators will agree that this request will be a positive to the project, and that preventing me from editing in these two strictly confined areas plays no role in preventing future disruption, especially given my embrace of the anti-bludgeon restriction which would not be in any way loosened by these proposed, limited exceptions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support As I said briefly on Salvio giuliano's talk page, I would greatly value Newimpartial's input on the current discussion occurring at WT:MOSBIO. I think they have a wealth of knowledge of how this guideline has developed over the last few years, as well as how it's been applied in practice across a great many articles in this content area. Having their perspective in this discussion, as well as any future discussions on the scope of MOS:GENDERID while the broader GENSEX TBAN remains in place, would I think be of significant help to all editors involved in it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- While I have no position on whether to grant an exception, it seems to me that possibly your value of Newimpartial's input/perspective/help may be because you two have similar stances, with the end result being that Newimpartial will support your proposal at the discussion? Let’s see if that happens. starship.paint (exalt) 15:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I thought I was pretty clear that I would value their input because of their institutional knowledge of how the current guideline was developed, and how it's been applied in practice. Because of this knowledge, they can better inform other editors about the guideline's scope than I can. Whether they ultimately support or oppose my proposal, or any of the other proposals at the discussion is not on my mind. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- While I have no position on whether to grant an exception, it seems to me that possibly your value of Newimpartial's input/perspective/help may be because you two have similar stances, with the end result being that Newimpartial will support your proposal at the discussion? Let’s see if that happens. starship.paint (exalt) 15:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support - I confess, I am biased to some degree insofar as I consider Newimpartial a generally valuable editor. That said, I do appreciate their stated goal of 'turning down the temperature' so to speak. I think this would be a reasonable and worthwhile exception to make, though as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Part of the reason for the topic ban was because Newimpartial bludgeoned formal discussions, particularly those related to GENSEX, with the most egregious example being an RfC on the lede of J. K. Rowling with 95 comments. I'm not convinced it is a good idea to permit them to engage in formal discussions in this topic area until they have demonstrated that the bludgeoning issue is resolved, particularly since it appears they engaged in a lower level of bludgeoning at the previous RfC on the topic in which Sideswipe9th seeks their input with 36 comments. BilledMammal (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, I would like to point out that my anti-bludgeon restriction would continue to apply everywhere, including these small proposed exceptions to the TBAN. I have observed its requirements carefully in my participation in both RfC and non-RfC discussions since it was placed (as can be seen in my recent participation on non-GENSEX topics at MOSBIO) and would continue to do so. So I am not sure what future disruption could be anticipated in that venue, given the restriction. I am not proposing any loophole that would permit me to bludgeon any discussions, about GENSEX topics or otherwise. That issue is, in effect, resolved, through the establishment of a "bright line" restriction that I will not cross, and that I would not be permitted to in any case. Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am not convinced the anti-bludgeon restriction will be effective; even without considering the exceptions for replying
to questions provided the answer is reasonably short
and addingvery brief clarifications of their own comments
it would have permitted you to make 72 comments over the duration of the Rowling RfC. It might be a bright line but you can engage in bludgeoning without crossing it. BilledMammal (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)- Bludgeoning is not simply a measure of how much an editor has contributed to a discussion. You also have to be using those replies to force your point of view.
- For example, in the current discussion on deadnames I've commented 22 times, which would be a high volume of replies, but across those replies I've made my own proposal and replied to queries about it, commented and asked questions on the four other proposals, and most recently I've been trying to organise the participants towards taking or modifying one of the proposals to bring forward to an RfC. While it's a high volume of comments, I think those have been productive and that it wouldn't count as bludgeoning. For me to be bludgeoning in that discussion, I would need to be using the volume of my replies to force others towards my proposal being the correct one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- For another topically relevant example, I'd direct you to the April 2022 J.K Rowling FAR, and the sub-archives for the discussions. During the FAR, as the editor leading and facilitating it SandyGeorgia made 667 comments. However despite the volume, that wasn't bludgeoning, as while some comments contained her perspective on the issues at hand, many others were for bringing the process forward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that bludgeoning is not something that can be assessed solely by looking at the numbers; in one set of circumstances ten comments is bludgeoning, in another 667 is not.
