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	5	8	13
TfD	0	0	1	4	5
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	0	44	44
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 2 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 8 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 54 sockpuppet investigations
• 14 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 20 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 22 requests for RD1 redaction
• 32 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 33 requested closures
• 110 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 11 Copyright problems

Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area

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

---

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

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

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

I've had some involvement in the ARBPIA area, but haven't really actively participated in a while. I think creating articles, voting in RMs, participating in talk page discussions, etc. (all listed at that diff), makes someone involved. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the specific concerns here, and am in no way challenging them. But I want to note my view that participating in widely advertised discussions - AfDs, RMs, RfCs - does not necessarily make someone involved, because in theory a lot of participation there is evaluating evidence others have provided, rather than being based on your own views and experience. Of course a lot of participants in meta discussions are there because they have experience in the subject that does make them involved. Understanding whether someone is capital-I Involved really comes down to the substance of their participation, not the numbers, namespaces, or venues. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Starting an RM, in contrast, would be based on your own views and experience? Levivich (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that involved really comes down to the substance of their participation, so I just took a look at RTH's 25 edits to the "Israel-Hamas war" article as an example, and here are some edits I saw, with additions and deletions shown:

• "Palestinian militant"
• "violence against Israeli civilians have also been reported occurred"
• "Islamist militant groups Hezbollah and Al-Quds Brigades"
• "United States government announced it is supporting Israel by moving will move an aircraft carrier"
• "large-scale invasion and offensive against Israel"; "Hamas offensive attack"
• removing the "Misinformation" section
• "some analysts" removed as "weasel" for "an intelligence failure for the ages"; "some analysts" added for "Israel's 9/11 moment"

I'm not saying these edits violate policy, but they are substantive edits that meaningfully change the content. I haven't checked the 40+ talk page edits. This is just one article. Levivich (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Starting an RM would depend on the RM. In that case, it's borderline. Your other examples, and one more I found on the talk page, are clearer: commenting below momentarily. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think those examples prove anything, other than that RTH makes good copy edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I also think RTH is correct that the Misinformation section was a COATRACK in the making. That said, I think a valid Misinformation section could be written that provides a broad overview of the role of misinformation, rather than a tick-tock approach that provides random examples. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Those are not copy edits. Levivich (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Palestinian militant" introduces Palestinians for the first time in that paragraph to clarify that it was Palestinian militants infiltrating into Israel.
• Here's the full sentence Numerous cases of violence against Israeli civilians have also been reportedoccurred since the beginning of the Hamas offensive, including a massacre at a music festival in Re'im that killed at least 260. Violence did occur and there was a massacre at a music festival; they weren't merely "reported".
• "Islamist militant groups Hezbollah and Al-Quds Brigades" Hezbollah and Al-Quds are Islamist militant groups and are described as such by our articles on them; this is something our readers should know.
• Full sentence: The United States government announced it iswill supporting Israel by movingmove an aircraft carrier, warships, and military jets to the eastern Mediterranean and providingwill provide Israel with additional military equipment and ammunition. "Supporting Israel" did not need to be stated because that was obvious from the sentence's content; the U.S. didn't send a warship and re-arm Israel to oppose them.
• ""large-scale invasion and offensive against Israel"; "Hamas offensive attack" Both of these are true statements. The Hamas incursion into Israel was definitionally an invasion. Attack is more simple language than "offensive"
• "Some analysts": The first example properly attributed an idea to its author. The second example rephrased the very clunky "This conflict has also been called by analysts" to "Some analysts have described this war as". Neither is perfect, but the second is better.

voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

They're not copy edits because copyediting is fixing grammar/typos/readability without changing the meaning, whereas these edits are, as Vanamonde says below, substantive edits that meaningfully alter POV. Whether they're good or bad edits is not the point (I think some are good), and discussing the merits of the edits is a distraction. Levivich (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing which of those examples meaningfully alter the article's POV in context. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. Levivich (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Link to disscusson for future record [1] LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 09:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's a permanent link: Special:PermanentLink/1242930605#From AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

RE the merits of the edits is a distraction. I think intent matters. Even if each of those edits altered the articles' POVs, they don't alter them in an ideologically consistent way: some edits could be construed as pro-Israel, some as pro-Palestinian. That further leads me to believe that these were intended to be clean up edits for grammar/style (sorry for using the phrase "copy editing" interchangeably), rather than stealthy insertions of non-neutral material. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED is clear: editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. Involvement is about participation in particular disputes—concrete things where users are in disagreement—not about having written an article or two within the context a broad topic area or having participated substantially in a small number of article talk pages in the area. In discussions that I have participated, I have not acted as an administrator—I am not, for example, going around and closing RMs, nor XfDs, nor RfCs in which I have participated. And I will continue to not act as an administrator in those sorts of discussions where I have participated in the capacity as an ordinary editor, just as (for example) GorillaWarfare has done in the context of WP:GENSEX. But I am deeply skeptical of the notion that my relatively limited editing in the area has somehow made me involved in literally every dispute that might relate somehow to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, as appears to be suggested by Voorts above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I should have been more careful with how I phrased my comment. Initially, I don't know how many edits you've made in the area or whether your edits in this area are disproportionate to the edits you make in other areas such that it could lead to an inference that you have a vested interest in the area, so I can't opine on that. And, to clarify, I don't think that your contributions (of which there are only examples listed) makes you involved in literally every dispute that might relate somehow to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. I think that it might make you involved in some disputes in the area; for example, if you tend to take a particular view in discussions on the topic, you would be involved to the extent that that view affects how you might perceive a conflict or how others might perceive your participation. I think it's more nuanced than just saying "you are involved writ large". voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) I don't believe that involvement in some part of ARBPIA necessarily makes someone involved in all of it: in that respect, RTH, I agree. Some of the examples Levivich gives above, though, and this one from your talk, are substantive content edits about the current military conflict, all of which are substantial alterations to article POV (not necessarily bad ones, but that's not the point). I don't see how you can argue you are unvinvolved with respect to the war of 23-24. And blanking the discussion on your talk page is permissible but not a good look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  With respect to the last point, I had not realized that the link Shushugah had posted above was a live link to a section rather than a permalink. I've restored the comments as such. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'd also agree that there are certain aspects of the war that I'd be involved with, namely the parts where I've participated as a content editor. But I don't think I'd be a wp:involved closer if I were to take on the Nuseirat rescue operation merge request or the Al-Tabaeen school attack move request that are presently at WP:RFCLOSE, for example, because I haven't been involved in those sorts of disputes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is a limit to how much you can subdivide a topic. Being involved with isolated pages is one thing; making substantive content edits to pages central to the war is another. I would advise against closing either of those discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this discussion has gone too far at this point, but, given that actions are forward-looking rather than punitive, and nobody's really suggested any particular action in particular, would RTH or the community really object if RTH simply promised to take more notice of the perceived separation needed between admin actions and involved editor conduct in the future? It seems at this point, a simple good faith assurance from an administrator in good standing to simply tread a little more carefully ought to be sufficient. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

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

That sounds like a sensible guideline to follow. Does this sound doable, Red-tailed hawk? With "involvement" issues, I've found it best to be overly cautious or these questions keep being rasied again and again. Best to nip it in the bud than to have to revisit this question. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: That administrators should not perform both edits and administrative tasks in the same contentious topic sounds nice to one's ear, but I think it would concretely fail as a rule because several CTOP areas are extremely broad:

If someone writes a biography about a living Norwegian musical artist once, I don't think that should prohibit them from enforcing the CTOP that is biographies of living persons in the context of a totally unrelated biography about a librarian from Kalamazoo. Nor do I think that adding information to the article on Russian chess Grandmaster Ian Nepomniachtchi about his 2013 victory over Russian chess grandmaster Peter Svidler in the Russian Chess superfinal would or ought forever bar an administrator from enforcing the CTOP of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, even though it is an edit that would be in the scope of the extremely broad Eastern Europe topic area. Nor do I think that an editor who has once added content regarding former chess world champion Vishwanathan Anand's 1992 chess olympiad performance on Team India should forever be barred from closing discussions that relate to municipalities in Afghanistan, even though both are within the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan contentious topics area.

I don't think any reasonable individual would see the sort of editing described above as somehow being involved in the dispute when it comes to the corresponding edit in the topic area. Zero's proposal is an idea, but I think that it's an overbroad one. And frankly it's one that I routinely see rejected when people make closure challenges—it would be a new rule. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I am hoping to bring the wording of the involved rule up to date to match the spirit of it. I don't claim to have the perfect way of doing that. You are correct that some CTs are unreasonably broad and that is a good point. ARBPIA is not one of them, though. Regulars in ARBPIA can tell within one or two edits what POV a new editor has and how they will act in other ARBPIA articles. The topic does not consist of a lot of sub-topics with only a nominal connection. Zero^talk 13:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the argument that Contentious Topics can be overly broad when they involve either large country/populations (including BLP). I am not proposing a blanket change/clarification on how all contentious topics are handled, but ARBPIA specifically which has the strictest sanctions including 500/30 rule. Furthermore, if this was about Palestinian chess participants while possibly part of ARBPIA, it would be grey area. The example articles and actions here are firmly within ARBPIA scope. On other hand, in your analogy, if someone was tenaciously editing Chess related articles to promote a national angle, it could be raised here but I would rather focus on ARBPIA than other hypothetical areas. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with "administrators should not perform both edits and administrative tasks in the same contentious topic". But I sometimes wonder whether an admin who will later spend time at AE on cases related to a specific topic area might benefit from having spent some time as an "involved" editor in the topic area before detaching and becoming uninvolved to perform admin tasks. This is probably not practical in the real world, and I guess the 'benefit' might not end up being a benefit. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

At my RFA I was asked two days into the process, Please explain how you plan to approach disputes related to the Scientific skepticism topic area as an administrator, including whether or when you would recuse and any exceptions to a recusal. I responded I'd approach them much like I try to approach any dispute, neutrally and with a level head. I wouldn't recuse from the topic area, although I'm clearly INVOLVED with many of the active editors in the topic, so don't expect any admin action from me dealing with them. I went on to sail through RFA with little drama^jokes!. My answer didn't raise any eyebrows or objections, despite having been a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing, having invoked the BLP allowance from 3RRNO, and having been involved with several disputes in the overlapping CTOPS of WP:ARBPS, WP:ARBCOVID, and WP:ARBBLP.

I'm not going to weigh in on this particular case because I really shouldn't have any say on what administrators are allowed to administer the topic area, but I did want to address this particular reading of INVOLVED, and how it played out in a discussion with over 300 editors. WP:INVOLVED refers to current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. Regular editing that does not involve disputes and prior involvements [that] are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias as called out by voorts do not, to me, cause a widespread INVOLVEment in a topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think regular editing in a topic area automatically makes an admin involved for the entire topic, but in contentious topics, it might. An admin who regularly edits around radio stations, likely not involved w/re: adminning at radio station articles they didn't create or haven't heavily edited. At ARBPIA, very possibly yes. And even at radio stations, if other regular editors or uninvolved editors are telling you you're too involved to be an admin, I'd say listen carefully. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  What if their involvement in the topic area was minor enough that over seven months of working ARBPIA at AE went by without any of the regular editors thinking to raise concerns about involvement? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Conflict of interest (or the appearance of it) should be a matter of self-policing not a question of it's OK if nobody notices. And when people do notice, then that should definitely be the case. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  First, you gotta stop using "the regulars" as if it's an actual discrete group. Second, it's not like editors remember everyone else who edits in a topic area they are active in. There are thousands of editors who have edited this topic area, and most editors aren't online all the time or watching all the articles the way some editors do. Third, just because we see a problem doesn't mean we always bring it up. I haven't brought up all the problems I see with admins in this topic area, for example. Doesn't mean I don't think they exist. A lack of complaint is not indicative of a lack of problem. Levivich (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I was quoting the use of regulars by Valereee (if other regular editors or uninvolved editors are telling you you're too involved to be an admin) when responding to their point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  "other regular editors" is not the same as "the regular editors". The article "the" suggests a discrete and monolithic group, especially in the context of an AE referral against "the regulars" with aspersions at ARCA by referring admins (not "the referring admins") such as "the regulars in the topic area have worked together to create a hostile battleground ... the impact of the regulars" and so forth. Editors with experience in a topic area do not constitute a monolothic group and should not be "othered" in this way, time for this habit to end. Levivich (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think you should assume you've become involved once other editors are saying you're involved. It's not perfect -- as Levivich says, the absence of expressed concerns doesn't mean the absence of unvoiced concerns -- but if others are saying so, you should probably listen. And if you're reluctant to decide you're involved and become an editor in that area, that may be another data point. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think you should assume you've become involved once other editors are saying you're involved. My own thinking leans in this direction. The perception of others is important to take into account, so that everyone feels that the process is fair. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  The text WP:INVOLVED mentions disputes as a scope, because those are well defined, whereas for the vast majority of Wikipedia, "topics" do not have a well defined scope — with the exceptions of the ~30 ArbCom Sanctioned Contentious Topics. A clear definition of scope would help us avoid more thorny and content specific questions raised by RTH for example whether a hostage rescues is somehow separate from the Israel-Hamas war or if the creation of Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip does not make them an involved admin in both the current war and more generally in all Arab-Israeli Conflict related articles when requesting clarification at ARCA.

