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	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	1	24	0	25
TfD	0	0	1	0	1
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	65	0	65
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

• 14 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 5 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 201 sockpuppet investigations
• 29 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 53 requests for RD1 redaction
• 58 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 15 requested closures
• 109 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 28 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Bericht

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (30 out of 8186 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Typ Summary Admin Ras Sedr massacre 2024-08-03 04:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:Ivory messagebox/styles.css 2024-08-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4463 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Sodhi 2024-08-02 17:15 2024-09-02 17:15 edit Persistent disruptive editing Anachronist Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/talk/talk 2024-08-01 21:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by LTA Jauerback Lin Yu-ting 2024-08-01 20:47 2024-08-11 20:47 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Real Malabar FC 2024-08-01 20:44 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated El C Silver Synth 2024-08-01 19:50 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Imane Khelif 2024-08-01 17:14 2024-09-01 17:14 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 August 2024 – present) 2024-08-01 14:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Isabelle Belato Beit Jala 2024-08-01 11:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Ismail al-Ghoul 2024-08-01 03:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Firefangledfeathers Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier 2024-07-31 20:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Inprogress 2024-07-31 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Cricket squad2 player 2024-07-31 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Spike (missile) 2024-07-31 16:03 2024-08-07 16:03 edit,move WP:ARBPIA4 temporary enforcement Swatjester Kefas Brand (actor) 2024-07-31 15:05 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Bishonen Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh 2024-07-31 12:30 indefinite edit Highly visible page as currently on main page; it's been moved regularly over the last couple of days Schwede66 Reactions to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions 2024-07-31 01:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Death of Paul Kessler 2024-07-31 01:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Azzam Pasha quotation 2024-07-31 01:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Queer advocacy in the Israel–Hamas War 2024-07-31 01:13 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato 80th Air Assault Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-31 01:11 indefinite edit,move WP:RUSUKR; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Megagle 2024-07-31 00:56 2026-07-31 00:56 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 2024 Gaza Strip polio epidemic 2024-07-30 21:20 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 Haret Hreik airstrike 2024-07-30 19:42 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Talk:Sister location circus fox 2024-07-30 19:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Fouad Shuker 2024-07-30 19:08 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli July 2024 Israeli attack on Beirut 2024-07-30 19:07 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Jhanak 2024-07-30 16:56 indefinite move Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Bat Ayin 2024-07-30 15:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli

Moving forward: Deferring GENSEX cases to AE

Should the community encourage or require GENSEX cases to be brought at AE, or make no change? 18:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Potential encouragement ("soft") and requirement ("hard") wordings are given below; these are not the only wordings that could be used.

• Soft: Something like Reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies are usually best-suited to Arbitration enforcement (AE), except when the matter is very straightforward or when AE is unavailable for procedural reasons (for instance, a requested sanction exceeds AE's authority, or a party against whom sanctions are sought is not aware). Beyond these two exceptions, any uninvolved administrator may, at their discretion and at any time, close an AN or AN/I discussion in this topic area in favor of review at AE; if the filer would not be able to start the thread, the admin should do so for them.
• Hard: Something like Reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies, other than truly unambiguous disruption, should be filed at Arbitration enforcement (AE) unless there is a procedural reason that AE would not be suitable (for instance, a requested sanction exceeds AE's authority, or a party against whom sanctions are sought is not aware). Any uninvolved editor may speedily close a thread brought in contravention of this rule, directing the filer to AE; if the filer would not be able to start the thread, the closer should do so for them

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [Wording changed 19:01, 4 March 2023 as part of converting to RfC. RfC preface added 19:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)]

