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. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	7	12	19
TfD	0	0	1	8	9
MfD	0	0	2	4	6
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	0	22	22
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 130 sockpuppet investigations
• 11 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 20 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 4 requests for RD1 redaction
• 24 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 34 requested closures
• 100 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 11 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (29 out of 8427 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/nationality/innercore 2024-09-21 14:29 indefinite edit,move Reduce protection level following this RfPP request Favonian Revolutionary Communist International 2024-09-21 14:12 2024-10-21 14:12 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Star Mississippi Ibrahim Aqil (Hezbollah) 2024-09-21 11:03 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Jitendra Dhaka 2024-09-21 04:55 indefinite create I didn't mean to change this Liz Basem Al-Shayeb 2024-09-21 01:17 2025-09-21 01:17 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Template:Inflation/IN/dataset 2024-09-20 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2568 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:ESPNscrum 2024-09-20 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2884 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Assassination of Ibrahim Aqil 2024-09-20 15:27 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights 2024-09-20 15:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Nyan Boateng 2024-09-20 01:28 2024-09-27 01:28 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Star Mississippi User talk:Lots O' Numbers 2024-09-19 23:38 2024-10-19 23:38 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot Mark Robinson (American politician) 2024-09-19 21:34 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement per CTOP AP Given recent reports in the media. Will log at WP:AEL Ad Orientem Won't Be Around 2024-09-19 20:09 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Paul Oluikpe 2024-09-19 17:31 2025-03-19 17:31 create Repeatedly recreated: force to go through AfC, after persistent attempts to move draft here OwenX Old Balinese 2024-09-19 07:40 2024-12-19 07:40 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Daniel Quinlan Balinese language 2024-09-19 07:38 2024-12-19 07:38 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Dodai tribe 2024-09-19 02:49 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Imane Khelif 2024-09-19 01:51 2024-12-03 13:11 edit,move SarekOfVulcan John McEntee (political aide) 2024-09-18 19:47 2024-10-02 19:47 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Drmies Template:Pakistani English 2024-09-18 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2528 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Gaza Envelope 2024-09-18 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli User:Tar Lócesilion 2024-09-18 13:57 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Zzuuzz Gold Apollo AR924 2024-09-18 12:43 2024-10-18 12:43 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions 2024-09-18 12:08 indefinite move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Pentaerythritol tetranitrate 2024-09-18 07:38 2024-12-18 07:38 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I ToBeFree Talk:Donald Trump assassination hoax 2024-09-17 23:55 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Donald Trump assassination hoax 2024-09-17 23:55 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Pager 2024-09-17 18:37 2024-10-17 18:37 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR (related content) El C 2024 Lebanon pager explosions 2024-09-17 17:09 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C

Help cleaning up bot-mangled citations

This came up last month, but there hasn't been much movement on it since, and I'm not sure where else I can raise a signal about it. Use of the ReferenceExpander bot without manually checking its output has led to references being contracted instead. For example, the bot sometimes follows a link that now redirects to a new, uninformative place, but since the link technically "works" the auto-generated citation omits the archive-URL and creates a footnote that is nicely templated but completely useless. It also removes all sorts of ancillary information included in manually-formatted citations, like quotations. If multiple citations were gathered into the same footnote, it creates a replacement based on only the first of them. It can see a citation to a chapter in an edited collection and replace the authors' names with the editors of the volume. It can see a URL for a news story and create a {{cite web}} footnote that omits the byline which had been manually included. A list of potentially affected pages is available here.

It's frankly a slog to deal with, and there doesn't seem to be any other option than manually looking at each item.

(Per the big orange box, I have notified the editor whose actions prompted all this, but they are both retired and indeffed.) XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey @XOR'easter sorry. I was going to try working through at least a few of these a bit at a time, but I've been busy with a lot of other stuff. Is anyone here interested in gathering together a crew to tackle some of these as a group? It feels pretty daunting for just a few people. –jacobolus (t) 02:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I can help. --JBL (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I started reviewing the list, and fyi, in the 1853 or so citations affected here [1], I noticed https urls were occasionally converted to http. Beccaynr (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't even thought to check for that. XOR'easter (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Have you asked the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for help? They are also having a copy-editing drive this month, and maybe something like this could be added to that project. Beccaynr (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I did ask, as it happens; apparently it's not in their wheelhouse. XOR'easter (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

WikiFaerie are not as well-organized, so I am not sure how to conduct outreach, but I will try to work through the list you have developed when possible. Thank you for calling attention to this. Beccaynr (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: Perhaps WP:WikiProject Citation cleanup? Not the most active of projects, I think, though. AddWittyNameHere 21:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; I've commented over there.

What gets me is that these are not all obscure pages. DNA, for example, is a Featured Article with almost 2,000 watchers, and yet nobody seems to have noticed when citations were modified to have a last name "Bank", first name "RCSB Protein Data". XOR'easter (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

There are so many bots and bot-like gnomes running around making so many hundreds of thousands of minor cleanups to citations on articles, 99% of which are fine, that it makes it very tiresome to consistently check all edits appearing on one's watchlist and notice the thousands of edits that fall into the 1% of cases where the software totally screws up the citation. And yet, these supposed cleanups happen so often and so repetitively to the same articles that it seems that, eventually, all citations will be garbaged by bots. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I've been very slowly working my way through one of the more severely damaged articles, Falun Gong (a CTOP I've never edited before). Out of the numerous affected references, I have yet to see the ReferenceExpander script suggest a correct citation. 04:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Updating to add that I have now found a correct citation produced by this tool, giving a success rate in my sample around 10%. Even ignoring the information lost from the manually formatted references that are not converted into the cite templates, I'm seeing the tool assign incorrect titles and incorrect dates, leave out authors when a byline is clearly evident at the top of the article, confuse archives with live urls, and associated basic errors.