- However, this is why I am not convinced that Newimpartial's anti-bludgeoning restriction will be sufficient to prevent bludgeoning, particularly in the topic area where they most engaged in bludgeoning in the past; it is very easy to both comply with the restriction and engage in bludgeoning. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- In the time since the TBAN and anti-bludgeon restriction was enacted, has Newimpartial engaged in any bludgeoning? Whether it was compliant or non-compliant with the restriction? Is there any way that they can demonstrate that they won't bludgeon? I recognise that you're concerned over potential recidivism, but I have to ask, in your opinion how can any editor who is subject to such a restriction demonstrate that they'll either comply with it or that it's otherwise unnecessary? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- This discussion, with at least seven comments in a 24 hour period; they were split across several pages, but they are part of the same discussion. In general, I believe they can demonstrate it is unnecessary by editing productively and unproblematically in other areas, particularly other areas where they have strong feeling. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- In the time since the TBAN and anti-bludgeon restriction was enacted, has Newimpartial engaged in any bludgeoning? Whether it was compliant or non-compliant with the restriction? Is there any way that they can demonstrate that they won't bludgeon? I recognise that you're concerned over potential recidivism, but I have to ask, in your opinion how can any editor who is subject to such a restriction demonstrate that they'll either comply with it or that it's otherwise unnecessary? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- For another topically relevant example, I'd direct you to the April 2022 J.K Rowling FAR, and the sub-archives for the discussions. During the FAR, as the editor leading and facilitating it SandyGeorgia made 667 comments. However despite the volume, that wasn't bludgeoning, as while some comments contained her perspective on the issues at hand, many others were for bringing the process forward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, while I recognize that different editors may hold varying opinions, my own assumption would be that any attempt on my part to WIKILAWYER my anti-bludgeon restriction - to observe it in letter but not in spirit - would receive the same reaction from the community as if I had violated the specific terms in which the restriction was formulated. In any event, I now edit based on my values and aspirations, not by pushing towards the boundaries of community norms, so there isn't really any other approach that would be in accord with by own conscience, other than behaving appropriately. Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't believe you have ever intentionally tried to bludgeon a discussion, so I don't believe you would try to wikilawyer your way around the restriction. I believe you will believe, incorrectly, that you are behaving in line with both the spirit and the wording of the restriction and of WP:BLUDGEON.
- My belief is reinforced by your actions related to this discussion. Your tban restricts you to two comments per discussion per day; in addition to the one comment you made here, in the period 12:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC) to 12:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC) you made at least six comments on various opposing editors talk page in response to comments in this discussion. I consider this a violation of your restriction which doesn't permit additional comments simply because the discussion is spread across multiple pages.
- Because of this, I oppose this request. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, do you regard yourself as uninvolved in this discussion? (If you do, that would seem EXTRAORDINARY to me, given the history.)
- Also, I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying about "bludgeoning", as you appear to be focused on the number of comments I make about a topic rather than - as WP:BLUDGEON does - on the purpose of the comments.