• Nom statement [partly moved from old preface 19:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)]: So, whatever the outcome of the above, it's clear that the thread was a shitshow. And the Newimpartial thread was a shitshow. In fact every GENSEX thread I can recall at AN(I) since I resumed editing 2 years ago has been a shitshow, apart from slam-dunk "new user using slurs"–type reports.
  We have a venue for this. It is called Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. It avoids basically all of the BS we see in these kinds of contentious threads. The vast majority of AN(I) GENSEX discussions fall within concurrent AE jurisdiction, especially now that WP:AC/CT has loosened the definition of sanction awareness. There is no reason that we need to continue hearing these cases at AN(I) if we don't want to... and does anyone actually want to?
  I've had this idea bouncing around my head the past week and it's just seemed more and more reasonable as things have progressed, especially as we've seen difficulties in finding admins willing to close these threads. Thoughts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• I would oppose, as I dislike the precedent this would set - AE and ArbCom are there to supplement, not replace, the self-management of the broader community. BilledMammal (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would also suggest that you convert this to an WP:RFC, as editors have begun to !vote on it. BilledMammal (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I mean this completely sincerely: if someone in the community thinks the community can self-manage a topic area that is under CT, I would encourage them to go to WP:ARCA and to ask us to revoke the Contentious Topic designation for that topic area. We should not have the extraordinary grant of power, which is ArbCom delegating its broad authority directly to admins, is the community can handle it. I have repeatedly supported ways to eliminate areas from the CT/DS designation or to narrow their scope (see AP2) precisely because I think the community should handle what it can. So if something is a designated CT it means to me that the community isn't, at this time, able to self-manage that topic area and if the community actually is able to self-manage we need to restore the area to normal rules for admins and editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Edit: I should note I was making a general point here about any given CT. I think there are reasons to do and not to do this proposal of Tamzin's so am not expressing an opinion on that. Merely responding to Billed Mammal's thinking of how CT exists with-in dispute resolution. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I might do that for some of the more obscure CT's, but to clarify my point here wasn't that I think that the community can fully self-manage this topic area, but that the community can partially self-manage every topic area that is under CT, and I don't want to set the precedent that they can't. BilledMammal (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  This goes back to our discussion last September. I appreciate your viewpoint that the community has failed to manage disputes in areas formally identified as contentious topics. Nonetheless, I think the arbitration enforcement system will be overloaded if every dispute is just passed up the chain automatically. I think editors need to exercise judgement and continue to try to handle issues at the lowest level possible. isaacl (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support hard - The Newimpartial and Tranarchist threads were among the worst things I've seen on this site when it comes to wiki drama. No need to have such a thing when AE can do it cleaner and more efficiently. I also believe this would lead to better results for everyone involved since we won't have involved users contributing, which undermines the integrity of consensus imo. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 18:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

My reservations that an admin panel at AE cannot handle certain types of disruption that require topic familiarity that skirts the edge of what we consider WP:INVOLVED aside, I'm somewhat in favour of the hard proposal, but either could work for me.