At this point I'm extremely suspect of any edits performed using this script, since its parsing both of the existing reference and of retrieved webpages is, in the general case, objectively inadequate. It might be faster to batch undo as many of these edits as is technically feasible, and I'm sadly wondering if we should formally encourage the maintainer to disable the script pending improvement. Courtesy ping User:BrandonXLF. Folly Mox (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday I found that the ReferenceExpander script also removed Template:pd-notice from every article it had touched in Category:Human trafficking by country, which all incorporate text in the public domain in the US. Not sure how big a problem regarding copyright and attribution that is, but it's definitely an unwanted behaviour. The query User:XOR'easter and them ran back in April returned over 2600 rows. It's dog's work fixing these, but if people could just scroll around a bit and find a couple articles that interest them, we could repair the damage a lot quicklier. The bottom tables, where the script has added in byte size, seem to be pretty low hanging fruit, since action is not always needed. Folly Mox (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Seconding this: it's very much at the stage where having a bunch of people click on five random links and fix or mark as ok the obvious easy ones would be a huge help. --JBL (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I've come across ReferenceExpander in a few of the articles I watch and similarly find it to have an extraordinarily low rate of success. If it's to remain available its users must not only check the output very carefully indeed but also actually understand how our citation templates work. XAM2175 ^(T) 16:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I finally found one that wasn't a problem! This edit to Penguin looks fine. XOR'easter (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Both citations had archive URLs that were deleted by the script leaving only a dead URL in the new cite, and in the first one the script also commits the grossly stupid error of cramming two different corporate publishers into a single set of |first= and |last= fields. XAM2175 ^(T) 15:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow. OK, back to 0% success in those I've examined, then. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I started checking History of Wikipedia and just had to give up. Lost content restored up through line 108, but I need to lie down now. XOR'easter (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair. I've definitely had two or three repairs that took me multiple hours of work and required a break or a night's sleep. For a single diff. Smh. Folly Mox (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It has to get easier after Zionism, right? Right? XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I've mostly been backing out of the articles where the size has been reduced by multiple kilobytes unless I have a whole day available to devote to reference repair, and I appreciate that you've been tackling the top of the list while I've been scrolling arbitrarily and repairing whatever.

Perhaps the most egregious behaviour I saw yesterday was at Mead, where ReferenceExpander took a properly formatted book citation, already in a template, and discarded the page= parameter. I cannot pretend to understand why this functionality would be programmed in. Folly Mox (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Having been on Sub-Saharan Africa for the past few days, I can safely say: Prolly not. ~Judy _{(job requests)} 15:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I am having to take Left-libertarianism in tiny morsels. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I checked several diffs; will try to check more later. The edit to Toki Pona seems to have been good, as far as how it formatted the reference, although the entire reference was subsequently removed for being a random youtube video. -sche (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's an odd one: as far as I can tell, everything here was fine except that it dropped a space which was present between two of the words in the title, smooshing them together. (Am I missing any other issues?) I'm surprised a script that causes as many problems as have been discussed here, and as many different kinds of problems, doesn't seem(?) to have been disabled yet. -sche (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Would it be improper (or even possible) to propose that it be disabled by community consensus? XAM2175 ^(T) 22:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there a bot? Philoserf (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked. Is any other user running User:BrandonXLF/ReferenceExpander in a problematic way? If ReferenceExpander is thought to have problems, BrandonXLF can be asked for a fix but there would need to be a list of, say, five examples of a problem with a brief explanation. If the script produces more problems than it solves, it could easily be disabled. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

There are definitely other users running it, but not on anywhere near the same scale. Their edits typically have the same kinds of issues, but they are more likely to self-censor the most egregious ones. In my opinion the script creates a lot of big problems and doesn't really solve anything at all. YMMV. –jacobolus (t) 04:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The script seems to run as intended if the source is the New York Times or if it has a doi number. I've also seen it take a bare url reference and create a citation that was pretty good except for one field filled out naively but not incorrectly. For online news sources, it tends not to make things worse, although it sometimes does.

Edits from users other than Philoserf are consistently less worse, because they look at the proposed output and choose not to apply the obviously incorrect updates, but the script has so many problems (way more than five) and gets so many different things wrong and discards so much information present in existing citations that I would never feel comfortable not double checking an edit made using it.

Having looked briefly at the code, I think the bugs might actually be upstream in dependency libraries, but disabling the interface is probably the safest move. BrandonXLF has added a warning that editors are responsible for edits made using the script, but has otherwise been silent on the issue. I suppose we could take it to MfD. Folly Mox (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated it. — SamX [talk · contribs] 20:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• More than 450 edits have been checked, reverted, or repaired; that's still less than 20% of the total. Let me again suggest to people who like gnoming that a lot of this is pretty straightforward (one or two references per edit to check to make sure no information was lost) and that's just a matter of hands on deck. --JBL (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  People will want to click through to the target page to ensure the script hasn't – for example – credited editors as authors or put the name of the author or website into the title= parameter. I usually go in with the goal of making the citation reasonably complete, since I'm checking it anyway, which often involves adding parameters like author and publication date, but the tactic of making sure the reference is not worse than before the script touched it is also viable. It is indeed reasonably straightforward, and one hardly ever needs to assess source quality, relevance, or whether it supports the prose. It's easy enough that it's what I've been doing when my brain is done for the day. There's just a lot. Folly Mox (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Is there any reason to retain the other 1800+ edits while they're being checked? I'm not familiar with this tool at all, but it sounds as if the bot's edits are detrimental, and the project would be better off if we just reverted en masse. Is that correct, or is it better to check before reverting the bot? Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Nyttend: I'm not a technically apt editor and I haven't done as much repairing as some others so I might not be the best person to answer this question, but I'll share my two cents here anyway. It's impossible to revert many of the edits using Undo, Twinkle, etc. because most were several months ago, and multiple edits to many of the pages have occurred since then. A minority of the citations, particularly to the New York Times, were actually improved by ReferenceExpander. Some of them aren't too bad, and only require something straightforward like adding |archive-url=, |archive-date=, and url-status= to the citation templates or correcting the author paramaters. Some of them are in pretty bad shape, but were already poorly formatted before ReferenceExpander and require quite a bit more work. Most of them can be manually reverted by copying and pasting the wikitext of the citations from the pre-ReferenceExpander revision, although creating a new citation template from scratch is often an improvement over the old revision. There are enough weird behaviors and edge cases that simply reverting them all with a bot or script probably wouldn't be a good option IMO, but others may disagree with me on that point. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  User:Nyttend, when I come across edits that are the most recent revision during the cleanup, typically I'll straight revert them (sometimes I'll improve them; it depends on how sleepy and grumpy I'm feeling), and I see other editors contributing to this task doing the same, but usually there are intervening edits. If we had a query of all the ReferenceExpander edits where they were the most recent revision, I feel it would be safe to bulk revert the lot and then go back and unrevert any that were genuine improvements, which do occur.