- I am not convinced the anti-bludgeon restriction will be effective; even without considering the exceptions for replying
- BilledMammal, I would like to point out that my anti-bludgeon restriction would continue to apply everywhere, including these small proposed exceptions to the TBAN. I have observed its requirements carefully in my participation in both RfC and non-RfC discussions since it was placed (as can be seen in my recent participation on non-GENSEX topics at MOSBIO) and would continue to do so. So I am not sure what future disruption could be anticipated in that venue, given the restriction. I am not proposing any loophole that would permit me to bludgeon any discussions, about GENSEX topics or otherwise. That issue is, in effect, resolved, through the establishment of a "bright line" restriction that I will not cross, and that I would not be permitted to in any case. Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion of WP:BLUDGEON
|
---|
My understanding of the spirit of WP:BLUDGEON is based on the text of the explanatory note:
Perhaps I do not understand correctly what the community means by WP:BLUDGEON - I don't see how counting commwents I've made on a topic can be equated to bludgeon, without looking at the content of the comments. I believe BilledMammal has referred to this 2021 RfC as an example when I engaged in |
- On my own Talk, I have outlined at some length what I intended by my comments at editors' talk pages; at least three of the comments to which BilledMammal refers are questions about how to improve my editing; if someone could explain to me on a talk page how, by such edits as those, I might "dominating a conversation in order to persuade others", that would be appreciated - at present, I am clearly befuddled. Newimpartial (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Possibly; it's not a question I've considered. I know I have interacted with you a few times, though the only time I can recall is in relation to J. K. Rowling - but I don't see the relevance to this discussion or why you are asking me specifically and not editors generally.
- One indicator, although not a guarantee, of bludgeoning is being an outlier in terms of the number of comments you made in a discussion; in the 2021 RfC no editor made more comments that you did. For your talk page comments you are under an anti-bludgeoning restriction which is as you say a bright-line restriction; within a 24 hour period you made one comment here, two on your talk page, both of which are clear responses to comments here, a fourth such response to Iamreallygoodatcheckers, a fifth to Czello, a sixth (and possibly seventh; the reply to DeCausa's reply does not appear to fit under the exception of
they may however reply to questions provided the answer is reasonably short and they may add very brief clarifications of their own comments
) to DeCausa, and a seventh to Ealdgyth. - In regards to helping you understand how your contributions, here and elsewhere, are bludgeoning, I am not sure how to do that but I would suggest not relying on your own interpretation of the spirit of WP:BLUDGEON given your past issues with it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- On the question of INVOLVED, I was asking because, prior to my TBAN, you and I have disagreed frequently concerning issues covered by GENSEX (including mulitiple issues on which your views were not widely supported by the community), and you are currently participating extensively in a series of discussions on MOSBIO that are directly related to those prior disagreements. I would have thought that, in such a situation, you could not be "uninvolved" when weighing in on whether or not I would be allowed to participate through a limited exception to my TBAN.
- Concerning my User Talk comments, it would not have occurred to me (and didn't, until now) that comments made on my own User Talk could be construed as an attempt to bludgeon a noticeboard discussion, or that the number of comments made at my own User Talk would be combined with AN comments in relation to my restriction (which I described to the best of my ability at my user page).
- However, now that I am aware that comments at User Talk can be interpteted in this way, rest assured that I will take this fully into account from now on.
- On my own Talk, I have outlined at some length what I intended by my comments at editors' talk pages; at least three of the comments to which BilledMammal refers are questions about how to improve my editing; if someone could explain to me on a talk page how, by such edits as those, I might "dominating a conversation in order to persuade others", that would be appreciated - at present, I am clearly befuddled. Newimpartial (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
pointer to context-rich tangents
|
---|
My further thoughts about the ways editors talk about "bludgeoning", including how I see it employed by editors in a looser sense than described in WP:BLUDGEON, may be found here - with some additional diagnostic context - while my ongoing effort to identify best practices that I can follow going forward is here. Neither of those edits to my OWNTALK is intended as a contribution to this discussion, and I would hope to be able to edit both of those Talk sections in future without them being considered part of this AN, so long as I do not make any further reference to AN or comments made at AN in those Talk sections. |
- Newimpartial (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think you have confused me with another editor; I rarely edit in GENSEX areas and looking at our interaction report for the Talk namespace the only discussions related to GENSEX where we have interacted are the Rowling RfC and Talk:Transsexual#Requested move 2 May 2022. There might be a couple of other discussions in the Wikipedia Talk namespace or at the noticeboards but a quick review suggests not.