The biggest technical hurdle I see for making AE the primary/sole noticeboard for this would be the requirement that AE requires autoconfirmed before you can post a thread without it being removed. That obviously rules out editors with less than 10 edits over 4 days, but also rules out IP editors. If this does go ahead, a common sense exception for WP:MEAT might need to be made so that any uninvolved editor/admin, at their discretion can move/re-post the thread at AE on behalf of the non-autoconfirmed editor, with the checks and balances that the editor moving the discussion takes some responsibility for the move. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: In my mind, the AE autoconfirmed requirement would fall under "unavailable for procedural reasons". So would clear lack of awareness or requests for sanctions that exceed AE's powers (most notably sitebans). If that should be clearer in either proposed wording, I'm happy to clarify. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Aah yeah. If you do follow through with BilledMammal's suggestion above of converting this to an RfC, I would suggest clarifying that in the wording before making it a RfC. Otherwise, unless this side discussion becomes a monster thread of its own, it's probably fine just being clarified in these replies for now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. There are cases when reports can involve multiple issues. If only one of those issues is editing in GENSEX, it should not be the case that we are more or less requiring this sort of stuff to be sent to WP:AE. Reports involving gender-related disputes or controversies are usually best-suited to Arbitration enforcement is overly broad, even in the soft version.
  WP:AE can also be really difficult when trying to demonstrate issues that draw evidence from a large number of diffs (there's a hard cap on 20 diffs). I agree that WP:ANI has problems when it comes to these sorts of disputes inasmuch as it draws a lot of tangentially involved people to these discussions, but I do think that the filer should be able to elect to go to WP:ANI if they think that the open-ended format of the noticeboard will allow them to communicate their concerns more clearly to the community. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  In light of Tamzin's amending of the RfC prompt above, I'm amending my !vote for relevance. I still don't like the phrasing close an AN or AN/I discussion in this topic area (I'd prefer something like close an AN or AN/I discussion about disputes primarily involving conduct in WP:GENSEX so as to be extremely explicit regarding when admins can and cannot close ANI discussions), so I remain weakly opposed at this time. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• For what its worth, as I read through the thread, I did think "much of this would have been avoided had this been transferred to, or originally filed at, AE." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, undecided on variant. It's a CT for a reason; using CT procedures for a CT is a nobrainer. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Question: if this is becoming an RfC, where is the text actually proposed to be added? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I imagine this could work as a standard community-authorized general sanction. It doesn't need to go into policy anywhere. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why would it be a general sanction? Why is it not just a noticeboard procedural rule along the liens of "you must notify someone you're reporting"? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Specifically, support the soft variant. "Truly unambiguous" bothers me on the harder variant, thinking of cases like the recent Scapulus, who was handled swiftly at ANI, but where some editors did see it fit to show up later to complain about freeze peach. Clearly this was addressed well at ANI, but "truly unambiguous" is at least not unambiguous in this case. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  I wrestled a lot with that wording (and the closer can always take note of general support for one option or the other, but not for some specific wording, and implement accordingly). But to explain my reasoning, the core challenge is that there have been a lot of cases—both with editors seen as anti-trans and those seen as pro-trans—where someone has felt "Surely this is blatant disruption, easy indef", and it's turned into days or weeks of nonsense. So I acknowledge that "truly unambiguous" is really strong wording, but it's the best shorthand I could think of for "Disruption that you, ideally as an experienced user familiar with what is and isn't considered disruptive in GENSEX, know will lead to a summary indef." Common sense would, of course, continue to govern either of these options, and AE would always have its inherent authority to reject a case, thereby making itself procedurally unavailable and allowing AN(I) to proceed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  SnowRise brings up another point I didn't notice, that according to the hard option, any uninvolved editor could close a thread they deem should be at AE. I think this is an exceptionally bad idea. This means that even in a case where admins are unanimous that some behaviour is unacceptable, any sufficiently out-of-touch editor could declare a case not unambiguous enough and complicate the process excessively. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Update after further reflection: I think both variants risk curtailing the community's ability to self-govern and adapt by consensus in this area. I do think the idea has merit but allowing a move to be forced by either an individual admin or any editor is harmful, and I fear leaving everything up to AE admins could threaten our ability to respond flexibly to various kinds of disruption. I definitely agree that threads about more long-standing editors turn into huge messes on ANI and probably would do better at AE, but I don't think either of these proposals is the right way. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support hard As I mentioned above, (... it appears that is now simple for editors with a certain POV ... to remove other editors who oppose them from contentious areas without using the correct venue, which would be AE) when these discussions end up with the community they turn into the inevitable shitshows that this one and the NewImpartial one have been. We simply need to remove them from this arena, because otherwise the next one will be exactly the same. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Converted to RfC per comments above, with some tweaks to wording per @Sideswipe9th and Red-tailed hawk. More generally, I stress that the wording above is just two ideas of how to do this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support with a preference for the hard variant, as I think the future will be like the past. I can appreciate the potential problem that a report can cross over multiple issues, but experience leads me to think that the most disaster-prone issue within such a report will dominate. A report that includes both a GENSEX issue and, say, edit-warring over WP:CITEVAR will become a trainwreck over the former. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know what the solution is. This topic is one of several prime candidates for WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:SPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:PUSH, WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:NOTHERE. I don't like advocacy editing, but equally well we may need a balance of editors who have strong POVs to bring in-depth knowledge to controversial articles. It can't be allowed to be beneficial to WP:WIKILAWYER and gang up on opponents or we will get more SPAs and non-autoconfirmed users pig piling on culture war enemies. From what I have seen the normal ANI process works pretty well, and the admins manage to separate behavioral issues from content. The whole !vote thing is problematic because as we see a big deal is made of distilling it down to numbers rather than the much-touted abstract "consensus". Whatever the solution, I think this topic and a few others like it stand to test Wikipedia's processes for dealing with problem editors. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Immensely strong oppose. First off, this is a procedurally invalid proposal, even with the addition of the RfC tag: enforceable rules regarding disruption (particularly those with such broad implications for arresting disruption across a vast swath of articles) cannot be made by the admin regulars of AN alone, supplemented merely by the editors already involved in this singular dispute and a handful of others brought in by a FRS notice. If you want create binding guidelines on this project, you need to use the WP:PROPOSAL process: identify the WP:PAG you want to alter (or suggest a new standalone policy namespace), and then host a discussion on that policy's talk page with a notice at VPP, or just host the discussion at the Village Pump to begin. AN is absolutely not the right (indeed, is arguably the worst) forum to be suggesting new policy. If this should go further rather than being swiftly shot down, the discussion needs to be moved.