  Based on my experience with the cleanup, possibly between 10 and 20 per cent of ReferenceExpander edits are net-zero or net-positive, to give a very rough estimate. We've been prioritising the more damaged articles, but the edits which increase the byte size are usually much less worse. The issue, for my brain anyway, is that they're still mostly incomplete and naive, so if I'm in there anyway I'll try to leave it better than ReferenceExpander found it. Folly Mox (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Also it might be good to run the same query for older edits. I think the ReferenceExpander script has been around for a while and I would expect it probably had roughly similar behavior through its life. There are probably at least some older ones that should be checked/fixed (though hopefully not nearly so many). –jacobolus (t) 04:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. If we do that, I think we should also run a query if the script is deleted or disabled after the MFD is closed. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It is probably safest to check every edit ever committed using this tool. Something that worries me is that the entire core functionality seems to hinge on a function in mediawiki's own Citoid.js library, and I happened upon some citations earlier today or yesterday, not created by ReferenceExpander, that had publication dates in the author-first= field. I'm not sure how many scripts will take anything other than a bare URL as input before creating a citation, which is by far the biggest problem with the ReferenceExpander edits, but once this cleanup is a bit more buttoned up it might be wise to find out which team is responsible for maintaining Citoid.js and see if we can't get them to implement some improvements and add warning messages to editors that the output may not be correct and double checking should be performed. Folly Mox (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

For those keeping score at home, we recently passed 25% completion (by number of edits): about 650 out of 2500 have been checked or corrected. The most recent one I fixed was a real doozie. --JBL (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I've seen that same failure mode before. I can't put my finger on where exactly it was, but it definitely did show up in one of the other articles I've fixed. XOR'easter (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, it was in Ballistic movement [2]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

And it's the same replacement chosen for the two (otherwise unrelated) references! So bizarre. --JBL (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions at WP:ITN

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long_Term_pattern_of_violations_of_WP:CIVIL_by_The_Rambling_Man
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Oh_joy,_an_out_of_control_ANI_discussion

So several hours ago I read the above thread here at WP:AN, and went to AN/I to see what was going on.

At that point I very nearly shut the whole thing down. I don't think I'd need to explain to any admin why. I think if anyone read the AN/I thread at that point, the reasons would be obvious. (Hence placing the warning there, today.)

But at that time, I decided that a.) "many eyes" were on this and none had yet done so (and I'm a firm believer in "many eyes"). b.) at that point the site ban had been self-closed and the topic ban was about split vote-wise (though, I wouldn't call it a consensus by any stretch of the imagination), but I thought that maybe letting the community continue to discuss, something productive might appear. and c.) with apologies to everyone for whom this is important, I decided some sleep was a better use of my time at that point...

So I come back today, and the vitriol has become worse. And it's devolving into a political fight, rather than an assessment of editor behaviour.

And it seems to me now that I've had some sleep and have re-read all of this, setting aside the questions about the editor in question, that something User:Masem said in the WP:AN/I discussion about a broader issue seems to potentially be informative here. [3] - "We all know at ITN that when the subject of a shooting in the US comes up, things get heated really fast, and yes, no one should be dragging US politics into the mix; I've called for such concerns on the talk page many times. But TRM is not the first, not the last, to be doing that. [...] I'm all for ANI-based caution, but again, civility without being directed any any specific editor is near impossible to enforce or we have to enforce it across the entire board, and I'm pretty sure that will not happen."

Actually - We have Wikipedia:Contentious topics all set up for such things. And when I look at the list at Wikipedia:General sanctions it seems to me that Wikipedia:In the news is just naturally a hub for where these and many other topics are just likely to come up.

Now, per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Contentious topic restrictions, as an uninvolved admin, I could right now go and apply the restrictions. But as any admin is trusted to apply these, I think it would be interesting to hear what other admins think. So I think I'd like to hear from other admins first, to see if we can look at the options listed with the "standard set", and agree on something that will work for WP:ITN, but to try to not get too much in the way of the work being done there.

Or in other words, to look at what we can do to reduce disruption, while trying to minimize any disruption such sanctions could potentially cause.

I look forward to your (plural) thoughts. - jc37 19:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

As an admin who gets WP:INVOLVED in those U.S. mass shooting nominations Masem was referring to, I 100% support applying discretionary sanctions against users who make uncivil comments there. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This would apply it to the page, and so would affect all editors there. It's intended as a (hopefully) preventative measure. - jc37 20:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