  All of which is to say, I believe all of their edits — if in editorial capacity were reasonable conduct wise, but with regards to WP:ADMINCONDUCT they raise the appearance of impropriety. The text or WP:INVOLVED is not directly written for admins, but it's referenced in WP:ADMINCONDUCT. The focus shouldn't merely be on closure decisions of RM discussions, but also on how they conduct themselves as an uninvolved admin on wider reaching policies of ARBPIA topics. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• We should remember that "involved" is not just about what admins are capable of being level-headed about. It's also about community perception of their objectivity. Appearances matter and we should keep our house squeaky clean. I'm mostly concerned about the case (which doesn't necessarily apply to Red-tailed hawk) where an editor demonstrates a personal POV in a contentious topic, even in a corner of it, and later becomes an admin and seeks to police the topic. It should not be enough to argue that the admin hadn't interacted with some particular editor or wasn't involved in some particular dispute. Allowing too much choice will even invite some editors to take this career path in order to best influence the topic. Zero^talk 13:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also there's an actual shooting war going on right now. I think wp:involved applies to simultaneously editing and adminning about the same ongoing war, even if it wasn't a ctop area. For ctops, even more so. Levivich (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree with it, but the community recently did not find convincing arguments that an editor who had expressed a POV in a contentious topic was involved with that topic - some editors who are arguing here that Red-Tailed Hawk is involved actually argued against that close appeal.

  With that said, if there is evidence that RTH is partisan then I would support them recusing themselves. So far, I have not seen any such evidence, although it is possible that I overlooked it. BilledMammal (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm one of the editors who endorsed that close. Because expressing a pov on your userpage doesn't make you involved in a topic area. Making substantive edits in the topic area does. Also, because it's OK for an involved editor to close a clear (3:1) RfC. Userspace content vs editing articles is apples and oranges. Closing RFCs vs adminning in CT areas is also apples and oranges. Levivich (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, people disagreed that the quote you objected to on a user page rendered somebody involved. Not that, as here, repeated content edits in a topic area, discussions in the topic area, starting articles in the topic area, makes somebody involved. As far as I can see, you took an incredibly expansive reading of INVOLVED there, but an incredibly narrow one here. nableezy - 14:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  My view is that partisanship, where an editor demonstrates a personal POV in a contentious topic, is what is required to become involved across a broad topic area.

  I see no reasonable justification for carving out an exception for personal POV’s demonstrated in user space, and I am applying this equally to both RTH and that closer. If editors have evidence that RTH is partisan, then I believe they should recuse. BilledMammal (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would tend to agree with BilledMammal that demonstrating a personal POV would make an editor involved, as, even on a user page, it does still intersect the topic area, in the same way you can make CTOP edits on primarily non-CTOP pages. However, I don't see it as a necessary condition to be involved, and I do also believe that editors making many non-trivial edits are also involved even if the edits don't necessarily demonstrate a specific POV. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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

  I agree with this, although I don’t think it applies to either the case of RTH or that closer, both of whom have made relatively few edits in the topic area. Of course, if the community disagrees I will adjust my expectations of closers and admins going forward. BilledMammal (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  People disagreed that the quote you objected to showed a personal POV in a contentious topic. That does not render moot what WP:INVOLVED actually says, and it does not make it so your attempt at waving away the views you disagree with as hypocritical is substantiated in the slightest. "Partisan" does not appear once in Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins. What it actually says is Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute, qualified by One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. The former is demonstrated by showing editing in disputes on the topic that are not related to the latter. nableezy - 14:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that some of my colleagues are construing a topic area too broadly, and others, "dispute" too narrowly. Some of our CTOPs are enormous: involvement in one part of a CTOP cannot reasonably be construed to mean involvement in all of it. I said as much at my RFA eight years ago [2], and I stand by that. At the same time, substantially editing an article unquestionably makes you INVOLVED with it. You don't need to be party to an editing dispute. Most of my content work isn't contentious; nonetheless, I am INVOLVED with respect to pages I've made major edits on, and where they fall within a coherent topic, in the topic as well. The question here is simply whether RTH's edits can be construed as minor (fixing grammar or formatting, for instance) or maintenance-related (reverting vandalism or unsourced content). I don't believe it can. And given a half-dozen examples related to the Israel–Hamas war, I don't believe anyone can reasonably argue those are isolated examples any more. The apparent POV of the edits does not matter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  So from your POV, RTH is INVOLVED with the Israel-Hamas war but not, say, Zionist land purchases in the 1930s to name an example from upthread? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  [Disclaimer: RTH and I are personal friends and wrote a GA together. I also said, in supporting his RfA, that we "have disagreed in almost every discussion we've both participated in". Make of that what you will.]

  Topic-area-level involvement is a tricky thing. ArbCom has never clearly endorsed such a concept—there was some language in RexxS that some have read that way, but also a number of cases, including Arbitration enforcement and GiantSnowman, where, even in sanctioning or criticizing an administrator, the Committee failed to find a broad issue with them adminning in a content area they edit. And yet some level of proximity feels inappropriate and occasionally has landed admins in hot water. What I found in my time as an admin was that the most important variable is degree of engagement. Mere copy-edits don't preclude an admin from using admin powers even regarding the page they copy-edited. On the other end of the spectrum, being a major player in RfCs etc. might disqualify an admin from an entire topic, although I don't think an entire topic area (caveat on that later). For instance, I was involved in many discussions about trans people's names and pronouns, so didn't admin about that at all (excluding obviously bad-faith conduct). But GENSEX is a large topic area, and I never had a problem with adminning elsewhere in it, besides of course cases where I was more directly involved. Compare and contrast with my participation in say, AMPOL or RUSUKR, where I've created or improved a few articles, but not been involved much in higher-level decisionmaking. In those, I steered clear of the specific articles I worked on and closely-related ones, or users I'd come into conflict with, and that was enough. (And of course one can play devil's advocate here and say no I should have been stricter, but I'm speaking descriptively about an approach that objectively worked to keep me out of trouble, and I'm not an admin anymore so y'all can't desysop me even if you want to. :P )

  Now, as several have pointed out, everything in the PIA topic area, especially during the ongoing war, is very closely related, in a way that differs from, say, GENSEX, where there's quite a bit of distance between RuPaul's Drag Race and the Seneca Falls Convention. There's very few things in PIA that don't tie in to the current war. It's not true in the opposite direction: I don't think a lot of edits to conflict-related parts of hummus, Bar Refaeli, and You Don't Mess with the Zohan would necessarily disqualify someone from adminning ARBPIA; but being involved in consensus-building about the current war does seem a lot closer to involvement with the entire conflict, at least for such time as the war is so central to the overall conflict. So this feels less like the dubious concept of topic-area-level involvement, and more like single-topic-level involvement, where that topic happens to, at this moment in time, extend to basically the whole topic area. Again, not just because of participating at all, but because of participating in those meta-level processes.

  This does get to, as Zero gets at, the matter that WP:INVOLVED is pretty old and out-of-date. Among other things, it technically doesn't have an exemption for "any reasonable editor" + potentially controversial admin, only the other way around, even though it's often cited that way; it barely discusses applicability to non-admins (and probably shouldn't even be in WP:ADMIN anymore); it doesn't address the different way "involved" is used in close appeals, including by ArbCom; and there's been a semantic drift from "involved but exempt" (the policy's approach) to "exempt so not involved" (how it's often phrased). More profoundly, it does not address the conflict between "any reasonable administrator" and administrative discretion; can an involved admin no-warn-indef someone who vandalizes an article they wrote, even if they normally would warn, just because some admins would do so? Even more fundamentally, does the policy reward admins for not engaging with the actual work of building an encyclopedia, encouraging the existence of a class of admins with high social capital but low content proficiency? Now there's a question.

  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Even more fundamentally, does the policy reward admins for not engaging with the actual work of building an encyclopedia, encouraging the existence of a class of admins with high social capital but low content proficiency? Now there's a question. I feel confident to answer this question "no". There is a huge amount of content to edit and there is a huge amount of admin work that is to be done. Also, as someone who thinks the general rule is that every admin should have serious content writing experience, I would dispute the idea that keeping our encyclopedia free of vandalism is not the actual work of building the encyclopedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but interests tend to overlap between content and conduct. For instance, I follow news about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict intently. I lived in Israel for two months as a teen. I've tried really hard to understand perspectives on both sides of the conflict, even at one point simultaneously dating a Zionist and a pro-Palestinian hardliner. (I mean that's not why I dated them, but it did prove useful for learning two very different perspectives.) I think I definitely would have something offer to the topic area as an editor. But as an admin I knew that I had a choice, at least as a matter of drama avoidance if not of policy: Edit in this area, or admin in it. So I picked the latter. Maybe that's how it has to be. I didn't pose the above question rhetorically, and I think your answer is reasonable. But it does seem unfortunate that people who are knowledgeable about a subject often have to pick either contributing to the encyclopedia's content (better phrasing?) or making sure the topic area doesn't get overrun with bad actors. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  @BK49: I have not yet seen evidence that RTH was INVOLVED with respect to "Zionist land purchases in the 1930s", and I would not hold that his edits with respect to the current war would necessarily make him so INVOLVED. Ultimately, only RTH is able to judge where his personal opinions are strong enough that he shouldn't be adminning. This is my view of his on-wiki contributions. Tamzin, I don't believe the perverse incentive you describe exists; there is just so much one can do as an admin. I've made substantive content edits in a very wide range of subjects. I don't struggle to find admin actions I can take. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think the community (and if it were to come to it, ArbCom) can also absolutely weigh in on whether or not someone is INVOLVED. We may not be able to see into someone's mind to know whether their personal opinions are strong enough that he shouldn't be adminning but we can judge their actions and say, whatever their own internal monlogue, that we believe them INVOLVED. So in that sense I think this thread is useful to RTH (and others) and I would hope RTH takes the feedback offered here seriously with future actions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 I phrased that badly; actions on-wiki can certainly make someone INVOLVED regardless of their opinions. However, there are articles where I stay away from using the tools despite my lack of on-wiki involvement, because I know I cannot be dispassionate there: it is the latter category to which I was referring, when I said only RTH can speak to that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Dear admins. If everytime policy comes up, we get these huge discussions by experts who cannot quite agree on how to read them, how are mere peons like myself expected to go ahead editing serenely, when the policies one tries to respect prove so subjective? Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's the rub, yeah. It also applies to admins, who have to decide how to read and enforce those policies. That's one of the reasons I've come to this noticeboard a number of times with concerns about my own involvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I've often admired your scrupulousness, even though I sometimes feel threatened by it. But the issue is that there is a natural disparity between admins and editors. The former judge the latter, but not (thankfully) the peonry the former. Precisely for this reason, the rigours of policy-adherence, however interpreted, placed on the generality of editors should be even, if slightly, more exacting for admins. One could write a short sociological tract on how these minor, if important and indiespensable, differences of 'class' play out interactively. But not here. Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree (see also my User:Barkeep49/Elite), but isn't INVOLVED an example of a more exacting standard for admins? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, surely Barkeep, a standard can never be exacting if there is quite some leeway in its application? Aren't many arguments here alluding to Hewart's dictum that a semblance of judicial bias saps the authority of judgments. Latitudinarian defenses here don't appear to consider this important. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I mentioned this below, but my opinion is that the question ought to be "does the topic area have an underlying dispute?" The AP2 and ARBPIA topic areas are ones that mostly consist of a single big dispute - one side vs. another side. There might be a few articles that fall under there which aren't part of those disputes (eg. AP2 areas that don't touch on left-right or party politics at all) but for the most part, there's one core dispute and if you're INVOLVED for that you're going to be INVOLVED for most discussions that could fall in that topic area. Others, like GENSEX, consist of a few interlocking disputes - weighing in on trans issues makes you INVOLVED for that entire dispute, but it doesn't necessarily mean you can't serve as an admin for stuff about the act of sex, say, or gender-equality, which are more tangential. And then there's a few, like BLP, which aren't really about a specific topic-wide dispute at all, where this wouldn't apply and it isn't really possible to be involved in the entire area as a result. --Aquillion (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The question I raised is whether RTH is involved. If so, he would not be able to act in an admin capacity (closing discussions, blocking users and any other non-controversial admin tasks) when editing in said areas of ARBPIA (or subtopics) which the community is figuring out. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Normally when we seek to hold admins accountable, we need some sort of complaint about their conduct. It's hard to determine whether someone is INVOVLED or misusing the tools when there's nothing on the table to evaluate. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