Second, putting aside the procedural considerations, I think the proposal (good faith though it obviously is) is a non-starter on its merits as well. Mind you, I think the present case giving rise to this proposal probably is an instance of a case that arguably should have gone to AE. But creating a mandate that all behavioural concerns arising out of GENSEX topics go to AE, aside from being inconsistent with how we handle every other WP:CTOP (our new handle for discretionary sanctions for those unfamiliar) issue, is clearly an unworkable proposition under our current community schema for arresting disruptive behaviour--and the particular wording proposed here (in both variants) only further invites confusion and difficulty. Without meaning offense to Tamzin, it's the worst kind of rule cruft where the community clearly needs some degree of flexibility and redundancy. While I do believe that CTOP should be invoked more liberally in edge cases to bring matters to AE (as a more streamlined process less amenable to pile-on by biased/involved parties) ANI has an absolutely vital role in allowing the community to review and correct long-term behavioural concerns in a way that this overbroad proposal would clearly and significantly abrogate, for limited gain.

Under this suggestion, any behavioural issue imputing the GENSEX topic area would be effectively stripped out of the hands of the broader community to impose CBANs or otherwise address disruption, and those decisions held in reserve for editors with a high level of permissions at AE. While I reiterate that this would actually be a good thing in a non-trivial number of cases, as we should use AE more extensively than we do for CTOP issues, a firm requirement directing all disruption involving GENSEX to AE is clearly overkill that would significantly reduce the broader community's ability to adjudicate longterm issues and otherwise jam-up our ability to effectively arrest disruption. Further, encouraging rank and file editors to start closing down ANI discussions that touch upon certain topic areas (in a way that would currently be treated as clear disruption itself) would be ripe for abuse: anybody who's spent any degree of time at ANI can predict just how flexible a vast number of editors will be with judging themselves as "uninvolved" in the dispute: the technical excuse that they didn't participate in the immediate dispute would still permits editors who are heavily involved in the issues in general (or who have beef with the filer, or are regular defenders of someone who comes to ANI again and again) to thwart oversight by invoking this rule.

Honestly, I could go on for quite a while: there are so many potential knock-on effects to this proposal which would needlessly complicate addressing user conduct in this topic area, and so many ways that it's one-size-fits-all approach does not connect with our current otherwise context-sensitive (and somewhat overlapping, as a good thing) remit of different forums for addressing disruption. But the overarching concern is that it drastically reduces the community's options for little practical gain, pulls oversight for determinations that ultimately should fall into the broader community's hands on occasion, and would introduce all kinds of opportunities for gamesmanship (ostensibly the very thing it comes to address). I just think it's a very poorly considered proposal. But again, if nothing else, it needs to be considered by the community at large in an appropriate forum, which AN decidedly is not. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand your procedural objection, Snow Rise. This proposes rules that would apply only to WP:AN and WP:AN/I. There's not even any change in how AE would operate, other than possibly getting more GENSEX cases than before. This is a vastly less impactful change than, say, placing WP:GS/RUSUKR under an extendedconfirmed restriction, which was handled by a simple thread at AN/I. I don't even think an RfC was strictly required here, but I'm following the path of least resistance.

As to the various negative effects you're worried about, I guess I'll focus on one thing you've said: ANI has an absolutely vital role in allowing the community to review and correct long-term behavioural concerns. Can you point to evidence of this actually being the case in the GENSEX area? In GENSEX AN/I threads I've been involved in, even when there's been some ultimate consensus, I really can't think of any that I would say show healthy self-governance. This strongly negative view of AN/I's handling of GENSEX issues is shared by, as of this comment, every commenter in this thread who substantially edits in the topic area, including ones who often sharply differ on content matters. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin: I'm going to divide my responses between two posts, since these are semi-discrete issues, in order to faciliate any response and further discussion that may result:

• Regarding the procedural/placement issue, the mere fact that this change would pertain to how ANI operates hardly means that it will impact only the regular (mostly admin) editors at AN--let alone that it would only be of interest to this highly select segment of the community. This change would impact a vast number of editors working accross countless articles who may have recourse to bring behavioural concerns to the community at ANI. For that matter, considering almost every single hypothetical future thread that this proposal would seek to invalidate would typically have landed at ANI, rather than AN, placing it here rarifies the air even further, in terms of the regular editors who are likely to see it based on it's placement.