- To clarify, the issue wasn't that you made those posts on those talk pages, it was that by doing so you were participating in this discussion from a distance; you were responding to comments made here and attempting to engage with editors who participated here in relation to this discussion. As long as you do neither of those I believe the sections on your own talk page will be fine; I see no current issue with them. BilledMammal (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Newimpartial (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Seems a reasonable and considered request and we should aim to provide a path back to good standing for otherwise-productive editors. My support is contingent on the anti-bludgeon restriction remaining, and I would urge you to make your contributions concise and to the point then let others have their say (concision and butting out in talk page discussions we should encourage across Wikipedia). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support — I've seen Newimpartial in a handful of discussions, post-ANI closure, and their behaviour was exemplary each time. DFlhb (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support: I opposed the original topic ban as a whole. I do not think that Newimpartial was a significantly problematic editor in this topic area at all, and so obviously I'm for loosening the topic ban imposed on them. Loki (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support Newimpartial is a seasoned editor who has taken to heart the issues raised at ANI, and this is a reasoned and reasonable request. Also this gives them a way of showing they can bide by the bludgeoning restriction in an area they are obviously passionate about. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- SupportI feel comfortable in
liftingloosening the ban. This is a good request, and it appears they do understand just why theblockban was implemented. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)- This isn’t an appeal for the ban to be lifted, and I’m not sure what block you are talking about. Are you in the right thread? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you are nitpicking colloquial uses of language. Loki (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Because the words ban and block can mean specific things on Wikipedia and I would like Rick to be clarify what he is referring to. Admins don’t usually refer to a topic ban as a block. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Because I mistyped. I support his request. I'm human, I screwed up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Rick your comment is still a little confusing. Are you supporting a repeal of the topic ban entirely? Because what’s being requested here is a carve out. As I read it you are supporting something not requested so your comment may not be considered by the closer. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I support the request that ban be loosening as NewImpartial is asking for. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Rick your comment is still a little confusing. Are you supporting a repeal of the topic ban entirely? Because what’s being requested here is a carve out. As I read it you are supporting something not requested so your comment may not be considered by the closer. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Because I mistyped. I support his request. I'm human, I screwed up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Because the words ban and block can mean specific things on Wikipedia and I would like Rick to be clarify what he is referring to. Admins don’t usually refer to a topic ban as a block. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you are nitpicking colloquial uses of language. Loki (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- This isn’t an appeal for the ban to be lifted, and I’m not sure what block you are talking about. Are you in the right thread? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: Newimpartial has not acknowledged their disruptive behavior which was demonstrated at their ANI thread. Search for two occurances of "18:45, 22 February 2023". [10] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Weak support. Honestly, I do think that any CBAN topic ban ought to be taken as an indication that the editor subject to it needs to avoid the subject area for a time, and I would urge that NI, if allowed this restricted access to the area, use as light a touch in regards to even the carve out for a while. That said, policy discussions are a different animal from content discussions, and in two respects that impact this request especially: 1) there is decreased potential for immediate concern to BLPs or disruption of their associated talk spaces, and 2) changes to policies tend to get entrenched, meaning a topic banned editor could lose their moment to provide valuable insight in consideration of a change to the community/project's outlook on key issues. Considering the narrowness of the request, and the tone and nuance with which it was made, I'm inclined to support it--with the caveat that the least bit of disruptive behaviour in the relevant project spaces would hopefully lead to the exception being revoked immediately, and possible further restrictions in the area. But so long NewImpartial recognizes that they are putting their credibility and standing somewhat on the line here in that respect, I think we can afford to utilize some flexibility. SnowRise let's rap 23:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is far too slippery a slope, and likely to lead to way too many people requesting these exemptions in a torrent of wiggle-room negotiations that will eventually defeat the purpose of their TBANs. GENSEX is far too contentious topic already; we should not be letting exceptions creep in. We are not giving TheTranarchist exceptions. As with any other TBAN or sanction, let the editor edit neutrally and collaboratively in other topics for six months to a year, and then file for an appeal. There is no rush on Wikipedia, and nothing that cannot wait for one single editor's input. None of us are indispensable. Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support generally valuable editor. Andre🚐 01:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose This completely undermines the point of the topic ban. This is the exact sort of topic that Newimpartial was topic banned for bludgeoning. Either make a appeal of the whole topic ban or just accept the terms of the topic ban. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Hemiauchenia. Let's see some productive editing in some other area of the project for a while before we relax the tban. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Newimpartial has been a valuable contributor in policy discussions and has to my knowledge not exhibited further bludgeoning problems since the post which led to the ban. As ActivelyDisinterested said, this gives them a way of proving (or disproving) that they can contribute constructively in discussions related to the topic area, and their behaviour would be valuable evidence, one way or the other, in an eventual full appeal. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Hemiauchenia and Softlavender. The fact that there is a discussion currently taking place at MOS:BIO that would normally incense OP (and result in the things that led to the tban) has certainly prompted this request. Convenient exceptions to the ban defy its point. — Czello 15:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t think there are any discussions at MOSBIO
that would normally incense
me (much lessresult in the things that led to the tban
). Editors are groping towards RfC questions that could see guidelines shift in various directions, and I have background and expertise to offer but no preferred outcome in mind. - Also, I don't think there is any evidence of my being "incensed" in any prior discussions around GENDERID policy, with the relevant evidence coming, e.g., from this discussion, this one and this one - but feel free to check the whole archive.
- I would also hope that you would not consider yourself uninvolved on this issue, given our interactions. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC) edited for clarity by 20:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I feel that you are right now repeating disruptive behavior by arguing over semantics ("incensed") at the expense of the commenter's intention, as I previously pointed out to you. [11] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Or arguing over the precise location of a discussion ("at MOSBIO"). Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Kolya Butternut: I think you're being a bit unreasonable here. In your !vote above, you cite behaviour from the TBAN thread in February and a January 2023 discussion at Talk:Gender as evidence of Newimpartial's lack of acknowledgement of the problems that lead them to being TBANed. Yet in their opening post, they acknowledged the reasons for the TBAN where they said
I have made an effort to avoid personalizing disputes and have strictly observed the terms of the (unusual) anti-bludgeoning restrictions that reached community consensus at ANI
. While that may not address your specific concerns raised in the TBAN discussion, it does address the generalised concerns that were noted in the closure of the discussion. It seems unreasonable to me to expect an acknowledgement of your specific concerns, when you, like myself, were but one voice in many supporting a TBAN. Why is acknowledging your specific concerns more relevant than acknowledging the broader community concerns that were noted in the closure? - You've also now accused Newimpartial of
repeating disruptive behavior by arguing over semantics
, yet nowhere in Newimpartial's reply are they arguing over semantics. They are using the language that Czello used, while also saying that they do not believe it to be an accurate descriptor. That seems a fair thing to do, as saying that a discussion would get someone incensed is quite provocative and an aspersion about their emotional state. - Finally, context does matter. In the discussions that lead to the TBAN, many editors did rightly point out problematic contributions in article space discussions and at RSN, BLPN, and AFD. However no editor, either in that discussion or this one, has pointed out problematic contributions to policy discussions like those currently taking place at WT:MOSBIO. Do you have any evidence of problematic contributions by Newimpartial in policy or guideline discussions like those at MOSBIO? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
While that may not address your specific concerns raised in the TBAN discussion...