RTH has commented as an uninvolved admin in a number of ARBPIA AE reports, including some I've filed, and one he closed and referred to arbcom (not unilaterally). Those are the specific admin actions at issue here. Levivich (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• As part of my support for RTH's RfA just eight months ago, I made the following comment: "I've not landed here completely without reservation and I hope the candidate in their future mop work takes on board what I see as a number of constructive comments. I'd opine that at this point a reluctance to wield the mop in the arena of US geo/politcs broadly defined might be appropriate." Rather than being bogged down in definitions of involved, is there so great a shortage of admins that RTH making a good faith offer to agree not to undertake mop work in the topic area would have dramatic effect? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Involved/uninvolved issue aside, AE is chronically understaffed in all topic areas. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  So not a "dramatic effect" if one less in one topic area, yes? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  This kind of sounds like the opposite of what SFR is arguing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think the involved issue should be decided without taking into account admin attendance at AE. That said, it will have a significant effect on staffing at AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm fully aware that your diligence has led to an unenviable situation of overwork. That is clearly unfair. But I also think that even increasing the number of admins present, if their job to include following articles closely, is no solution, rather to the contrary. A casual click on two of the 100 articles I listed (a small sample of those created after Oct 7, reveals an edit count varying from 150 to 15,000 (Israel Hamas war)depending on the article. The temptation is to focus on editing by familiar names, a score of editors, on a baker's dozen of articles, and ignore the contributions of several hundred who have edited without notable problems arising. If that is the working rule, it creates a circular feedback loop that will confirm the hypothesis that the area is 'dominated' by regulars who have a battleground mentality. As I said, the sheer volume of editors in well over a hundred articles created and developed over this period argues statistically against the theory that the IP area is governed by a handful of warring regulars. The place works relatively straightforwardly without minute capillary monitoring, which in any case is not what we need from admins. If there is an impasse, or stubborn misbehaviour, yes, by all means. Historically, admins stay quiet, look on and only intervene when disputes become intractable and parties resort to ANI/AE. In 18 years I have gained absolute trust in admins, a good many, I never see in the IP area except when reports are arbitrated. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure if RTH comments "above the line" in the regular editor section instead of "below the line" in the uninvolved admin section, AE will not be significantly impacted. For example, I filed 5 AE reports, RTH only commented in 1 of them, and it was the one he closed as refer to arbcom; the others were processed fine without his involvement. If RTH had commented "above the line" on that one, the only thing that would have changed is maybe we wouldn't have that ARCA that's open now (which I obviously don't think is helpful). Based on those 5 reports as a sample size, and I'll add Nishidani's as a 6th (where RTH gave credence to an obvious sock's obviously bad report, which lasted until the obvious sock was blocked as a compromised account), I would argue that moving RTH to "above the line" for ARBPIA (or at least for the war) would improve AE not harm it. Levivich (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  If RTH hadn't commented as an uninvolved admin you'd still have had 3 other uninvolved admin agreeing to refer to arbcom. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Further evidence that RTH commenting above the line would not have made a significant difference.

  Personally I'm not so sure we'd still be at ARCA, but even if we were, it wouldn't have been the same ARCA filing (someone else would have had to write it and maybe would have written it differently, maybe with different parties, maybe with different issues, and maybe even with some evidence) or made at the same time (without RTH, maybe you would have finished your review of the diffs and posted your thoughts on them, who knows what might have happened).

  Also not for nothing but you know what the other 3 admin all have in common? Recent significant conflict with me. That may not make them wp:involved but I don't think they're quite "uninvolved admin," either. Levivich (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  What stopped me from finishing my review of the diffs - the part of which I'd done and already indicated I found trouble with - was this comment which suggested to me there was no way to keep that report focused on האופה. I'm also sorry to hear that your thinking that because I disagree with your definition of tagteaming, while agreeing that at least some of the conduct in the diffs you provide violate conduct expectations, and not for nothing agreeing that RTH needs to think differently about INVOLVED, is a signficant conflict with you because it would not have registered as such with me. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  The reason there was no way to keep the report focused on the reported editor was because some of the reviewing admins kept talking about other editors who weren't named in the report (that diff you linked was made in response to such comments). Up until that happened in my fifth report, everything was fine (we had no problems in the first four). The "significant conflict" between us I was referring to was the arbcom case last year. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I think it's obviously a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Full disclosure, I have had conflict with Red-Tailed Hawk on this subject in the past - they previously closed several WP:RSN discussions on sources with a clear bias in terms of left-right politics and AP2 in particular, despite having previously been fairly active in those areas themselves and having reasonably discernible perspectives about both it and its sourcing; and disagreed when I suggested to them that they were INVOLVED. My opinion here is the same as it was then - we have a thousand admins, and Wikipedia covers a vast array of topics; there is no need for them to administrate topic areas where they've expressed opinions in the past, which inevitably creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. Many topic areas (GENSEX, AP2, and of course ARBPIA) are themselves large unwieldy ongoing disputes; serious involvement, at least to the point where an broad opinion can be discerned, constitutes involvement in that underlying dispute in a way that should generally bar admins from acting there. There are a few WP:CTOPS that aren't really disputes in the conventional sense and where this wouldn't apply (BLP, most obviously, isn't a singular dispute), and a few that can be broken down into multiple distinct disputes (expressing an opinion on the trans dispute shouldn't make someone WP:INVOLVED for unrelated articles about sexual activity), but those are exceptions - for most topic areas, there is one core, identifiable, underlying dispute, and once you've expressed a discernible opinion on that dispute you're WP:INVOLVED for the whole topic area. Certainly the expertise of someone who has edited the topic area extensively can be useful - but they can provide that as an ordinary editor, and leave the final decisions to someone with an intact appearance of neutrality. --Aquillion (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• For such a long discussion, I'm not seeing a consensus for any particular course of action other than possibly having a broader discussion of what the involved admin policy means in CTOP areas, which, if we need to do that, would seem to indicate that RTH is not "involved" in the currently understood sense of the term. I am about as hawkish (no pun intended) as a person can be as regards INVOVED admin actions, and I'd be the first in line calling it out if there was a "smoking gun" here, but there is not. This is basically a long-winded way of saying I think people have talked enough; I wish they'd stop. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you're not seeing any consensus in this discussion, I'd ask you to look again:

  • 11 editors said yes wp:involved: me, Shushuga, Vanamonde93, voorts, Zero0000, Sean.hoyland, Nableezy, Tamzin, Aquillion, RAN1, and starship.paint
  • 5 editors are a "maybe" or "probably": Liz (who thought Zero's suggestion was sensible), valereee ("very possibly yes"), Chaotic Enby ("editors making many non-trivial edits are also involved"), Goldsztajn (asked whether, definition of involved aside, RTH would "agree not to undertake mop work in the topic area"), and Barkeep49 ("RTH needs to think differently about INVOLVED")
  • 3 editors said not involved: RTH, SFR, and BilledMammal
  • 4 editors commented on the issue but without opining one way or the other: you, Nishidani, Arkon, and Novem Linguae

  Apologies if I've mischaracterized or miscategorized anybody, but it seems like pretty clear consensus to me that yes, RTH is wp:involved, with only 3 editors saying no vs. 11-16 saying yes. I think all that's left to determine is what the scope is of the wp:involved topic area: (1) ARBPIA, (2) the current war, or (3) something else. (My vote is first choice 1, second choice 2.) Levivich (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  What I actually said was I'm not seeing a consensus for any particular course of action. So, you are responding to a point I wasn't making. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  What you actually said was more than that: I'm not seeing a consensus for any particular course of action other than possibly having a broader discussion of what the involved admin policy means in CTOP areas, which, if we need to do that, would seem to indicate that RTH is not "involved" in the currently understood sense of the term. And I responded by saying no, there is consensus--clear and overwhelming consensus (a 4:1 or 5:1 ratio)--that he's involved in the currently-understood sense of the term. As for particular course of action, we all know what the particular course of action is when an admin is wp:involved: not acting as an admin in the involved area. Levivich (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I clarified above that I think this is a nuanced issue so I should not be in the yes involved camp. I'm not opining on whether RTH is or is not involved at this point, but I did find the specific diffs that we discussed above and at my talk page to be unpersuasive. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just for the record, I withheld my private opinion, which I gained after just two exchanges with Red-tailed hawk when he questioned me in the Icebear report against me. I thought he had made up his mind already that I had a serious civility problem, at the very outset of the case. But this is just the way I read between the lines, and is highly subjective. Because of that, and the fact that I am completely incompetent in opining on policy issues, I have refrained from 'voting' in this thread, and remain technically neutral for that reason.Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  For such a long discussion I'm impressed with how clearly reached the consensus is without any proposals or bold faced voting. If RTH acknowledges the feedback and says "I will consider myself INVOLVED in <insert one of Levivich's scopes> in the future" I bet this thread would be promptly closed by someone. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Involvement is with disputes. That does not mean real life disputes - it means disputes on-wiki. There is no policy or guideline basis to force an editor to declare themselves involved with respect to an entire topic area - and in fact, multiple recent discussions should show that there is no community desire for this sort of "admin action topic ban" to take place. I have seen no evidence that RTH has acted as an administrator during a dispute/discussion which they commented on as a regular user or were involved in a non-administrator capacity. The mere fact that RTH has edited in the topic area does not mean they are involved with respect to administrator actions/discussions that do not involve articles they've edited or a content dispute they have opined on.

That all said, it is no surprise that this discussion was started. The user who started this discussion did so quite quickly after they commented on the current ARC/A request that RTH made with referral of long-term issues with editors in this topic area from AE. About half of the editors on the "yes involved" camp are "coincidentally" those being suggested as parties for the likely arbitration case to result from that request. To take such a drastic action based on a consensus of users who are definitely involved in this issue as they are being suggested as parties to an arbitration case that RTH arguably initiated... that's not only a wild abuse of process but is only encouraging those users to continue weaponizing noticeboards for their own benefit.