This is clearly not an "AN/I only" issue: it very obviously touches upon fundamental authority, consensus process of, and decision making generally reserved to the community at large (as opposed to the administrative corps in particular) and the proposal would heavily impact the community's ability to address long-term disruption in a particular topic area, relative to how literally all others operate. Such a discussion should take place in a cnetralized and highly visible community space, not just within site of a handful of admins, those already connected to a singular dispute, and handful of others pulled in via a typical FRS. At an absolute minimum you should make a posting a notice about this discussion at the village Pump and making sure the discussion is on the WP:CD ticker. And frankly, I just strongly recommend you move the entire discussion to VP itself. Otherwise, even if you get a consensus for the proposal here, you are just begging for an uproar afterwards, with accusations of an admin power grab, however good faith the intention here. I mean, if nothing else, what is the good-faith, community-respectful argument against moving this to a place where the community at large is more likely to be able to be aware of and weigh in on it? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

On the proposal impacting on the "community's ability to address long-term disruption in a particular topic area", how would you respond to the point raised above by Barkeep49 that I'd like to build upon in the next paragraph. Not sure if this should be a reply to your first or second point however, if you feel that it's better answered in response to the second, feel free to move this comment as a reply to your second point.

Because prior disruption in this content area has required significant ArbCom intervention, and the committee's remit is to operate on serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve, has the community already not demonstrated a significant inability to address long-term disruption in this content area? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No, with all due respect to Barkeep, that is a conclusion I believe is unsupported by compelling evidence, and certainly not one I am aware of ever having been endorsed by the community or by ArbCom in particular. WP:Contentious topics are not labelled as such because the community has a laisez-faire attitude towards them or has fundamentally failed to try to address them, or is per se incapable of doing so. Rather these are topics that are inherently divisive in the broader social systems of our societies at large, and thus such biases and conflicts are simply more easily imported into this project when topics are discussed/edit upon here, relative to some others, for completely obvious reasons. None of that militates for the conclusion that the broader community and our long-established rules and processes do not have a central role to play in addressing a heightened level of disruption in such areas--either as a general matter or, certainly, in terms of an express point of community consensus that has ever been adopted on this project. When we say "contentious topic" we mean "contentious topic", not "a topic the general community does not have a role in regulating". That's a massive non-sequitor and leap in logic, in my opinion.

CTOP (and DS before it) exists merely to grant relaxed use of certain tools in areas where rapid response to disruption is more likely to be needed, not to declare the rest of the community as irrelevant to such a fundamental function: if anything, the existence of a CTOP determination for a particular topic increases the likelihood the broader community may have to occasionally intervene directly concerning disruption connected with that topic, not that it should be forbidden access to it's normal role in that process: that's an incredibly counter-intuitive read on the purpose of CTOP in my opinion, and certainly not captured anywhere in the policy pages that describe those processes.

And again, I say this while being broadly supportive of an hierarchy and an important division of labor running adjacent to the community->admin corps->ArbCom->WMF ladder. But this particular proposal would take a particular topic area and isolate it more or less entirely from established non-admin community tools and norms for expressing consensus on problematic behaviour, and taking consensus action accordingly. I just don't see how that can be justified on the mere basis that this is a highly divisive subject matter: so are countless other topics, including (by definition) every other WP:CTOP subject. Are we going to follow suit for each of those topic areas and essentially hand the entirety of our decision-making apparatus on behavioural issues surrounding contentious topics to the administrative corps alone? I very much hope not: I think it would be an immensely detrimental development in the history of this project. Regardless, such a massive change to the status-quo with such significant impacts upon how we conduct this project and hold eachother accountable to community standards absolutely must be discussed with the fullest possible involvement of the community at large, not just here in the hallowed halls of AN. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

On the conclusion from Barkeep I've built upon, the Arbitration policy that I linked to before, and was ratified by the community, does pretty clearly state that the Committee's remit is to handle content areas that the community has been unable to resolve.

WP:Contentious topics are not labelled as such because the community has a laisez-faire attitude towards them or has fundamentally failed to try to address them,...Rather these are topics that are inherently divisive in the broader social systems of our societies at large, and thus such biases and conflicts are simply more easily imported into this project when topics are discussed/edit upon here Those two things aren't necessarily separate. Yes some of the CTOP topics are inherently divisive in broader social systems off-wiki, but because of that many of them are also topics that the community has historically had an inability to address. Some exceptions to this apply, for example while the Shakespeare authorship question is a CTOP area, outside of Shakespearean scholars and literary historians it's not really a topic that's divisive in a broader social context. As would the very Wikipedia specific Manual of Style and Article titles and BLP areas.