I am saying that they were being disruptive in their own TBAN discussion. I feel that the specific brand of disruption demonstrated there is vital to acknowledge, and I don't believe if the community recognized it that we would agree to any leniency at this time. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Kolya Butternut: I think you're being a bit unreasonable here. In your !vote above, you cite behaviour from the TBAN thread in February and a January 2023 discussion at Talk:Gender as evidence of Newimpartial's lack of acknowledgement of the problems that lead them to being TBANed. Yet in their opening post, they acknowledged the reasons for the TBAN where they said
- I feel you're focussing too largely on a single word I used in my post. I can re-word it if you like (though I believe my original description is accurate) - the point is that it's the sort of topic generated the behaviours that led to this tban in the first place. To be honest, the fact that you've dwelled on a single word like this might be somewhat proving my point. — Czello 21:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t think there are any discussions at MOSBIO
Neutral/CommentOppose I strongly supported the anti-bludgeon restrictions in the original thread but had no comment on the GENSEX issue. I had no particular experience of their GENSEX conduct, but I had seen their frequent bludgeoning. So I don't have a strong view on this now. However, it seems strange to allow them to get back into the topic area on two specific pages just because they really want to. Why doesn't that work for any tbanned editor? Why make an exception in this case? They mention that they used to do gnoming at MOS:GIDINFO. There's more logic to allowing them to edit there provided they only engage in gnoming. DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)- Having thought about this further, including this exchange on my talk page, I've switched to oppose. I really don't see any argument for this being an exception to the normal TBAN approach and it sets a rather illogical precedent. I had already found the argument that their "expertise" was needed on these pages was unconvincing. Thinking about it further, it's not only unconvincing but because they advanced such a bogus ground for the exception to the TBAN it pushes me over to oppose. DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Extremely weak support with the thinnest possible ice. Those who know me off-wiki may be aware that I'm quite conflicted on this, but at the end of the day I feel like banning people from talk and project pages is risky business compared to article-space bans, and I like open discussion. The thing though is that despite this editors promises, they have in the past most certainly choked up talk pages. I'm hoping they've changed but not holding my breath, and if this goes downhill then an immediate reversal of the exception is certainly warranted. (comment from involved editor)
Oppose, as the ice has been shattered per Kolya Butternut and Czello. casualdejekyll 19:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm not understanding why an exception should be granted just because Newimpartial really wants one. A TBAN effects both good and bad editing and that exceptions should be granted
on very rare occasions
(per WP:BMB). It would need to be proven that there is some kind of compelling reason to allow for this exception. I don't believe that has been proven at this time. Furthermore, I don't particularly like the idea of Newimpartial trying to find little loopholes in policy to get back on the GENSEX area despite their TBAN; they need to accept the TBAN, make attempts to better themselves and other content areas, and then appeal the TBAN in full in due time, not spend time with requests like this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 21:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC) - Comment: Badgering people at their talk pages does not inspire confidence. See Special:Contributions/Newimpartial. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Note I wish to highlight that NewImpartial is choosing to message opposers separately to this discussion.[12][13][14][15] Normally I'd say there's nothing wrong with this, but given that there is an anti-bludgeon restriction against this user (for the very reasons that spawned the initial TBAN) I'm forced to bring this up, as I'm inclined to believe this is bludgeoning by less-obvious means. (Disclosure: I have already expressed my !vote above) — Czello (music) 22:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm opposing their request for other reasons. To be honest, I wasn't too bothered about them posting on my talk page.
- it's kinda comically incorrigible!DeCausa (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC) - NewImpartial is now pinging editors to a wall of text where they continue to dispute comments left here. They also continue to message users on their talk page. Again, normally this wouldn't be a problem - but given the anti-bludgeon restriction in place I can't help but see how this is anything but bludgeoning; the only difference is that it's on user talk pages rather than here.
- NewImpartial, I'm sorry, but - I think this is harming your case and honestly just reinforces my above !vote. It's only been a month; I don't think it's the right time for an exception yet. — Czello (music) 08:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm opposing their request for other reasons. To be honest, I wasn't too bothered about them posting on my talk page.
- Oppose the tban has been in effect for a little over a month. It is far too early to be carving out caveats like this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose given the nexus between the behavior that led to the TBAN and the behavior evident here and on user talk pages in response to participants. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- In response to this comment, Newimpartial has apparently determined to strengthen the case by...adding my talk page to the ones they are bludgeoning. Well done. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- On a balance, support per ActivelyDisinterested and Madeline: above, a few users (DFlhb, ActivelyDisinterested,...) have said OP's recent contributions to discussions have been exemplary, while another editor has worried that, despite good behaviour elsewhere, the user would bludgeon this topic area — well, how better (or how else?) can a user who's been editing constructively elsewhere, and has a depth of institutional knowledge of this area, prove or disprove that they can contribute constructively to this area, except by having at least a limited opportunity to do so? -sche (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Too soon. it has only been five weeks or so since the topic ban and the extraordinary anti-bludgeoning restriction were placed. I'm not confident that this user will be able to avoid falling back into the same problematic behaviour that lead to the sanctions. I find it telling that this request includes their statement
Obviously if I were to lapse into bludgeon or antagonism, that would be disruptive behaviour and I would expect to lose editing privileges in that event. But that is within my control, and I won't do that.