That's why I support it. We should all be held to account for our behavior and hopefully this will succeed at prevention of bad behavior. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Contentious topic restrictions, as an uninvolved admin, I could right now go and apply the restrictions is not correct: ITN as a whole does not fall within any of the areas for which these restrictions have been authorized. Now, we as a community could certainly decide to put ITN under general sanctions (although I don't have a strong opinion about whether that's a good idea, it's at least an option), but individual admins definitely don't have the ability to do that unilaterally. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Arguably there are topics at ITN that fall under various ARBCOM GS and DS, and we had discussed a few months ago the idea of tagging the page with the appropriate notices, but without any closure. This would be a similar idea. Masem (t) 20:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Query from not an admin, and although a long-time editor, I really just don't understand how contentious topics and arb enforcement and the like work, so apply a big grain of salt to my feedback. But an observation about WP:ARBMED; unnecessary discretionary sanctions were applied in this case (evidenced by the fact they have not been invoked once, and the problem completely resolved itself by the removal of a few problematic editors from the topic of drug pricing). Is it really necessary to apply discretionary sanctions to an entire area, until/unless/while problematic behaviors from individuals are in the process of being addressed? It seems to me that some of the alarms going off about the thread that started this are only serving to obscure the issues; why not wait 'til that is settled ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about the specific example you note, but sometimes, just applying the sanctions can help act as a preventative. - jc37 20:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In that case, three (maybe four, memory fails) editors were seeking to install a fait accompli re WP:NOTPRICE. Discretionary sanctions were applied to the entire area, rather than deal with those editors. In this case, a couple of editors made really unnecessary and unhelpful posts at the beginning of the thread; is not this yet another distraction from the matter at hand, and should we not let it work itself out first? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Even if the community decides to remove one particular editor from the equation; per what we're seeing at AN/I and a perusal of ITN discussions in general, suggests that perhaps this is still not "working itself out", and seems likely to continue. So, seeing if we can act as a preventative, would seem like something worth discussing. - jc37 21:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur with jc37. We've had years for ITN's problems to "work itself out". It hasn't. There have been several proposals made to tone down the battleground rhetoric and the forum-like discourse, and they've gone nowhere. People still engage in it, because they don't fear any consequences from administrators. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Speaking as an admin who has done a fair bit of CT/DS work; I recognize the need for a more civil atmosphere at ITN, and perhaps CT restrictions will help, but it's procedurally a little messier than is suggested above. ITN as a whole cannot be placed under CT restrictions; as ExtraordinaryWrit points out, it's out of scope, and I don't know what page-level sanctions would be useful anyway. However, both US politics and gun control already are designated as contentious topics, and uninvolved admins may unilaterally sanction users who have been made aware of the CT restrictions. As such, I think it likely that ITN will benefit from administrators watching the rather frequent discussions about mass shootings in the US, making users who stray from the straight and narrow aware of the CT restrictions, and imposing sanctions if they become needed. This is something we can already do, however; no community consensus is necessary. If we wish to place ITN as a whole under general sanctions that would need a proposal at AN, and I'm not sure I would support that, as I don't see ITN as a whole being disrupted any more frequently than the rest of the encyclopedia. And if you want to use CT restrictions specifically on ITN as a whole, you would need authorization from ARBCOM, and I don't see ARBCOM accepting a case about ITN as a whole. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  (ec) Thank you, I very much appreciate the clarification. - jc37 21:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  So could someone give the first CT alert to those misbehaving at ANI and at ITN now? (I can't post at one of the user talk pages, and the CT alert would carry more weight from an admin anyway.) I'm asking because I'm all in favor of avoiding an arbcase if there are other things that can be tried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Someone whose misconduct is relevant to AmPol or Gun control should receive an alert if they haven't already. I will not personally be leaving any, and with respect to TRM specifically I'm INVOLVED. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I have stated my recommendation at WP:ANI once, and have stated it here at WP:AN above, which is that ArbCom should be asked to deal with The Rambling Man. I don't expect anyone to jump up and write an RFAR, so if this drags on without any resolution, I will write an RFAR, but probably not this month. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Question - Can an uninvolved admin topic-ban The Rambling Man from gun control and American politics? That would deal with one area of incivility, and would allow us at least to think that we have accomplished something. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  As a procedural note, I can find a diff showing awareness of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation, at Special:AbuseLog/13823181. Has this editor 3ver been formally made aware of AP2, or GC? Noting I’ve not done any deeper checks than just looking through their talk page filter log. Courcelles (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) I've been one of the louder voices for reform at WP:ITN. I wrote about the issue at WP:VPP#Wikipedia guidelines and In the news, but the gist of it is that there's virtually no guidance for what's "significant" enough to post, and editors are asked to debate their own subjective opinions and engage in original research. This facilitates arguments more than anything, and I don't believe the issue will go away until this is addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Interesting thread; we have editors at VPP saying on May 15 there is no problem at ITN, and we have lots of editors at ANI saying two weeks later there are big problems at ITN. You already started a VPP thread, and I'm not yet seeing how this is a matter for ArbCom, so ... back to CT warnings? Is there a precedent of ArbCom having to look at an entire content area (I recall the Cyclone/Hurricane/Discord matter-- unsure if similar)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  The closest I can think of is probably WP:ARBGGTF that imposed Discretionary Sanctions on the Gender Gap Task Force. There's also WP:ARBDEL which had a lot of discussion about ARS, but no real remedies for the area as a whole. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) In the interest of contributing to the discussion and providing a reference case (possibly the only existing reference case), please find a AE Case relating to the usage of DS/CT restrictions at ITN which directly resulted in sanctions. The case relates to myself, and my posting the case here should not be construed as commentary on the case itself. Carter00000 (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I could get behind community-imposed General Sanctions on the ITN-related project pages. The current Arbcom CT restrictions seem like they're built more for article topic areas, though. I think WP:ARBPIA-style restrictions (which have been used by the community many times before with success) might be more effective. An example of the wording would be at WP:GS/Crypto#GS. We could cut out the part about page restrictions unless things like edit wars are an actual problem on ITN pages, but from what I see the problem is mostly civility. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• To formally state my opinion: yes, I support the imposition of general or discretionary sanctions on ITN. The incivility is getting out of hand. It's almost a guarantee that discourse will become uncivil on any contentious nom, particularly those related to gun violence, even without TRM's presence. In fact, just about any nom regarding an event that occurs in the United States is a potential flashpoint. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Challenge to non-admin closure of RfC at BLP article Victor Salva

Please review the decision on Talk:Victor_Salva#Request_for_comment which seems like a bad joke. 13 users were in favor of including the photo in some form, only 3 were against it (not even 4 like stated in the closure note), yet somehow the closing user came to the decision that the picture should not be included at all. I'm requesting someone with more experience to review the decision. Thanks --FMSky (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The question in the RfC was specifically about including the mugshots in the infobox. Several of the 13 you mention supported including it elsewhere in the article instead, where it now is (although arguably still in contravention of WP:MUG). – bradv 01:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call the close a "bad joke". The opposition had several policy-based arguments, including WP:UNDUE and WP:MUG, which are part of the NPOV and BLP policies respectively. I agree with the closer that there was no consensus to include the image in the infobox. Maddy from Celeste's close doesn't specifically state whether there is consensus to include the images elsewhere in the article, though I believe there is sufficient consensus for this. (also, please remember to notify users when posting to AN or ANI; I've done this for you.) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

thanks a lot. i thought that was only needed when the discussion was specifically about the user ---FMSky (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to comment, as someone who !vote'd in the RfC to include the picture, that I think the closer did an excellent job. The especially did an excellent job even noting that that closer explicitly said they were counting my vote with less priority due to the nature of my arguments. This is exemplary behavior on the part of the closer, and exactly what a closer should be doing. Fieari (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That looks like an excellent close to me. Black Kite (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

yes its especially excellent how the "oppose" votes were miscounted --FMSky (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky: Closers should not solely take a look at vote counts. See WP:NOTVOTE.
While it may be true that, generally, when a majority of users are on one side of an issue; that is generally where the close should land. However, it is not the sole factor for determining consensus. This is for a variety of reasons including: polling is not a substitute for discussion, a local consensus can't override a global one, or a close shouldn't normally contradict policy.
If you understood these principles, then you wouldn't really be arguing for the close to be overturned. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• I voted to support the image being included in the infobox before changing my vote based on some well reasoned arguments. I believe the closer adequately evaluated the discussion and it's a good close. It's hyperbolic to describe the close "a bad joke." I'd urge FMky, to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric. This is isn't the first time.[4].- Nemov (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• I also think this was a good close, although it didn't go according to my recommendation. Also, it should be noted that the page was changed on May 30 to include the image on the page anyway, one day after the closure on May 29. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Backlog at AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old has discussions that are overdue closing by more than a week. – Joe (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

New WMF Moderator Tools project: Automoderator - input requested!