This is a contentious topic for a reason. There is no wider community consensus that an administrator should be barred from a whole topic area just because they have made non-trivial edits on some parts of that topic area. Unless evidence is provided that RTH has actually violated INVOLVED by operating administratively in a dispute they are actually involved in, this should be closed with no action whatsoever. And even if that evidence is presented, the proper place for that, in my opinion, is arbitration - where the actions of administrators can be evaluated along with other users. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

About half of the editors on the "yes involved" camp are "coincidentally" those being suggested as parties for the likely arbitration case to result from that request. That's false. Only one editor in the "yes camp" is being suggested as a party for the likely arbitration (Nableezy). Conversely, two editors in the "no camp" are being suggested as a party (BM and SFR). There are very few (five) named editors who have been suggested as parties. (BTW, you are just as involved in this topic area as I am. If you and I get a vote, then so does everyone else who's involved in the topic area.) Levivich (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez my motivation to create this thread is absolutely motivated by the ARCA case; however I had even raised my reservations long prior, which Goldsztajn alluded to here as well in this thread and in their RfA 8 months ago. I cannot enclose wikidiffs due to (unrelated) revdeletions, but you can find our concerns here.

RTH has a strong world view expressed through their edits and discussions on Wikipedia in American Politics and Palestine-Israel related articles. As an editor, their American conservative positions can provide a valuable and unique perspective, but it's an inappropriate use of their admin tool belts in the exact same areas, and their unwillingness to listen to feedback of multiple good-standing editors/admins who say they are WP:INVOLVED, is why we have this longer thread here.

From the 90+ comments I've seen so far, without any formal proposals, there is no strong consensus to consider the entirety of ARBPIA itself a single dispute/sub-topic, however there is strong consensus here that RTH is WP:INVOLVED with Israel-Hamas war dispute and has acted both as admin and editor in this capacity. RTH offered to close several RM discussions in same area of Israel-Hamas war, which would be explicitly inappropriate going forward. I am hoping we can close this thread amicably, without going to Arbitration review. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

You conveniently ignore yourself and Nableezy as suggested parties. I have nothing further to say to you about this other than trying to ignore the disruption by yourself and others that has been brought up during that request doesn’t make this witch hunt any more legitimate. In fact, this sort of comment makes even clearer that this request is simply weaponizing policies to remove someone you disagree with from being able to administrate. If you don’t have actual evidence of RTH misusing administrator tools, you may wish to “quit while you’re ahead” here and not sign your name to blatantly false information like this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 10:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

A conflict of interest doesn't require misuse of admin tools, the appearance of conflict is sufficient. Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Involvement is with disputes. That does not mean real life disputes - it means disputes on-wiki. This is untrue. WP:INVOLVED simply says "disputes"; furthermore, the rest of the first paragraph makes it clear that "disputes" is meant to be interpreted broadly, saying This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings - someone who clearly has strong feelings about eg. the Arab-Israeli conflict or AP2 is WP:INVOLVED in those disputes and cannot act as an administrator in them. And, indeed, it goes on to say Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute (emphasis mine.) What does "disputes on topics" mean in this context, if not to say that eg. someone whose edits reveal strong feelings on the dispute underlying the topic area has involved themselves for that entire topic area? --Aquillion (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Based on the evidence provided so far, I don't think RTH has edited extensively enough in the topic area to be considered involved in everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I do think there's evidence that he is involved with Israel–Hamas war and closely related articles. In general, I think that contentious topic areas were identified and delimited by either ArbCom or the community to encompass broad areas in which disruptive editors were editing disruptively. The extant contentious topic areas have lasted because there are still disruptive actors. It is valuable to the community to be able to topic ban disruptive users from these broad areas. I don't think it is sensible to use these categories—ones built specifically to counter disruption—to limit the participation of non-disruptive admins. I'd feel different about the very narrow topic areas (I'm remembering the Shakespeare authorship question topic area). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• WP:INVOLVED is about winning disputes through use of the adminstator toolkit. Simply editing in a subject area, even a contentious one, does not constitute involvement in a dispute. I am not an administrator, but I assist with edit-a-thons where I employ some of the tools to help others (mainly through uncontroversial page moves) and feel a ban on this would be an overreach. Moreover, just because you don't edit in controversial areas does not mean that you have no opinion. While I tend to agree with the sugestion that you should consider yourself involved if people say you are, I note that ArbCom has explicitly rejected this argument in the past. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  A problem with the 'you should consider yourself involved if people say you are' test is that it is premised on the notion that the people doing the considering pass the 'reasonable person' test. This is true in Levivich's case, but in contentious areas, the evidence (and there is a lot) strongly suggests that this is very often not the case. If we had advanced AI bots with admin rights that carried out both content editing (including enforcing content policy compliance) and admin tasks in the PIA topic area, I would expect a substantial number of editors would consider it both involved and either pro-Palestine or pro-Israel rather than pro-Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  As an admin being told I was involved by multiple editors, I'd be looking at whether the folks telling me I'm involved are all on one 'side' of the argument, or am I being told that by both sides/by uninvolved editors? If everyone telling me I'm involved is on the side of a dispute I just found consensus against, I'm putting less weight on it. Still a data point, but I'd be looking for input from uninvolved editors, probably here at AN. Valereee (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t know about that, if we assume that everybody here is selfish then the people who you’re siding with are also selfish in wanting to maintain an admin on that side. But as far as I know, nobody is objecting to RTH's content here, it isn’t an issue of do his edits reflect a partisan motivation that could translate into enforcement actions. It’s just that there are edits that show they are involved in the topic area. Once upon a time BilledMammal would close ARBPIA related moves, for example Talk:Carmel (Israeli settlement)#Requested move 14 March 2023. Now nobody would believe at this point that BilledMammal does not have strongly held views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but even then they had previously been involved in editing the topic. And I objected to the close on that basis. Or when KlayCax closed an RFC at Talk:Israel, and closed it in the way I had voted for, I also objected due to their past involvement (here and the surrounding edits). You either edit in a topic or you administer that topic, not both. Full stop. nableezy - 13:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee The data point has a bias created by RTH himself in drawing up a list, suggesting problematical behaviour, where only 4 of those named could be identified with a pro-Israeli POV. he created the sidedness, and it is in noway anomalous that many of those haplessly named among the majority replied suggesting he was involved.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Valereee, then how about the converse? If I were an admin being told I was uninvolved by multiple editors, I'd be looking at whether the folks telling me I'm uninvolved are all on one 'side' of the argument, or are they also admins also administrating the topic and already in agreement with? starship.paint (RUN) 00:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Re: If I were an admin being told I was uninvolved by multiple editors, I'd be looking at whether the folks telling me I'm uninvolved are all on one 'side' of the argument, yes. Re: or are they also admins also administrating the topic and already in agreement with, sorry, not following? Valereee (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee: [3] [4] starship.paint (RUN) 13:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, must not have enough coffee onboard yet. I'm still unclear on what you're asking me. Valereee (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Right Valereee, so one of the most controversial actions RTH took in this matter was initiating the reference of several editors in the ARBPIA topic to ArbCom at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_(AE_referral). SFR agreed with RTH's 'refer ARBPIA editors to ArbCom' direction and by his own admission SFR already felt that way before. So if you're taking involved editors' opinions with a pinch of salt, wouldn't this scenario also lead to some caution? starship.paint (RUN) 02:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  I may simply be too stupid to understand this question, but it seems like you're saying

  1. RTH said it should go to arbcom
  2. SFR agreed
  3. Therefore SFR was implicitly saying RTH wasn't too involved to take it to arbcom
  4. But since SFR had already agreed that's where it should go, RTH might not want to take this as a data point?

  If that's what you're asking, I don't think the simple fact someone agrees with you about an action, regardless of whether they agreed with you before or after you suggested that action, has anything to do with whether you're too involved to take that action yourself. Is that even close to what you were getting at? Valereee (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, Valereee, I wasn’t referring to anything implicit. There was an explicit reply to you by SFR above: What if their involvement in the topic area was minor enough that over seven months of working ARBPIA at AE went by without any of the regular editors thinking to raise concerns about involvement? Does this affect RTH's involvement? No. Then again, whether involved editors are claiming RTH's involvement similarly does not affect RTH's involvement. It's just about weighing the opinions. Nevertheless, I would like to apologise for having confused you (and possibly confusing you yet again). starship.paint (RUN) 13:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• INVOLVED is acting as an editor and admin in the same area to the extent that one cannot be sure they are acting neutrally when taking an admin action. RTH's edits regarding the Israel-Hamas war are significant enough that he should not be acting as an uninvolved administrator in that topic. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• First, I can't I spent part of my night reading through this long discussion. Aside from the section right below these comments (RM comments), what I sense from this discussion is I believe that User:Red-tailed hawk needs to be conscious of the concerns raised in this discussion and to be thoughtful of their actions knowing that a variety of editors have raised concerns about some of his actions. But I don't see any proposals being made to take any particular action and it looks like this discussion has lost its momentum.
  A bigger consensus is that there needs to be an update in the wording or our understanding of INVOLVED to provide better guidance with today's make up of Contentious Topic areas that didn't exist when INVOLVED was codified. That is a larger discussion that needs to happen on a policy talk page. That's what I see. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}
• There's another problem with INVOLVED which is that an involved close is usually overturned, whereas "I think this close was wrong" is usually endorsed. This makes INVOLVED one of those irregular verbs:

  I made an obvious and uncontroversial close after some trivial edits in a tangentially related article.

  You sailed a bit to close to INVOLVED there and should be more careful in future.

  He made a blatantly abusive INVOLVED close and ought to be reverted, desysopped and cbanned.

• It would be wise to hold an RFC on VPP, advertised on CENT, that seeks to clarify INVOLVED enough to de-weaponise it.—S Marshall T/C 20:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

RM comments

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

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

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

• Yup, that’s INVOLVED in ARBPIA. (Disclaimer: I am also INVOLVED). starship.paint (RUN) 00:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposals

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

Pinging past participants

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

I do not think this board has the ability to find consensus for proposal 2 and proposal 3 would be merely advisory. This feels like a mal-formed process and so I stand by the comments I made above - which state my opinion this - without devolving into bolded voting in an unfair way (where's proposal 4: Red-Tail hawk is not involved?). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Outright Opposing Proposal 1 would be the way to say he is not involved. The same way other editors have endorsed a proposal and opined that it should be more or less strict. As to whether this is a legitimate discussion, the closer can see the remaining comments by 30 people and weigh the proposals accordingly. I do not expect the results to contradict each other much. If a proposal/question raised is missing that couldn't be addressed by supporting/opposing a proposal, those would be best added as new proposals then. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the fact that this WP:LOCALCON can not do all the things you want it to do and I'm glad we agree that this is completely unnecessary to a closer finding (or not finding) consensus for closure because what a waste of the thoughts and time of the number of editors you've pinged if those comments wouldn't matter for consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to close this, but will wait a few days to see if Shushugah's new proposals go anywhere. - Compassionate727 at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area. I see Proposal #2 as "RTH is WP:INVOLVED in WP:ARBPIA", whereas Proposal #1 is "RTH is WP:INVOLVED in Israel-Hamas war." I don't think either pose a WP:LOCALCON problem. As written, Proposal #2 somewhat suggests "anyone WP:INVOLVED in any part of WP:ARBPIA is WP:INVOLVED in all of WP:ARBPIA." I still don't see why that's a WP:LOCALCON problem, but if it is, it doesn't need to be decided in order to decide the scope of RTH's WP:INVOLVEment, if any. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What Levivich said. My first proposal is hyper-specific to RTH in the most narrow sense, whereas yes the second proposal would have wider reaching ramifications for other editors editing in ARBPIA area, RTH specifically as well, since this is a line he argued. I would like to avoid spending/wasting more of the community's time, repeatedly coming back here because we never addressed the broader question of whether ARBPIA is a singular topic or not.