but they have engaged in what editors have called bludgeoning. Pinging editors to lengthy discussions of this thread elsewhere to avoid bludgeoning this page is still blufgeoning. Meters (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC) - Oppose as I see bludgeoning type behaviour already in responding to this thread. Also there is no clear reason given for an exemption. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as we are already seeing problematic behavior in this thread (visiting opposers talk pages while subject to an anti-bludgeoning restriction, really?) Courcelles (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Upload image to Wikidata
Hello, please help me and upload the logo of this organization in Wikidata. (Islamic Republic of Iran Police Intelligence Organization) Like the logo of this network that is available in Wikidata. [16] Thankful 12:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaesarIran (talk • contribs)
- The logo on Wikidata is actually on the Commons, which means it can be used here. It's at File:IRINN IRIB.png. Animal lover |666| 12:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's the wrong logo. The logo in the article is only on wikipedia. I expect it is too complex for commons. Secretlondon (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'll ask the same question I asked on the OP's talk page. What did you mean by "This request was made by a loved one"? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't fully understand English, but I posted my request on Wikipedia:Teahouse titled "Upload image to Wikidata" and dear GoingBatty (talk · contribs) did it. CaesarIran (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! I was just making sure that this wasn't someone else using your account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't fully understand English, but I posted my request on Wikipedia:Teahouse titled "Upload image to Wikidata" and dear GoingBatty (talk · contribs) did it. CaesarIran (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'll ask the same question I asked on the OP's talk page. What did you mean by "This request was made by a loved one"? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's the wrong logo. The logo in the article is only on wikipedia. I expect it is too complex for commons. Secretlondon (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Global ban proposal for Piermark/House of Yahweh/HoY
There is an on-going discussion about a proposal that Piermark/House of Yahweh/HoY be globally banned from editing all Wikimedia projects. You are invited to participate at Requests for comment/Global ban for Piermark on Meta-Wiki. Thank you! U.T. (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Where do we report abusive Wikipedia censors?
I try to be a good citizen and contribute honestly to Wikipedia. However, recently I've been abused by 2 Romanian Wikipedia censors who said I was "vandalizing".
1. How and where can we report such abusers?
2. How did Wikipedia select such stupid abusive censors?
See https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discu%C8%9Bie_Utilizator:82.77.237.196 82.77.237.196 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- This noticeboard is for the English-language Wikipedia only. You will have to sort this out on the Romanian Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- No, you're just vandalizing. Leave us alone, please. casualdejekyll 19:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
We have an SPA edit-warring subpar BLP material. See here]. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Indeffed for legal threats. Courcelles (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Lol, "Test me and find out." Zaathras (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- The person the account is named for is a serial litigant, by the way. Expect more annoyance. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
RfC: Global CheckUser Activity Policy
There is a discussion on meta about establishing a global CheckUser activity policy. All are invited to participate at: m:Requests for comment/CheckUser activity RFC. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
User was unblocked but unblock requests were not removed
see User_talk:Sundropie they apparently have been unblocked but they still have unblock requests that need to be removed and i am not sure i can do that as i am not a administrator Qwv (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Qvw There is no requirement to remove unblock requests once the block is removed. People can, but they don't have to. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Qwv - I took a look at that page, they weren't unblocked, but the sitewide block expired. Due to a technical limitation this caused the partial block to be removed, which @Bishonen has now restored. SQLQuery Me! 16:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)