Hi - my team (Moderator Tools) is exploring a project to build an automated anti-vandalism tool next year. This would enable admins to configure automated reversion of bad edits, based on new machine learning models (think ClueBot NG). This is still in a very early phase so we have a lot of questions about how this could work. Please see Moderator Tools/Automoderator and let us know what you think on that talk page or here! I'm especially interested in your experiences of how ClueBot NG functions - how valuable do you find it, what kinds of vandalism does it commonly miss, what feature improvements could you imagine for it? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by HugoAcosta9

HugoAcosta9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting to have their indefinite block lifted. He was initially blocked [5] for disruption surrounding AfDs and personal attacks, and then engaged in sockpuppetry and block evasion after being indefinitely blocked. That said, there was certainly a fair amount of constructive editing before things came to that point as well, and there is at least some support for the position that HugoAcosta9 did have a point about what was going on, even if it wasn't expressed in an appropriate way. Given the various factors involved here, I think it should be discussed by the community whether this editor should be unblocked, and if so what, if any, restrictions should be applied. Quoted text of the appeal follows below. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I am writing to request an appeal of my block that was imposed in October of 2022. I was wrong and had been uploading disruptive edits, including personal attacks, disruption at AfDs - doubles down at thread brought by user to ANI. This behavior ultimately led to my block from Wikipedia. I acknowledge that I was frequently advised to stop, but I chose to ignore the warnings and continued my actions, which resulted in my block. At that time, I frequently added disruptive edits to discussions, including sockpuppettering six months ago despite editors' instructions that I do not do so. I disregarded their warnings and persisted in my irresponsible behavior. After I was blocked, instead of taking time off to do other things, I was deceitful and frequently engaged in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, originally using the IPs. I also utilized a wide range of various IP addresses. In December 2022, I was not aware that I had engaged in sockpuppetry and believed that I was able to request a standard offer (SO) in good faith. I now understand that my actions were inappropriate and have since learned more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. While I recognize that this does not excuse my behavior, it does help explain why I have kept coming back to the site. I want to emphasize that I did not have any malicious intent and did not intend to violate any of Wikipedia's rules. I am a passionate supporter of Wikipedia and deeply regret any harm that my actions may have caused to the community. Since my account was banned, I have taken steps to educate myself about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I have stayed away from the site for over six months. I am eager to return to the community and make meaningful contributions. And for over six months, I have been editing at Spanish Wikipedia, making positive contributions like creating new articles. I feel that it could benefit my contributions to Wikipedia, especially with football articles. I realize that my past behavior was unacceptable and violated Wikipedia's policies. However, I am deeply remorseful for my actions and am committed to making positive contributions to the community. I want to prove that I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a responsible and productive manner. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• For ease, copying my Undeniably involved comment, I do somewhat agree with @Nfitz: above that "the AFD system completely failed", which was a big part of what led to Hugo's frustration. I was the closer of some of the original AfDs and ultimately ended up agreeing with them being relisted/restored once the full picture became more clear. Courtesy links: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 October 19, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#Concerns_about_articles_nominated_for_deletion. I'm not going to take action and have not reviewed the Spanish edits they refer to above, but I do thank them for their clear & direct request above. comment from their Talk. Star Mississippi 01:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• I remember the ANI thread that led to their block. The OP was upset that a number of their articles had been nominated for deletion and started throwing around personal attacks, accusations of racism, etc. That's not good of course, but later in the thread there was a clear consensus that the deletion nominations were inappropriate - so inappropriate, in fact, that the editor who initiated them was topic-banned from AfD. It's understandable that someone might become frustrated after being carpet-bombed with meritless AfDs, and aside from this incident the editor's history seems mostly uneventful and productive. I would support an unblock assuming that there is no evidence of recent block evasion. Spicy (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Request an Admin

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

---

Hello. It seems to me that User:Raven is engaging in disruptive editing at this time at this subsection of an ANI .It is OK to comment, of course. But the amount of text they keep adding after my post seems to be dominating this subsection of the ANI. I have no other way to describe it. I'm wondering if an Admin could discourage this behavior somehow - or put a stop to it - if that is the appropriate action. Anyway, please take a look. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I addressed each of the four specific claims you made about "tendentious editing" by Randy Kryn. In our last exchange, you insisted you had not cited WP:TRIVIAL, and I quoted your "Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images"  [underline added]. This you bring to WP:AN? – .Raven  ^.talk 08:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you know that people can use the word "trivial" without it having anything to do with WP:TRIVIAL? JoelleJay (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Then where's the policy mandating the "edit [ing] out [of]  trivial images"? – .Raven  ^.talk 08:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Nyxaros reverts pointing out that trivial images contravene WP:IMGDD, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." IMGDD draws directly from the WP:image use policy and WP:NOTGALLERY. JoelleJay (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE maybe? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparantly the fringe crew doesn't enjoy anyone logically pointing out that their accusations against me don't amount to a hill of beans (and rice). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Just a note that administrator involvement at the general ANI thread would still be greatly appreciated to cut down on all the unproductive and tendentious IDHT commentary. JoelleJay (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Involvement check

I'd like to get a quick check with the community about my level of involvement with Hunter Biden laptop controversy before I take any strong actions dealing with the article. I don't see myself as involved, but the threshold is if the community believes I'm involved, and the area is grey enough where I'd like to make sure. I've made eight edits to the article, the last back in January, reverting edits that were by drive-by editors making edits against existing RFC and noticeboard consensus, removing "falsely" from from claims of election fraud, and adding large quotes to the lead that were not covered in the body. The main dispute has been the subject of an RFC, and edit warring discussion, a close review of the RFC, a BLPN thread, an AN discussion, an ANI thread, a second RFC, which I closed, and more.

These edits are similar to the types of edits I've made on Waukesha Christmas parade attack and The Kashmir Files, which are subject to a high level of drive-by editing that isn't aware of, or disregards, existing consensus. I don't feel I would be administratively involved in either of those situations either.

Input on whether I should avoid any administration around this article would be appreciated. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish as a member of the community, I do not consider you involved as you only edited the article in administrative role, returning it to consensus version and responding to an edit request. Lightoil (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Giving this a little bump after the excitement below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You're good IMO, and something definitely needs to be done there. Arkon (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Appeal for Limited Exception to topic ban for TheTranarchist

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

---

I withdraw this appeal. It's obviously going to go nowhere, and knowing how things turn out, even if it ends up 2-1 in support of me it'll be closed citing a nonexistent majority opposed to the appeal...

I kept the discussion away from the context of the original case this time. At my appeal, I asked for an unban or a limited exception, the majority supported an unban, some supported the limited exception, and nobody opposed the limited exception. Somehow, the limited exception was not even mentioned at the close. So here I asked if people thought there was any chance of disruptive editing with just the limited exception, keeping it short and to the point, and so far there's a lot of opposes without a shred of evidence my edits in the area I'm asking to edit would actually be disruptive.

Why did I do the limited exception? Because there was actually a pretty favorable consensus for it at the appeal and ti was completely ignored in the close. Last night, I tried to get back into editing, I wanted to write the article "jail support" so started collating the sources, and I realized I wouldn't be able to write it because someone would drag me over the coals for faithfully summarizing the fact many sources explicitly called out the gender-gap in jail support groups/networks.

And yes, the case was a trainwreck, that was actually supported by consensus. There was never a clear consensus it was the appropriate punishment.