Sure, an updated wording of WP:INVOLVED would help clarify that, but right now we have genuine confusion from editors who narrowly and broadly interpret the existing wording and previous applications in practice, so asking this question for ARBPIA is not about creating an improper local consensus. But if this is something the closer disagrees, they will take this into consideration and inform us whatever other venue there is. There's been helpful discussion here about other CTOPs, which I do not think went to waste as it helps inform the parameters here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2 is explicitly a general statement about INVOLVEMENT rather than a specific judgement about RTH. One of those falls with-in the scope of this board (conduct of an editor) and one of those does not (take your pick of contentious topics being ArbCom's and INVOLVEMENT being a policy that would need to be discussed in appropriate policy forum). So if the intent was to give people two bites at the "RTH is INVOLVED" apple, the proposal doesn't do it very well in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think AN(I) can declare an admin involved, but this thread would have some use if RTH would say if after reading the views expressed here if he considers himself involved or not. And if not and other feel otherwise I think the only recourse available is ArbCom. nableezy - 15:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the community can absolutely form consensus about an administrator's conduct and as a conduct board this board could absolutely come to consensus that RTH is/isn't INVOLVED. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, a consensus can be, and IMO has been, formed. But any teeth for an admin conduct issue is in one place, and it isnt with the community. nableezy - 16:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If an admin took an admin action in an area after there is documented community consensus asking them not to, I don't expect them to remain an admin very long. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

+1 Valereee (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with Barkeep on this. BilledMammal (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Per BK49 above, I believe Proposals 2 is out of scope for this discussion, and 3 can have no material impact on any actual revision of the policy. As such I don't think we should be spending time on them. More generally, I strongly dislike the notion of determining the scope of involvement a priori: it's a sure-fire way to increase dramatics and wikilawyering, when the whole purpose of a CTOP designation is to reduce that. There does appear to be clear consensus about RTH's involvement here, which is, in my view, the process working as it should; the community telling an administrator that their contributions to an area are substantive enough to make them involved. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think we can have a perfect red-line definition of involvement, but I am concerned that some people seem to feel that the word "dispute" on WP:INVOLVED refers solely to disputes over wiki content and not to real-world disputes; that, at least, is a relatively straightforward question and obtaining an answer to it would settle most of the underlying issues here while avoiding problems in the future where eg. admins whose edits show clear, strong opinions on specific real-world disputes feel that they can still act as admins in areas where those disputes are the focus. This board isn't necessarily the place to answer that question, but I do think that we should answer it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree the use of the word "dispute" is sub-optimal - indeed I don't think it should be used at all, because involvement can occur even in completely uncontentious areas. But this noticeboard cannot amend the wording, and a proposal that the wording should be amended does nothing to amend it, so we should be spending time on it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1

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

• Support (I am obviously involved here) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved) - Creating, moving, editing, etc. an article about Israel's invasion of Gaza; 40+ comments on Talk:Israel-Hamas war, incluing multiple content disputes, voting in RMs and for an RM moratorium; being a top author of articles about the war; having articles about the war be among RTH's top-edited articles/talk pages ... all of this is unequivocally involved at least in the topic area of "Israel-Hamas war". Levivich (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved) per Levivich, and the Requested Move comments are enough to establish involvement already. starship.paint (RUN) 12:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved) per Levivich. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Define it more clearly. Suggest we decide he's involved until the sooner of (a) a week after the end of hostilities or (b) two calendar years have elapsed.—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved), per my comments above. RTH has made substantive edits to a wide swath of pages about the Israel-Hamas war, and is therefore INVOLVED with respect to that war. I explicitly am not saying this makes him involved on all of ARBPIA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved due to previous conflict with RTH over an analogous issue; see my comment above.) Some contentious topics are fairly singular disputes with clearly-defined sides, such that someone whose edits seem to align with one side or the other is involved for the entire topic area. See my comments above. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support RTH should not be taking admin actions in the ARBPIA area. (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved) as with buidhe. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I reviewed the comments above and they are all minor, therefore, RTH is not involved and may act as admin in this area. Andre🚐 06:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (as another involved admin) for the reasons I have stated on this page. Zero^talk 06:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. This I believe should be decided by Arbcom. On the merits: RedTailedHawk made some very good, even piddling edits and no negative implication should be made from any of them. Clearly he felt that the current INVOLVED rules did not cover his opining and editing and they did not. However, if this is indeed properly decided here, I support the view that he is involved because I believe that administrators editing in the topic area should not act in the topic area as administrators. That is my opinion and the opinion of others here. I am not sure that our opinions matter, that the consensus here matters, but if it does, he should not be taking admin actions in the topic area going forward. However, this does not reflect upon, nor should it impact in any way whatsoever, his actions in this topic area as an administrator. If he took some action as an administrator in this area it should not be retroactively revoked. He was following the rules. But in a contentious topic area, administrators should be careful to show no involvement in any sense of the word. I hope that this logic and concern is applied evenly and fairly going forward. I don't expect it to be, but I can hope. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Striking out my comments. On further consideration, I believe that since this should be determined by arbcom, my opinion on this here doesn't matter and neither does anyone else's. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator ... whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area" (first emphasis added). I do not believe that RTH has shown bias in this topic area. @RAN1 states that RTH's edits "fall into 3 categories: RM comments, archiving, and minor content questions and suggestions", but only presents evidence regarding category 1. The RM discussions cited above appear to be neutral and good faith applications of WP:AT. Regarding category 3, I do not believe that the evidence regarding RTH's edits that have been presented by others in this discussion show bias for the reasons stated above and on my talk page. I am not sure that ArbCom has sole jurisdiction to declare an admin involved; only ArbCom can desysop (for now) or sanction an admin, but a declaration that an admin is involved isn't a sanction. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  @voorts: Commenting on requested moves to "Hamas–Israel war" or "Israel–Gaza war" is anything but neutral. RAN1 (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  You raise some good points. I happen to agree with the edits RedTailedHawk made. What I'm saying is that we need neutral, unbiased admins in this topic area. But yes, maybe restricting RTH is going overboard. Maybe. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Aside from voting in RMs and such, there is no way that creating new articles or making 40+ talk page comments is "minor or obvious". Levivich (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  The critical point of that sentence is the minor or obvious, not the bias. If showing bias was our standard, everyone could declare themselves uninvolved everywhere, because all our edits are supposed to not show bias. Obviously someone who does consistently show bias should be considered involved, but an editor who consistently shows bias in an area is unlikely to become or remain an admin. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich. If this isn't involved, nothing is. Buffs (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved) Leaving aside the question of an admin, if an ordinary editor was editing like that and then tried to close discussions, that would be a no-no. Why? Because conflict of interest. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per V93 and Lev. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any pre-emptive declarations of involvement that are not based on an actual administrator action that was purportedly taken in violation of involvement. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't pre-emptive, this is based on actual administrator action that was actually taken: commenting as an uninvolved admin at multiple AE threads, closing an AE thread (with a referral to arbcom), and listing himself as "uninvolved admin" at the ARCA referral. One minor but concrete outcome of a finding of involvement is that RTH would be moved from the "uninvolved admin" list to the "involved editor" list at the ARCA filing; one more significant outcome is that RTH would no longer be able to comment as an uninvolved admin at future AE filings in the topic area (the scope of "the topic area" would depend on the scope of the involvement). Levivich (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  AE is for conduct issues, not content issues. Unless RTH has been involved in a conduct dispute with an editor in an administrative capacity, their opinions on the content do not make them involved in conduct disputes like that. Merely making edits related to a topic area does not mean an administrator is automatically involved with respect to conduct unrelated to those edits in the topic area. Had RTH protected a page, blocked an editor, etc. related to their edits, then yes, that would obviously be involved. Had RTH closed a discussion related to content that they have edited, that would be involved. But commenting merely on the conduct of editors unrelated to content they've edited is not something that requires the administrator to have made no edits in the topic area as a whole. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that RTH is involved with the conduct dispute at AE that they participated in and closed that resulted in this discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2

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

• Support (I consider myself involved as well) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved) - As many have pointed out, there is no part of Israel-Hamas war that isn't part of WP:ARBPIA. I mean, it's a war between the two sides in that conflict. It's shaping up to be the biggest war between those two sides probably since 1947-1949. There is so much overlap between the current war and the ongoing conflict that it's impossible to separate the two. This isn't necessarily true for all CTOPs, but it is true for this one. Levivich (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved) per Levivich. The current war is one culmination of the past events. starship.paint (RUN) 12:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved). This is much closer to a one-dimensional dispute than other CTOPs, with editors and sources often being described as "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Palestinian", and an editor being WP:INVOLVED on one aspect of the dispute can reasonably be believed to be on the same "side" on other aspects of it. Of course, I'm not saying that one-dimensional partisanship is universal, but the appearance of bias can already be enough to make someone too involved for a closure or administrative decision. There isn't anything equivalent for (most) other CTOPs – you wouldn't divide the editors into, say, "pro-BLP" and "anti-BLP". Although out of the scope of this discussion, it could be interesting to consider which other CTOPs might fall under a similar situation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• There are other contentious topics that refer to ONE hypertoxic dispute. The Falun Gong. Race and intelligence.—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  no opinion on this dispute but Armenia-Azerbaijan is another example of a largely single-axis CTOP ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that the idea here is worth considering, but I don't think that we can actually define how policy as a whole is interpreted here; to the extent that this applies just to this one specific case, people can express it in their rationales above. Beyond that, I'm not sure I agree that PIA is unique in this regard, as the wording implies; I think several CTOPs are fundimentially about one underlying dispute (eg. AP2, PIA), and several others are bigger than that but do contain a number of clearly-defined disputes, such that someone who is involved in one of those disputes should stay out of at least that one (eg. GENSEX). Ones like BLP where there are no underlying disputes are more rare. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Chaotic Enby said it better than I was going to. (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved) It might be that the exact language here could be tweaked (FWIW the proposal does not say "unlike *all* other", but perhaps could have been better written as "unlike many other"), but the intent to recognise a clearly observable phenomenon - regular participants' viewpoints across all Israel-Palestine topics are generally quite consistent - is valid. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Arbcom, and not editors, should determine this. Andre🚐 06:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. ARBPIA covers the collection of articles about a single long-running dispute. This is historical fact. It is also confirmed by the editing patterns of participants. No administrator who takes part as an editor in a dispute over one aspect of ARBPIA (which includes things like voting in RMs) should perform administrative roles in other aspect of ARBPIA. Zero^talk 06:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. This should be decided by Arbcom. However, if it can be decided here, I lean in favor of support for the reasons others have stated above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Striking out comment to be consistent, since arbcom should determine. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose PIA defines an "area of conflict", i.e., "[a.] the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and [b.] edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ('related content')", whereas BLP defines a topic area: "All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles are designated as a contentious topic." Both topic areas are to be broadly construed. This drawing of an analogy between the two CTOPs and attempting to define their scope in terms of disputes is more confusing than helpful. Additionally, as CTOPs are designated by ArbCom through its decisions, only ArbCom can amend the scope or definition of a CTOP. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  "broadly interpreted" is a troublesome phrase, but there's no way this isn't part of it. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich (uninvolved) Buffs (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support (involved) The topic area is one big interrelated area, editing a part of it is like editing all of it. That's why we have "broadly interpreted".Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Multiple editors have stated above that this proposal is out of scope for this noticeboard. This would amend policy, which requires a central policy venue and an advertised discussion. But I guess we're !voting anyway, so I'm noting that I oppose, principally to ensure we don't declare a pseudo-consensus that leads to subsequent drama. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I assume the policy that this proposal would amend is the WP:INVOLVED part of WP:ADMIN, but I don't understand what part of WP:INVOLVED would be amended by this proposal? More broadly, why is this discussion not the right discussion to determine the scope of an admin's involvement (if any)? Levivich (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know where we would put this in the text of the policy, and I don't particularly care. INVOLVED as written is completely independent of the CTOP designations, and is only concerned with the area and nature of an admin's edits. This proposal is saying that in one specific area of the encyclopedia, the scope of an admin's involvement is determined a priori. That is a substantive change to policy, one which many community members may be interested in. This is a noticeboard intended to handle behavioral issues (which many community members avoid, with reason), and this proposal is embedded deep inside a discussion of one admin's conduct. It is not an appropriate venue. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  But what if you interpret this question not to be asking a question about all admins' involvement, but to ask a question about this admin's involvement? Because I agree this can't change WP:INVOLVED, but I disagree that it's trying to make any change to WP:INVOLVED, I think it's just trying to determine the scope of involvement for one particular editor. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how that's the question being asked, so this is a bit academic. But FWIW I'm still weakly opposed. I don't like defining the scope of involvement based on the nature of the CTOP rather than the nature of the admin's edits, and single dispute or not, there's a difference in degree between, say, the second Intifada and the geographic distribution of the Palestine sunbird. I also don't like treating any given CTOP with a degree of exceptionalism: we have many other narrow CTOPs. We should examine an admin's behavior as it arises. I've said my piece as to where RTH's edits show involvement; if that involvement is wider, then that should be documented first. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I hear you, but Palestine sunbird isn't part of ARBPIA anyway. I respect your right to disagree on the scope of the involvement, but I think there is a big difference between deciding that any admin who is involved in any part of ARBPIA is involved in all of ARBPIA (which would be out of scope for this discussion), and deciding that this particular admin is involved in all of ARBPIA because their involvement in Israel-Hamas War == involvement in all of ARBPIA (which I think is in scope for this discussion). As to the latter, editors can of course disagree, but I don't think it violates global consensus in any way. Levivich (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Just for clarity, absent a specific dispute, I wouldn't consider a page without the Arbpia/CT notices as part of the conflict. So the sunbirds are safe for now. Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  The notices are an administrative matter that we don't always handle well. I'm not saying the page as a whole is ARBPIA, but a section which contains the sentence "The expansion of Jewish settlements in Israel over the last century played a significant role in the spread of the Palestine sunbird throughout the region, with cultivated tropical plants becoming more common in urban gardening." is absolutely covered by the CTOP. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  OMG, save the sunbirds! You are right but still, there is no active dispute there or someone would add the notices (a "partial"). Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  None of God's creatures are spared. Levivich (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  The ambiguous interpretations of Proposal 2 is unfortunate and my fault. I summarize the two different ways it can be construed.