1. At the original case, the majority opposed it, and the evidence was entirely centered in anti-trans BLPs/ORGs. People asked for someone to close it for weeks in the thread and AN, nobody did. I panicked and asked CaptainEek to close it or even better find someone who would, they couldn't. Isabele Belato later explicitly admitted they wanted to close it a long while ago but didn't because of fear of appearing biased. CaptainEek closed it by explicitly stating that the sock would have been a tie-breaker, but there was a majority in favor of a ban, but as shown in the close review, there was actually not.
2. At the close review, started by someone else (so stop blaming me for it...), the consensus was that the case should have been thrown out per DENY the day we learned it was started by a sock and that the case could have been interpreted as either no consensus for a ban or consensus for some lighter more targeted sanction. In essence: yes it was a trainwreck, but it already crashed, yes it didn't have to be so painful a crash, too late. It was not a consensus the ban was the right course of action, just that it was a possible course of action when alternatives would have worked.
3. At the appeal, the majority once again believed my ban should be lifted due to a combination 1) the fact it was highly questionable whether it should have been given in the first place, and 2) per ROPE and AGF I should be given the opportunity to prove myself. A minority opposed, mostly on procedural grounds, and were called the majority... CaptainEek admitted they may have misread the communities will and instituted a harsher sanction than actually called for at the appeal and that wasn't taken into consideration at all.

To those who said I am too emotional because I am suffering a ban that is a punishment rather than actively protecting the enclyopedia? That comes across most charitably as patronizing, especially given the majority of the community has always agreed... To those saying too emotional because I want to edit LGBT articles this pride? Jesus the cultural insensitivity - I am passionate about editing enclyopediacaly, not for a particular viewpoint, LGBT rights is literally one of my academic areas of expertise. To those who point to 1) me asking CaptainEek if certain LGBT-related articles I thought were non-controversial were covered by GENSEX and 2) my warning as somehow evidence of evading my ban, it's ridiculous to never mention the contexts that 1) I did not the edit the articles I was explicitly told not to and 2) the warning was ruled a grey area since it was vandalism unrelated to GENSEX on an article where prior consensus was that the organizations stances/activities on trans rights are not a defining part of their notability. To those arguing that me saying the ban hurts and the fact I asked for an appeal and the AGF that I'll not edit disruptively is evidence I'll edit disruptively, is a mind boggling orwellian statement. Saying I don't want to be punished any longer is proof I should be punished!

There were issued raised. I do not think they merited a full TBAN, true, but I have been diligently working on them. I have never claimed my editing was perfect, but neither was it so terrible no article vaguely related to trans people is safe. I'm taking a break from this kafkaesque NOT-NOTBURO nightmare of a site for at least a week, hopefully two-four. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranarchist (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep this short. I just appealed my GENSEX tban, asking for either an unban or a limited exception. There was a lot of outspoken support for an unban, some support for a limited exception, and opposition to the unban (without mention of the limited exception). The unban was denied.

Since it got ignored in the close of the appeal but there seemed to be support for it without opposition, I ask for a limited exception in the following articles (and associated noticeboard discussions):

Articles of the form LGBT rights in XYZ. I created WP:USALGBT to help coordinate work on them (at least, specifically ones for US states) and was working on LGBT rights in New York before my ban forced me to avoid it.

Historically significant trans/LGBT rights groups and activists. Before my ban, I intended to revisit and clean Angela Lynn Douglas and Gloria Hemingway, create Transsexual Action Organization (moving most TAO stuff from Douglas's article to there), and during my initial ANI case I saved Tri-Ess from deletion but didn't get a chance to polish it before my ban.

The hardest part of the ban has always been the fact articles such as the above were caught as collateral, when all discussion at my case was related to anti-trans BLPs/ORGs. I'm a trans sociologist who really enjoys documenting queer history and I'd just like ROPE and the assumption of good faith and the chance to edit these articles for pride. I find editing regarding queer history very fulfilling and I do not think there is any evidence letting me edit such articles will prove disruptive to the encyclopedia.

I ask this be closed in 48-72 hours, I've turned off all my Wikipedia notifications and will check this page in 72 hours. In all honesty, if approved, I'll cry tears of joy and probably immediately get to work on fixing up Tri-Ess to make up for lost time. Then move onto fixing up Angela Lynn Douglas, then start overhauling LGBT rights in New York. If denied, it'll honestly be very hard on me, so I'll take a break from all editing for a few weeks and hope it feels less raw when I get back. Either way, you won't see me back at AN until the 6 months are up, but in the former case the next 3 months will feel like an inconvenience/annoyance rather than downright painful. I'm probably an idiot for trying this, but the lack of any opposition to it in my appeal make me feel taking this shot is worth it, and hey, hope springs eternal. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - I can't speak for other editors but it appears this issue is becoming a huge WP:TIMESINK. At this time, I don't believe TTA is capable of returning to GENSEX in good faith for a long time. Their edit volume has dropped off a cliff since the institution of their tban, with a significant number of those edits trying to work around their ban, appealing it, and in one case dealing with a warning for editing a page that was created due to their involvement in GENSEX controversy. I'm in favor of a full siteban at this point. I believe a reset of the TBAN and a restriction on appeals is appropriate. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I'm sorry but I agree with Kcmastrpc that this is a timesink and at this point is honestly becoming a bit disruptive to the project. This is, I think, the 4th or 5th discussion on this topic? I would have had confidence in TheTranarchist's eventual unban if she'd accepted the TBAN and continued working elsewhere in the meantime, but instead she's entering WP:STICK territory. We're getting continual reruns and appeals for exceptions, which does not inspire confidence, and each discussion inevitably descends into an attempt to re-litigate the original discussion and how justified it was. Please just close this discussion now rather than another endless pit forming. I would support a ban on future appeals, and honestly at this point I'm leaning towards a reset of the original TBAN. — Czello ^(music) 12:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Kcmastrpc that this is becoming a huge timesink. This is the fifth discussion we have had on this exact topic in three months - the initial ANI thread, the close review, the topic ban warning dispute, the first appeal, and now this second appeal. I would oppose a full siteban at this time as I believe they can become a productive editor again if forced to take a break from this topic, and to that end I do support banning TheTranarchist from appealing any restrictions on them for a period of one year, to be enforced strictly with escalating blocks if breached. BilledMammal (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Quick comment, I don't think it's either fair or reasonable to hold either the close review nor the warning review against TheTranarchist as she did not initiate those. Both of those examples were initiated by other editors in good faith. Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

TT also initiated a discussion on the Talk page of the admin who closed the appeal: [6] Sweet6970 (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