  1. Based on RTH's specific editing activities, he is not only involved with Israel-Hamas war but ARBPIA topic broadly.
  2. Anyone who is involved anywhere in ARBPIA is involved broadly in the entire topic area, including the POV pushing sunbirds.

  The first interpretation would naturally be relevant to discuss here. In order to answer it, we would require a specific examination of RTH's edits (his explanation that Re'im festival massacre is unrelated to Israel-Hamas War) is one of my specific concerns with his attempt to wiki-lawyer and carve multiple topic areas even within the period between Oct 7 to present, let alone anything happening Gaza since 2006 or Palestine since 1948.

  Whereas the second interpretation would broader ramifications for all admin activity in ARBPIA and would be out of scope here as wise editors points out above.

  I am generally inclined to suggest dropping proposal #2 either way, because there's a proposal to change WP:INVOLVED which is detached from the personal circumstances here and solicits feedback from broader array of CTOP we have, including other comparable CTOP areas like Armenia/Azerbaijan, Falun Gong and other less comparable areas i.e GENSEX, MOS, American politics. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  So we move to 4 instead, that it? Selfstudier (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Proposal 1 and 4 both are relevant questions here. I do not understand precisely the exact meaning of proposal 4, but someone else asked for clarification already. Proposals 2/3 can be ignored. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as the proposal is incorrect, as pointed out by S Marshall. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - this proposal amounts to "I think the most important thing is someone's POV on this one part of the conflict and want to remove someone who disagrees with me on that to make it easier to push my POV". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I was asked to clarify this so I am. I'm not accusing the proposal of being in bad faith, but that is what the effect of the proposal will be. Attempting to distill contentious topics to be even "primarily" about one dispute, when the entire premise is that they are broadly construed, amounts to an attempt to "condense" the contentious topic to be about "one thing". There is POV pushing surrounding the current Gaza conflict between Israel and Hamas from multiple sides. That does not mean that an administrator who has an opinion on, say, the 1948 Palestine war is involved with respect to the current conflict. There are many people who may have opinions or made substantial edits in historical articles related to this conflict that should not "automatically" be considered involved with respect to current conflicts. And vice versa - someone having an opinion on or having made substantial edits to the current conflict (ex: to the pager explosions) now, does not mean they are involved with respect to historical articles regarding the conflict.
    That is the opinion I was expressing with my !vote here - not that any one person is acting in bad faith. I don't think opening this for discussion is bad faith - but it is a very slippery slope to attempt to pre-emptively declare someone involved with respect to an entire broadly construed topic area when their edits have been constrained to current events (and overall, have been relatively minor/insignificant). The effect of allowing such determinations of "everything is related" flies in the face of broadly construed as a whole, which involves the community coming to a consensus (either of administrators or uninvolved users) as to whether a specific article, edit, or information should be considered related. While all of the listed "examples" are broadly related, that does not mean that someone editing in one is automatically involved with the others.
    Involvement is related to specific disputes, and in very specific cases may be extended to a broader area (such as declaring someone to have made such poor judgement with respect to a topic that other articles/disputes within that topic that they should be considered involved for future edits). Those, however, are editor-specific issues, not a topic wide issue, and editors without any problems editing should not be considered to be involved on current issues just because, for example, they added or expanded the history section on a historical article that falls under the same contentious topic. That's why involvement is on a dispute-by-dispute basis barring any cross-dispute disruption. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• No comment on whether RTH is INVOLVED, but PIA isn't the only topic area that has this characteristic. I would have thought BLP is the odd one out, with most contentious topics areas having more in common with PIA than BLP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 3

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

• Oppose - no evidence it's insufficient now has been presented. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose not in scope. Andre🚐 23:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 4

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

• Support: This proposal made SEVEN DAYS LATER: It's gross overreaction to declare that merely because an editor has made edits on specific talkspaces and namespaces inside Contentious Topic Areas, they have formally involved themselves broadly across the entire CTA. I've looked at many of the linked edits above and I have found nothing in RTH's work which reveals or demonstrates consistent bias so disqualifying themself. Further, not providing this proposal demonstrates an implicit failure of AGF against RTH. BusterD (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  It was Barkeep49's suggestion an uninvolved proposal should appear. I agreed and created one, however inexactly. BusterD (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  To be exact, Barkeep49 at 14:39, 9 September 2024 (in response to Shushugah's mass ping at 12:37, 9 September 2024, intended to draw literally INVOLVED editors) says This feels like a mal-formed process and so I stand by the comments I made above - which state my opinion this - without devolving into bolded voting in an unfair way (where's proposal 4: Red-Tail hawk is not involved?). This is before almost anyone had asserted an outcome in this polling. Now we're a week along, we have three affirmative proposals 1) RTH is involved comprehensively, 2) RHT is involved to some extent, and 3) we should change the rules to INVOLVED (which is phrased as sarcasm). Several editors have expressed disagreement, but the proposals themselves don't really allow much disagreement. That's a malformed way to divide the discussion. The pinged people have !voted so NOW it is a simple matter to say the !votes are in agreement. Now I'm interested in how someone proposes to act on this kangaroo broadbrushing? Didn't really get the numbers you hoped, did you? BusterD (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  BusterD: "failure of AGF...many other AGF errors here..."

  Also BusterD: "how someone proposes to act on this kangaroo broadbrushing? Didn't really get the numbers you hoped, did you?"

  Thanks for your contributions to this discussion... Levivich (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  You're quite welcome. Your many informed contributions to this discussion certainly help us understand your positions more precisely. BusterD (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - creating the article about the Israeli invasion of Gaza, having multiple articles be among their top-edited pages in multiple namespace categories (mainspace and talkspace, including the main war article being their #3 all-time most-edited talk page), being #1 author or in the top ten on multiple of the most high profile pages in the topic area (including #1 at Kfar Aza massacre, #6 at Re'im festival massacre), making 40+ edits to the main war article talk page (Talk:Israel-Hamas war), voting multiple times on one of the most high-profile and contentious issues in the entire topic area (what to name the war), voting on an RM moratorium... if these sorts of edits don't make a person WP:INVOLVED, then no edits would make a person WP:INVOLVED. Downplaying the extent of the involvement demonstrates an implicit failure of AGF against the multiple editors (including other admins) raising these concerns. It's also unnecessarily bureaucratic and a little pointy: we don't need a "not involved" option because if the "involved" options don't have consensus, then "not involved" would be the outcome. Levivich (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Request for clarification. Does this mean he is uninvolved at all ARBPIA? Or just that he is not involved in all of ARBPIA, but may be involved at some? That is, would this proposal passing negate the result of Proposal 1? Valereee (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  My thought upon first reading this is that this would not create a presumption that I am WP:INVOLVED from the whole conflict (i.e. from before the First World War until today) in a way greater than the scope of proposal 1. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Levivich spells it out. It's hard for someone to be more involved than this and still have a breadth of involvement elsewhere in WP. Buffs (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich and because the topic area is really quite intertwined, the events have the past have culminated in the events of today, and various countries remain tied to the conflict, for example, Egypt with Gaza / Syria with Golan Heights / Lebanon's Hezbollah / Yemen's Houthis / Iran / Islamic Resistance in Iraq. starship.paint (RUN) 14:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose on the sole grounds that Arbcom should make this determination. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any and all pre-emptive declarations of involvement that are not based on an actual administrator action that was purportedly taken in violation of involvement. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support I agree with BusterD. These edits are minor, and minor is clearly mentioned in the policy. Andre🚐 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I find this an odd proposal, in that I had assumed one would support a finding of non-involvement by opposing Proposal 1; as things stand this could result in consensus for two mutually exclusive options. Regardless; RTH made substantive content edits to a number of pages about the Israel's present war, and is unambiguously involved with respect to that war. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments on proposals

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

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

Thanks for your collegial response to my feedback. BusterD (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Hi all

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

Thanks :)

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

Undeletions are requested at this page. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Well and good for future reference, but I had a moment so I enacted. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: courtesy ping as AfD closer. Daniel (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a general note, Liz does not respond to pings. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)L

Color me embarrassed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Content model change

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

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Please tell me that having absolutely no clue what this all means doesn't mean I'm a "legacy admin". Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get used to this whole internet on computers thing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I know this isn't actually information you need (and so certainly not a big deal that you don't know it), but: The content model of a page is basically a flag to tell your web browser or other computers what kind of stuff to expect in that page. For most pages, such as articles, talk pages, etc., the content model is "wikitext", because the page is full of (presumably) human-readable text that uses wiki markup, like article prose or talk page discussions (e.g. this one). Changing the content model to JSON tells computers to expect the data within a page to be in the JSON format--this stands for "JavaScript Object Notation", and is basically a way to create structured data that is readable by computers without making it too impenetrable for humans. So, this change in content model just means you're telling computers "expect this page to contain data that a computer can read", and so it can be used by various tools, bots, etc. that are looking for it. Other examples of content models include "Javascript", which tells a computer "expect this page to contain Javascript code that a computer can execute". Admins can change the content model of pages using the Special:ChangeContentModel link. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Since this request is resolved, sorry for this extra comment. I was working on a tool and needed this page in JSON format. This tool helps check if there are any community or ARBCOM-imposed editing restrictions on users. If you use the MoreMenu gadget, you can add the following code to your Special:MyPage/common.js. This will add a new option named 'Editing restriction' to the user menu on any user's page, making it easy to check their editing restrictions.

mw.hook('moremenu.ready').add(function (config) {
    var username = mw.config.get('wgTitle');
    var encodedUsername = encodeURIComponent(username);
    var url = 'https://restrictionscan.toolforge.org/?search=' + encodedUsername;

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

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

Just a technical correction: the content-type header in the HTTP response is what the browser uses to determine how to handle the content in the response. The MediaWiki content model is used by the MediaWiki software to determine how it should handle the content on that page (which can include returning it with the appropriate content-type header when serving the raw content to a browser). For example, when editing the page, it will launch a different editor for a page with the JSON content model than one with the wikitext content model. isaacl (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI, next time you need a JSON subpage, if you create the page with the title ending in .json it should automatically set the content model to json for you. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks xaosflux. I knew that .json pages have JSON content model by default and I'm using .json pages like User:BaranBOT/Task 1/Drives/2024-09 New Page Patrol/config.json; I just wanted one without the .json extension. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, you can create it with the .json extension and then move it to a different name, which won't change the content model. isaacl (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Also for future reference, you can use {{TPER|force=yes}} to request content model changes, and the special page that actually does this is Special:ChangeContentModel. SilverLocust 💬 02:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Revisiting § Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

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

---

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

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

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

No objection. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

No objection from me. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal is a good idea. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. Lectonar (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Done NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 17:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! But there's still a RM template at the top of the article. Snafu? Carguychris (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

A bot will take care of it soon. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 18:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223 & @Carguychris: per WP:RMEC, an RM may not be withdrawn if any editor "has suggested any outcome besides not moving". Several editors supported a move in this discussion. Closing the RM and starting a new one to guide consensus is improper. I suggest reverting the close and closing the new discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

My pologies, I did not realize that was a condition. I will take care of that right now. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 23:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I second voorts. Why close this early if editors were still in the process of reaching a consensus? It's obvious that with a topic like this, one that is currently controversial and a massive political talking point, there will be many editors talking about this and having different viewpoints on how to make this article Wikipedia-ready. Per previous discussions on the talk page, this RM was bound to happen anyways, so one editor shouldn't be able to close the RM they proposed, especially when so many others were engaged in active conversation under it. JungleEntity (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Please rename the correct season number

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

---

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

Rafael Ronen, this is not a matter that requires an administrator. I would suggest starting a request move discussion, since it's reasonable to believe these moves would be controversial. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I believe it is not controversial, the correct season number is given by the source, the creator of the past article wrote the wrong season number due to no source given due to Greece's Next Top Model connecting the season number with Next Top Model (Greek TV series)  Rafael Ronen  17:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Shrug. I see you've already requested the moves. Nothing more to do here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I can delete at requested the moves if needed, I know a little English so I'm confused, sorry  Rafael Ronen  17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Let the process play out there. The experienced volunteers will either action your requests or tell you what to do next. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: OK, thank you  Rafael Ronen  17:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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

"Twitter under Elon Musk" edit notice

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

Pinging InfiniteNexus for input as they created the edit notice. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The usual answer to the question "can someone do something?" is "who do you expect to do anything if not you?" If you don't have the technical skills needed can you at least suggest something better? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I understood that editnotices can only be edited by admins, that's why I ask here Cambalachero (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I now see (it was pretty obvious in fact) that edit notices can only be edited by admins, template editors, or page movers. In such a niche area that only applies to one or two articles I would still do most of the work myself, only asking an admin or page mover to perform the final move. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

As Cambalachero said, edit notices cannot be edited by most users: "This is the page notice for Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk. This editnotice can only be created or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers."

The only recommendation that I can make is that the third line of the system message says "To request a change be made to the page, please submit an edit request, ensure you include a description of your requested change and the reason for the change" which did not occur. However, had it been done at Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk, then it might have been missed as Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter is the primary edit notice that the other one transcludes to. (In any case, this discussion seems to have become the edit request by default.) --Super Goku V (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin page mover) I can do it if there's consensus, although it could be good to put an alert at the relevant pages (Talk:Twitter, Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk and Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter) to get a wider consensus on what's the best way to write the editnotice. (Edit: Relevant alerts have been sent) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The consensus is on the result of the move discussions, that the edit notice informs about, and which I'm not discussing. Making a big and disruptive edit notice a bit more discrete, without changing its purpose, should be a simple thing and not require big discussions. As said, I would have done it myself if it wasn't for the detail that editnotices can only be edited by certain users. Cambalachero (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

What makes it disruptive? Also for the record were you supportive or opposed to that consensus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The consensus is on the result of the move discussions, that the edit notice informs about, and which I'm not discussing.

I understand, I was talking about getting consensus for changing the editnotice styling. A much more minor thing, but I preferred to make sure that there wasn't any opposition to it before going ahead, as there might have been support for the current styling. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If anything, the notice isn't big enough considering the volume of move requests. Cortador (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The flashiness of the editnotice was due to the various RMs (we're currently at 10) that had been repeatedly opened and closed without consensus for a move, which at that point was becoming disruptive, tiring, and repetitive (WP:DEADHORSE). Hopefully, if the proposed moratorium for future move requests passes, it will ensure stability and allow the editnotice to be more subdued. (Speaking of which, that discussion needs a close; if anyone here would like to volunteer, they are welcome to do so — there's a posting at WP:CR.) Editors are free to discuss the style of the editnotice on Talk:Twitter, or edit the embedded FAQ page directly. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, as this discussion was said above to have become the edit request by default and I've sent a notice on the relevant pages to participate here, it makes sense that the discussion on the style of the editnotice could continue here rather than move again. Although, if it's preferable to continue the discussion on Talk:Twitter, I am not categorically opposed to it either. I'm not sure the embedded FAQ page was even a point of contention, the issue is really about the font size on the editnotice itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about this notice but there have been concerns raised in the past that people tend to ignore notices. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Banner blindness? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet User:Florentino floro

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

---

FrederickEvans According to the edits, this is most likely a blocked user. User:Florentino floro WikiBayer (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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

RfC closure review request at Talk:United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#RfC_for_United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#Syria

United States and state-sponsored terrorism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: diff

Reasoning: This is a request to review the RfC close at United States and state-sponsored terrorism, to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly and closed RfC with wrong procedural close. There were five editors in this discussion, two editors thought this was not a RFC, then User: Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) reworded question to make it intelligible and grammatical. Two editors thought editorial synthesis of published material implied a new conclusion. One editor did not express its opinion clearly. Obviously, no consensus was achieved at this RfC. However, the closing comments were: "A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Procedural close for RfC that is not an RfC: N and RFC apply." I tried to discuss this with the closer, but there is no respond in 5 days. Kof2102966 (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Non-participants

• Speedy endorse: Kof2102966, Robert McClenon has offered to talk this through with you and provide advice on resolving this dispute. You should take him up on his offer and stop trying to go forward with this procedurally flawed RfC. There are other ways of resolving disputes on Wikipedia, and Robert is well-versed in them. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: From my perspective, the original RfC attempt was flawed and Giraffedata was trying to salvage it for you. (Also, why do you think there is a significant difference between a 'no consensus' outcome and a 'procedural close' outcome?) --Super Goku V (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse: Epic fail at keeping "the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded and short". TarnishedPath^talk 03:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Participants

• Endorse - The closer was right in closing the RFC as malformed. The RFC was rewritten twice after posting, and any substantive close would have involved the closer comparing statements to versions of the RFC. The original version of the RFC was a statement. The Original Poster than rewrote it as an ungrammatical question. Another editor then reworked it to be a grammatical question. The RFC was inherently flawed, which is one of the reasons it had no useful answers. The Original Poster has two options, to leave it alone and unanswered, or to develop a new RFC that asks a question, and leave it unchanged for 30 days to get real answers. Closing the RFC as malformed was the right action. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse This was not an RFC. There was no proposal and the text under the RFC heading was a verbose argument, not even trying to be neutral. This was pointed out to the editor by multiple others. The close as "not an RfC" is appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

@Kof2102966: you don't need a closure review. You just need to discuss at the talk page and develop a new, better RfC question. The experienced users there, including RMC and WAID, can probably help you craft a neutral opening question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry that @Kof2102966: felt it necessary to waste everyone's time with this 'report'. Noting that they haven't edited since, so this was by way of being a WP:GRENADE (albeit one in the guise of a damp squib), which states that When you make a report on a noticeboard, you're expected to stick around. The admins' noticeboards aren't places where you can fire and forget; they're places where you have to discuss what the problem you're having that's escalated so quickly you had to bring it there is about. Perhaps an admin could leave them a message as to expectations. Which do not generally include, when one has been effectively editing for only six weeks, to spend most of one's time on the talk page of a contentious topic, pushing something ideological, lots of bin Ladin and misunderstandings of original research, POV commentary and editing, as well as having to be warned by Cambial Yellowing for personal attacks—which was responded to with some belligerence—and now tying multiple editors up not only on the talk page, but at Dispute Resolution (a failure "at the start" noted the moderator), and now here. They have already been advised to read WP:BOOMERANG; they have chosen, unfortunately, not to follow that advice. So now I suspect we are in the realms of WP:CIR or WP:RGW or both, and neither of which is conducive to collaborative consensus building in an already-difficult topic. SerialNumber54129 14:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Quantum Volume persistent reverts

User:Cheer0000 has been persistently reverting changes on Quantum volume promoting a quantum computing system with a tie to cryptocurrency -- without providing any WP:SECONDARY sources or WP:RS. User had been warned once already with 3rr on the user's talk page. Other accounts have in the recent past also tried to add similar information. Michaelmalak (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I very sincerely apologize for MichaelMalak's ignorance. Dynex is a decentralized supercomputer, that is of course, orders of magnitude more powerful than any other quantum supercomputer, and its not even close. The difference is many exponents. I don't know why he's crying about crypto-currency. A quantum volume is a quantum volume, it doesn't matter. It is what it is. I don't know why he's crying about it Cheer0000 (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

NOTHERE'd and semi'd the article for two weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if it's worth an SPI to check if Cheer0000 and DrMartin1970 are socks or just meat. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: meat.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, they're certainly socking now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hoaxes in Draft Space by IP editors

A large number of draft pages have been created within the past month by shifting IP addresses. Approximately 18 of these drafts have been nominated for deletion at Miscellany for Deletion as hoaxes. Some of them have unverified links to the biographies of living persons. I have @voted to Delete some of them as hoaxes and BLP violations, and to keep some of them. The content issue is that drafts are in draft space that will not pass AFC review, but none of them have been submitted. They should be declined or rejected when submitted, and, if accepted, they should be taken to AFD. That is the way Wikipedia works. But there is also a conduct issue. A person or group of persons are editing anonymously from shifting IP addresses and writing things that are not true. Here is the list of the drafts that, in my opinion, contain BLP violations or hoaxes. These are 12 out of the total 18 drafts that have been nominated for deletion. All of them appear to be by IP editors:

• Draft:List of animated television series of 2029
• Draft:Untitled Wild Kratts film
• Draft:Mark Koetsier
• Draft:Kevin Asbury
• Draft:Nelvana Studios
• Draft:Foster (2025 film)
• Draft:Santa's Magic Crystal
• Draft:Trolls 4
• Draft:Frenzy Animation]
• Draft:Bad Fairies
• Draft:Anubis (film)
• Draft:Sheepish (film)

One editor wrote: If the user has a history of hoaxing, take it to WP:AN and propose that they be blocked for disruption. It doesn't look like one editor. It may be one or two or three humans from multiple IP addresses. Am I required to notify all of the IP addresses? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about notifying the IPs. I've seen this fairly frequently while patrolling CSD when they're tagged as hoaxes. I err on the side of deletion. Although not all of these kinds of drafts are created by IPs from Finland, most of them have, and when it's worth doing (they have a fairly lengthy supply of them), I block single IPs and ranges. Frankly, although I know I can't change the overly-lenient Wikipedia culture, it would be way better for everyone if IPs couldn't create drafts. As long as policy permits them to do so, we will have more work cleaning up after the messes and with no accountability when there's socking involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Paulina Holzier

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

---

Perhaps an administrator could take a look at User talk:Paulina Holzier#Managing a conflict of interest and Draft:James Holzier. Perhaps there's no conflict of interest here per se, but there seem to be other problems per WP:NOT and maybe even WP:HOAX that might require more eyes looking at her. The current draft might somehow be related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Holzier back in 2004, which seems to be what's being alluded to here in this user talk page post. I'll also note that this comment on the user's Commons user talk page also makes me wonder whether this is someone who's more WP:NOTHERE than WP:HERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Update: This user has just been indefinitely blocked by Cullen328. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps someone smarter than me will have a more insightful assessment but this this looks to me like a Breaching experiment combined with a hoax combined with good old fashioned trolling. I have indefinitely blocked Paulina Holzier as not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I admit that I got taken in by this editor at WP:AFCHD and spent more time refuting their bullshit than I should have. WP:AGF is a behavioral guideline, after all. Cullen328 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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

1RR and current events articles

This is a bit of a perennial discussion, but I'm not sure if it's been discussed, at least recently, in a centralized location, and I'd like to solicit admins' views on how 1RR is supposed to work on a current events article.