There was some excellent advice given on that talk page discussion by Tewdar [7] Tewdar's five-step plan: Stay away from GENSEX / Practice encyclopaedic writing style / Appeal when six months is up / Don't start any more appeals until six months is up (don't listen to anyone who tells you this is a good idea) / Profit (hopefully). Note that TT did edit that talk page after [8] Tewdar's post. starship.paint (exalt) 13:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - given this attempt, obviously too emotionally involved for the topic area (already planning multiple articles to edit after unblock?). From the history provided by BilledMammal above, it's plain WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Perhaps we can institute another six-month ban on appeals starting from the time of this close. I do not support a siteban. starship.paint (exalt) 13:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • ... and if this isn't speedily closed, I may just ping everyone who was involved in the recently closed appeal. It's not fair if they are not notified, and OP has asked for this to be closed in 48 hours. I'm giving this about 12 23 hours before a ping. starship.paint (exalt) 13:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

    yeah don't. This is one of the most active pages on Wikipedia. I think there's enough people here already. Considering the comment about this being a time-sink you're stating you agree with I don't see why you'd want this to be an even more massive waste of time. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, strictly oppose any ban on appeals in this case, up to and including the current one. I think the ban is so bad for so many reasons any pathway to overturn it should be open. Loki (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per previous support for overturning the entire topic ban. I also want to specifically say here, even though I didn't last time, that I actually strongly disagree with the closer's comment and the comments of people here that Tranarchist is too emotionally involved somehow. Of course she's got strong emotions about this! She was banned for bad reasons against consensus! I'd be mad too! Loki (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oh, so uninvolved admin CaptainEek got it wrong in the initial consensus! Then either the community or uninvolved admin Isabelle Belato got it wrong in the close review! After that either the community or uninvolved admin RoySmith got it wrong in the appeal! They're all wrong! starship.paint (exalt) 14:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

    CaptainEek got it very transparently wrong in the initial close, and the remaining discussions have all ended as no consensus. The community has never once actually endorsed this topic ban. Loki (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

    The fact that the community has not found consensus either that CaptainEek was wrong to impose the ban, or that the ban should be lifted, suggests that whether or not you believe the initial decision was wrong it was not "transparently" so. Whether or not TheTranarchist agrees with the merits of the ban, she needs to understand that enough of the community does support it that it continues to remain in place. I have no personal disagreement with TheTranarchist – indeed I am not sure we have ever interacted – and I suspect that I agree with her on many things, so I hope she takes this advice seriously: opening a second appeal only days after her previous appeal was rejected, still less than three months into a ban which was imposed with the provision You may appeal this topic ban, at WP:AN, no sooner than 6 months from now can be charitably be described as brave but more realistically as foolhardy. Repeated unsuccessful appeals, especially ones which are seen as poorly thought through (for instance by appealing multiple times in quick succession, or several months before the first permitted appeal) may end up meaning that the sanctions remain in place for longer than they would otherwise have done, as you exhaust community patience. If I were TheTranarchist, I would do my best to put any idea that the topic ban was "wrong" or not endorsed by the community out of my mind – I cannot see any way in which believing such a thing would be helpful, and several ways in which it could be actively harmful to her prospects of successfully appealing the ban in future. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

    @LokiTheLiar Isabelle Belato closed the review of Eek's close as endorsed. That means there was a consensus supporting Eek's close and it was not closed as no consensus. I've pinged Isabelle in case she they would like to correct my read of that. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

    In that case I also think that she they read the consensus wrong, because that discussion was also a fairly clear 50/50 split. Loki (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

    @LokiTheLiar: When you say I also think that she read the consensus wrong, are you talking about Eek (she/they) or Isabelle (they/them)? The pronoun choice indicates Eek, but the broader context indicates Isabelle. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

    Huh. I thought I remembered that being flipped. Corrected! Loki (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Also I would like to note explicitly to @BilledMammal, @Kcmastrpc and @Starship.paint that this course of action was explicitly suggested by the closer of the previous appeal:

  I'll also go out on a limb and suggest that if a future appeal were to ask to soften the TBAN to just cover BLP articles, I suspect that might be better received. Loki (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you think future = 5 days, I'll have you know that RoySmith literally sighed when notified of this appeal. starship.paint (exalt) 14:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  If Roy, or the community didn't want an appeal in that short a time frame, then that should have been explicitly stated. However it wasn't, and it was left open to interpretation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  CaptainEek explicitly stated in the initial closure that a first appeal would be permissible after six months. TheTranarchist has now appealed twice and it is not yet three months into the TBan. Whether or not RoySmith stated a restriction on when the next appeal could be, the fact that it's only five days since the last one closed and we still haven't got halfway to the timeline set out for a first appeal logged at WP:RESTRICT, TheTranarchist would have done well to consider whether such an appeal at this time was wise. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Sideswipe9th since I was pinged here and there is a question about how my close should be interpreted, I'll respond. It's not a question of what I wanted; my job as closer is essentially clerical, i.e. to distill the discussion, not to express any opinion of my own. I didn't say anything about when a future appeal could be made because I thought it was obvious that the original 6 month wait time was still in effect, and that "future" referred to that time frame. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that anybody thought I was encouraging an immediate repeat appeal. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  It might be. However, less than a full week later is a bold move, one that I would have likely advised against, but we're probably not going to agree on this matter regardless. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  A future appeal in 3 months, yes. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Please point out in that closure where a 3 month wait before appealing was stated. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  The original sanction was appealable after six months, they appealed anyway and were unsuccessful. The original sanction, still prohibiting an appeal for six months, remains in effect. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  that's from the original closure. That being said, I've been up for 20 uninterrupted hours yesterday, so I may write a less grumpy and more charitable response to this case tomorrow. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Apprehension - I would have preferred that there be some distance between the previous appeal and this current one, or that if the prior close was going to be reviewed or amended, that it be done by a third party. I think these sorts of hasty appeals are detrimental to your cause, and rarely yield positive results. Anytime the community feels that you are becoming a burden on their time, it diminishes the future credibility of your actions. Of course I get that you're upset, I would be too, but you need to focus your efforts on more constructive tasks. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Please, everyone who has more than ten total responses in all of these threads, just say your piece and stop. No need to reply to each other or try and convince each other. At this point everyone knows what everyone who's been discussing this disagrees with or supports. Just make your statement and try and ignore it. Please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The previous appeal by the user, which also explicitly asked for the community to grant the user a limited exception to the articles... of the form LGBT Rights in XYZ, was declined by the community a mere five days ago. I do not see anything that has meaningfully changed since that short time ago, and so I will echo my prior comments there: if this user wants their TBAN narrowed, they should abide by it for a good amount of time prior to their appeal, rather than violating it and being put on final warning less than one month before appealing. I initially favored a more narrow TBAN in the first AN thread (one that would have allowed for this sort of editing while disallowing editing about the intersection of BLP and GENSEX), but I can't currently get behind narrowing the restriction in light of the recent TBAN violation (for which they received a formal warning) and the user's pattern of attempting to push the TBAN's limits since very shortly after it was enacted. That the user is appealing again after the community discussion five days ago denied their appeal seals it... please wait for six months before appealing again. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I respect TheTransarchist as an editor. I understand their desire to be able to edit in the area they choose. However, this is another appeal for a lifting of restrictions shortly after one was declined. Please, you need to stop. Wait the ban out and THEN go back to editing. Repeatedly coming to request changes to your topic ban is going to begin to wear out the patience that the community has. It's been 5 days since the last appeal. This isn't a good look to keep coming back over and over and hope for a different result. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Based on my review of TT's editing style before and after the TBAN was implemented, I think ROPE is premature and would likely be counterproductive at this time. My hope is for TT's editing to improve before she returns to the GENSEX topic area - for example, as she and I have discussed, by more closely citing sources as described at WP:TSI. From my view, TT appears to be minimizing issues with her editing that existed before the TBAN was first implemented and therefore should not yet return to the GENSEX topic area until there is 1) greater recognition of editing issues that can be improved, and relatedly, 2) reassurance that these issues will improve. Beccaynr (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no reason that this TBAN should be narrowed. Also this idea of limited exceptions for editors is not really a thing that happens. As I explained in Newimpartial's request for a limited exception: WP:BMB says On very rare occasions, a limited exception may be requested; for example, to participate in a particular discussion. There should be a very compelling reason given for a ban exception, and I really want to edit these articles is not a good enough reason. TTA appears to be way overly emotionally invested in editing LGBT-related articles as demonstrated by her now two appeals to her TBAN prior to the 6 month TBAN appeal period and saying just above "If denied, it'll honestly be very hard on me," which is further evidence that she has not learned her lesson and is not ready for reintroduction into those areas. Arguments that the original TBAN was unjust should be rejected in this discussion because they have been rejected in now 3 (soon to be 4) past discussions. Enough is enough. This is becoming a time-sink. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Speedy close this per WP:SNOW