I recently made an edit to a high-profile current events article. That edit was a revert. I later went to make another edit to correct some incorrect information, and it occurred to me that changing what someone else just wrote would be a second revert, and I would be violating 1RR.

What am I supposed to do? Wait until tomorrow to make any further edits to the article? Limit myself to only adding new information and not changing any existing information? Make edit requests for the rest of the day? Just keep editing until someone complains about my crossing 1RR and asks me to self-revert (and hope I don't catch a no-warning block)?

These questions also apply to non-current-events articles, but with current-events articles, the articles become outdated and incorrect rather quickly as new sources are constantly being published (which is not the case for non-current-events articles).

So what is the best practice here? How do I edit a current events article without crossing 1RR? Levivich (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If editing anything would touch the same text that was included in a revert (even if fixing/addressing new issues) I would consider that a partial revert. Better to discuss on talk page, so that it doesn’t escalate or feel like a tit-for-tat. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

A month later, Telegraph RfC hasn't been reclosed

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444 § RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues was reöpened (correctly, IMO) on 18 August. Well, less reöpened and more un-closed, since it's sitting in an archive. An edit just came across my watchlist citing The Telegraph on a gender article, and given all the work people put in to expressing their opinions on the matter (including me, full disclosure), it would be nice to have something to point to as the current community consensus, even if it's just an admin-approved finding of no consensus. A key issue in both the original close and the original overturn was that they were unilateral non-admin closes. Could we maybe get a panel of two or three admins to finally put this to bed? Otherwise I fear all that discussion will have been for naught and we'll be doomed to repeat it all in 6 to 12 months. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to mention, this is listed at closure requests, but CR has a backlog of 44 discussions currently. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. With close challenges becoming de rigueur and people pushing for the broadest possible interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, closing complex discussions is becoming an even more thankless task. – Joe (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean putting aside the general problems with closing, that Telegraph RfC is very long (68k words from a simplistic counter) and an extremely fraught issue in recent times. The re-opening happened after it spawned a 50k+ word review. (For clarity I mention the review not because anyone closing has to read it, but because it indicates the mess anyone closing probably fear awaits.) So I'm not particularly surprised anyone looking at closing who's even vaguely aware of the background goes "no way!" perhaps with some swear words thrown in. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• The irony of it is that it should be closed as generally reliable, which I suppose is the status quo, but it's such a sprawling swamp of a discussion—not counting the review referenced above!—that everyone will demand a panel* and/or a 5,000-word closing statement to feel justice has been done, and more importantly, seen to be done—writ large. And then there will be another massive discussion about the reclose of the reopening of the close. SerialNumber54129 14:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

* Present company excepted; I didn't spot that Tamzin had already mentioned a panel  :) SerialNumber54129 14:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• The community doesn't think it's generally reliable on trans issues.—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey S Marshall, please reclose it. SerialNumber54129 18:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

S Marshall's point is a good one, to clarify: we have a situation in which those who took part in an RfC appear to have decided (with some room for dispute, of course) that X is a reliable publication on Y issue, but the broader community, when presented with the same issue, appears not to. Does the broader community (here) take precedence over the attendees of an RfC? Not necessarily; but who's got the appetite for another RfC?! SerialNumber54129 19:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe your third crack at this will be funny. Believe in yourself! Parabolist (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Can we not have another discussion here on the issue please? Until and unless someone closes the RfC in an unchallenged way, editor are free to believe what they want about what the RfC found be that the Telegraph is generally reliable on trans issues or not or that there was no consensus or whatever else. But from the community point of view let's stick with 'we don't know' or just don't talk about. Of course if you think you have have read the discussion well enough that you can be certain what the consensus was, are sufficiently uninvolved that no one will be able to reasonably complain about you closing the discussion, and have sufficient experience that you can close the discussion in such a way that enough of the community will accept you properly closed the discussion; well then feel free to answer Tazmin's request. Otherwise your opinion of what the discussion found doesn't seem to be something we need to hear about at this time. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I very much agree. I actually don't have an opinion on what the consensus was, having only participated long enough to make a few comments. I'm just hoping someone will close it—for, against, no consensus, narrow consensus, whatever—and hope we can use this space to find some closers, and not to re(re(re))litigate the subject. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  +1. This debate has already spiraled badly out of control between the RfC and close review, the last thing we need is yet another discussion. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It should've remained closed under the original closure. It's obvious the revert of the closure was done out of process. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU: For the love of G-d, could you please not? I'm here asking for a few brave volunteers to step up and close this mess, and I and two others have just begged everyone to not relitigate, and you want to, what, challenge the validity of the second close of the challenge of the close, a month after the fact, for being vaguely "out of process"? For heavens' sake. Please go write an article or something. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Please go write an article or something. Challenge accepted. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this one just doesn't need a formal close. It seems obvious that based on the arguments in the RFC and subsequent discussions, the community is not able to agree on any course of action right now. The safe course would be to pretend this drama never happened, and maybe start a fresh discussion (without all the baggage) to see if things have changed in 6 months or so. This just doesn't seem like a problem that can be solved right now. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

On some topics, I'd like that solution. If there's, say, a heated and convoluted RfC about how to describe some aspect of the Hamas–Israel war, there's a good chance that scrapping the thing and waiting 6-12 months will yield better results. Here, though, I'm not convinced. This was a contentious issue in the first RfC in Jan. '23, it was contentious when this RfC started in June, and it's contentious now in September. I don't see a reason to think that that trend will have broken in six months. It's possible that there could be some deus ex machina in that time, The Telegraph fucking up on a gender matter to the degree of Dominion v. Fox; but if the facts are roughly the same in March, I think the consensus (or lack thereof) will be as well.

What I do think might work would be for someone to do a fairly broad close finding no consensus or only rough consensus (I shan't presuppose which, but I think it's clear this is not a slam-dunk in either direction), but primarily concerned with highlighting the main points that should be discussed in any subsequent RfC. That way we could have some sort of incremental progress. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I largely agree with you, I just don't think we can even agree what goal we should have incremental progress towards (at least not without a ton more drama than we've already had). I think the Wikipedia equivalent of a mistrial due to a hung jury is the only way we'll move forward. That way, next time the opposing factions will hopefully have a better grip on what they need to prove and what arguments their opponents are likely to raise, so we can get past the blocker of "did X really refute point Y or not". I don't think there's much daylight between my suggestion and a fairly broad close finding no consensus; there's no chance we won't be back here in a few months so we might as well skip the intermediate steps of the close-review-review-review and the close-review-review-review-review. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

IP address 89.243.60.161

Vandalism bot just reverted an anti-Semitic edit by this IP to Theophilus Freeman. I spot checked and three of their five edits are similarly unhinged and/or horrifically racist. jengod (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This IP account has been blocked. I'll look into their edits to see if revision deletion is called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

TY.

Resolved

jengod (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Technics SL-1200 Slow Edit Warring

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

---

Djrichie t has been adding overly detailed pictures and descriptions to the Technics SL-1200 page. Multiple reversions have happened over a long period of time. I feel that this user is trying to promote their own personal business rather than add encyclopedic content, but they continue to undo my removal of their edits. I would appreciate some more eyes on this so that we can figure out how to move forward. hbent (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not promoting my own personal business. That claim is fully disputed. I am the copyright owner of the specific part mentioned, which I have provided citations including UK government website link to my intellectual property. It must be said that there are a number of jealous people on Wikipedia who have constantly tried to vandalise my contributions regarding this. There is no need to undo any of my contributions whatsoever as the basis is factual. Djrichie t (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Djrichie t:, you are editing with a conflict of interest when you do this, as you own the copyright to the parts. While you may not intend to promote your interests, it is generally advised that editors with a conflict of interest request edits using the talk page. Furthermore, calling the revisions of your edits vandalism is not helpful and is not the case.

Could this be discussed on talk page of the article first? That is usually the first step of dispute resolution. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree that there is a conflict of interest if the contribution has valid citations. You cannot get more valid than a UK Government link. So your claim is void. Djrichie t (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Djrichie for thumbing their nose at our policies and for continuing to edit-war at the article today.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Bbb23 using privileges for misconduct

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

---

If he had checked the edit history of MY personal sandbox, he would know it's fictional, plus, it doesn:t matter if it's a hoax, that's why it's a personal sandbox, i'm not gonna upload it ZZenyx (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:FAKEARTICLE. Creating hoax articles, even in your personal sandbox, is not allowed. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

They are also eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G3. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I never knew that may move to HHO instead ZZenyx (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What is HHO? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I think they might mean HHW, Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki. I linked them there, since it seemed like that's what they wanted to write about. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

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

• Blocked User is creating more hoax content and making malicious edits. In one article, he changed "three" to "almost four" for no reason. He's clearly not here and I've sent him on his way.--v/r - TP 15:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP

This IP 199.119.233.223 (who is almost certainly the blocked editor Kelownatopdog) has engaged in a number of personal attacks in his edit summaries, see here [6] and [7]. This is clearly a case of not being here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I blocked for a year given the previous block record and likely block evasion. Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Ymblanter! --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Resolved

Backlog Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Moxy🍁 15:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It's been cleared.--v/r - TP 16:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Perfect....thank you all.Moxy🍁 16:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

YM Gud

I have improved the Women in the Bangladesh Army article, and I have added information from here, I have copied the all news from this link, please see the article. YM Gud (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

While I appreciate your efforts to contribute, you cannot simply copy content from news articles into Wikipedia. That is a violation of copyright - see Wikipedia:Copyrights for details on our policy. All contributions need to be written in your own words. I have removed the content and deleted the revisions. Please do not re-copy them, and please do not copy content from news articles into Wikipedia again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I have added information about hijab and underwear policy in the Women in the Bangladesh Army article, please see the article, the article has also been improved better from before. YM Gud (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed the YM Gud for pagemove vandalism and clearly not being here to improve WP. Nthep (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

They are back, as Yunus MIAH (talk · contribs). See this. --bonadea contributions talk 09:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Now in the sock drawer. Nthep (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

If any admin at commons is seeing this, please delete this image too. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Helper201

User:Helper201 has engaged in disruptive editing on articles of political parties, and engaging in edit wars. Has been notified very recently to stop. here is an example of his removal of information 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 17:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You need to provide some more evidence. The example you gave was of this editor removing unsourced information, and, at a quick look, which is all I am prepared to do given your lack of evidence here, other edits seem similar. I can not find anything which is not a content issue that should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

here he removed several ideologies from an infobox for "not political ideologies" (including Anti Zionism and Islamic democracy, which ARE ideologies or political beliefs. here it is again, same article i linked initially. and here it is AGAIN. He mostly just removes infobox information that he thinks aren't ideologies, even though they overwhelming consensus for YEARS is that they should be at least included in that section of the infobox. He removes swaths of information with vague summaries that seem to imply his personal opinion and/or what looks good format-wise. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 18:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)