It's becoming very clear very quickly that this proposal doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting through; almost every response is in opposition to overturning the ban. I'm honestly amazed TT was unwise enough to start it, and five separate editors (myself included) have called this a time-sink. Some editors have even proposed further restrictions be put in place. Given the track record of previous such discussions, which can end up the length of a literal novel, I don't think it's wise to go through all of this again (for the fifth time, and less than a week after last time). Sadly TT said she was turning off notifications and running off for 3 days, and so she won't be able to self-close. I'm requesting an admin speedily close this and ideally WP:TROUT OP. — Czello ^(music) 16:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Shutting off notifications for 3 days while appealing a topic ban is honestly... not ideal. I support close, let's hurry up and avoid further rancor. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Support, no chance this will be successful. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 16:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User:BigHaz redux

I'd like to re-introduce a discussion around the unusual behavior of admin User:BigHaz. Whatever their situation – a long hiatus with barely any activity for 5 years, and then suddenly performing numerous unilateral speedy deletions with poor justification – I feel their actions fall short of proper admin behavior and merit more investigation.

The previous discussion from 5 May 2023 can be found here where Liz first brought up an issue: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive352#User:BigHaz. In retrospect, I do not believe Liz's posting was an "overreaction," as the user's actions have continued a pattern of poor judgment and problematic interactions with other users. Pinging previous folks in that conversation as a courtesy: Ingenuity, Beyond My Ken, Enterprisey.

I don't remember encountering BigHaz in the past. But what I found unusual was that an article I created in 2019 was just tagged for speedy deletion (WP:A7) by Thewritestuff92, an editor with barely 200 lifetime edits [9]. The CSD/A7 tagging was that user's first edit of 2023. Less than 15 minutes later, it gets deleted immediately by BigHaz.

To recap, we have this odd situation:

• Thewritestuff92's first edit since November 2022 was to tag Christianné Allen with CSD/A7 at 19:50 local time.

There is substantial WP:RS coverage of her as Rudy Giuliani’s former communications director (see Google News search), so the proper process would be WP:AFD and not CSD.

• Thewritestuff92 leaves a note about the CSD/A7 on my talk page at 19:53 local time.
• Ten minutes later, at 20:03, BigHaz deletes it.

Any decent admin should see that it's not a proper CSD/A7 situation, and should go through a regular AfD process.

• There are also at least three other issues with this admin's deletion actions in the last 24 hours.
  • User_talk:BigHaz#R3_deletion with J947
  • User_talk:BigHaz#Role_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party_in_lawmaking with Pppery
  • User_talk:BigHaz#10_000_BC with Pppery

I'm concerned that even when it was pointed out by J947 that the CSD criteria clearly says, "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion" [10], BigHaz dismissed this [11], and has kept performing dubious deletions.

In that earlier May conversation, BigHaz admitted they may be out of touch with the current norms. To wit: And [I] don't know what admin standards are any more: You may be right in this claim. When last I dealt with admin-related matters, there was a general sense that it was a good idea that people were doing them. It appears that I am now trespassing on a little fiefdom where good faith is not to be assumed. If this is the case, I'll happily perform other actions in the future. [12]

I am therefore formally asking BigHaz for the time being, please refrain from acting on CSD deletions, and to use your own words: "perform other actions in the future."

I welcome BigHaz's response and others to add any additional context. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

To respond to the accusations being made in the order in which they were raised:

1. The article cited was not written in a way which made it anything other than promotional. If the subject was in fact notable, I'm happy to accept that I made a mistake. I'm human, after all, and I assume everyone else around here is as well. The fact that it was deleted ten minutes after being tagged for speedy deletion is, quite simply, a function of what speedy deletion is. Had it been tagged in some other way, the process would have taken longer, as we know.

2. Regarding my interactions with J947, the other user is well aware of the process to contest a speedy deletion tag and (for reasons I don't claim to understand, but which probably make sense to them) opted not to in this instance.

3. Regarding my interaction with Pppery, I'm presently discussing the issue with that user on my Talk page. They have raised (somewhat belligerently, but so be it) cogent points, and I'm happy to take the relevant action if that's the best outcome.

4. To the concern about "dubious deletions", I would respond that any and every page could be seen as a "dubious deletion" in some respect - some for more cogent reasons than others, but there's usually going to be someone who doesn't like something being deleted. Following J947's comments, I haven't deleted anything dealing with redirects, for example.

5. My response in May has been taken out of context. The allegation, largely, was that by handling the PROD process the way that I was demonstrated a level of dangerous incompetence. My response was that I was labouring under the misapprehension that we assumed that we were all "pulling in the same direction", so to speak. I'm happy to reiterate that point now, as it appears that there is a willingness to fly off the handle when someone does something remotely different to what you expect (even to the extent of J947's willingness to ignore processes in the interests of making a point). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

As a further point, CSD is by definition "unilateral". I fail to see why that should be a criticism. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)