Let me put it to you another way. If was the community who had authorised the sanctions, even if ultimately the end result of the AE and wider discretionary powers for admins is the same, that would have been a clear demonstration that the community was able to handle disruption. However because this required an ArbCom case to be put in place, that alone is a pretty strong indicator to me that this is a content area that the community, for whatever reason, is unable to handle. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I've left myself open to being misconstrued by not being as clear as I could and should have been and so that has happened in this discussion. What I have said is that the community cannot self-manage Contentious Topics. If the community were self-sufficient and able to self-manage it would be inappropriate for it to be an ArbCom designated Contentious Topic. On the whole I am of the firm belief that this community is incredibly capable of handling large and thorny problems of both content (which is obviously out of bounds for ArbCom) and conduct. Because of this I think some members of the community will sometimes think that Contentious Topic is just a shortcut to make life easier - in this case I saw it in Billed Mammal's stating that ArbCom is supplementing the community in Contentious Topics. It goes beyond that. In a designated Contentious Topic there are going to be significant shortcomings in the community's abilities to self-manage. But being unable to self-manage does not mean the community finds itself helpless in managing a Contentious Topic. Hence my edited comment that there are reasons to do and not to do this proposal, which I continue to have no real opinion on. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Barkeep: your observations described in those terms, my own perspective substantially overlaps with yours. Sideswipe9th my response also touches upon your last post, but I'm doubling up here in responding to Barkeep to avoid redundancy. Let us assume for the moment that a CTOp being invoked in a topic area is a tacit statement that the community has been unable to handle issues in a topic area with the usual tools. I think the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that, but let's take that for granted in the present discussion so we can move on to more central points. Because the more critical/dispositive consideration here is that the increased tools that CTOP authorizes are meant to supplement existing administrative and community actions, not replace them. Even if we assume that any time ArbCom authorizes CTOP in a given area, it comes inherent with the message that the community is not getting the job done with typical methods, that is still a non-sequitor with the conclusion that ArbCom has declared that the rst of the community is not to take its own actions to arrest disruption in that area, where and when it can (be it at ANI or wherever). Not only does that conclusion not follow from the given premise, but we have a massive body of processes where the community clearly does regularly restrain problematic editors in CTOP/historical DS through processes taking place outside of AE. And this parallel activity has been undertaken as long as DS/CTOP have existed.

So the end result remains the same: a finding of CTOP in no way forestalls the broader community from exercising it's own prerogative to implement TBANs or other CBANs (to take just one example of what the community is permitted to do in CTOP areas). Surely if the contrary was the case, we would have adjusted the relevant policies on CBANs to reflect this fact years ago. CTOP merely authorizes the use of advanced tools to block or otherwise restrain problematic actors a little faster, and makes WP:AE an option for reporting and getting a faster administrative response. What CTOP clearly does not do is forbid the community at large from also using its own discretion in conjunction with these liberalized tools, as it can (and does) use such community decisions/CBANs parallel to regular administrative blocks, in any other topic area where disruption arises. Again, that would be an absurd conclusion: why would we want the community to be less proactive in responding to areas of heightened disruption? Clearly we want (or at least entertain the occasional need for) increased use of CBANs alongside the use of CTOP/1RR blocks and AE filings. Insofar as CTOP/DS language has ever said "DS/CTOP is meant for areas where the community is having trouble keeping the disruption in check", it is for the purpose of explaining the need for looser standards for when warnings, blocks, and other preventative administrative actions can take place--not for the purposes of saying "these issues can now only be addressed at AE". If it were the latter, then countless of our policies and much of the history community bans would read completely differently. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

What I think this very fair analysis of Contentious Topics misses out on is that certain editors/discussions are, themselves, signals that the community is unable to handle something. This is why not only can admin act sooner and sanction with more severity than they can outside a CT topic area (what SR focuses on) but also can act with first mover advantage and knowing that their actions are less likely to be overturned on formal appeal because of the higher than normal requirements. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• As to the substantive arguments, you may very well be correct that regulars in the GENSEX space consider ANI an intractable travesty: while my background and editorial interests in both biopsychology and human rights semi-frequently bring me into contact with existing disputes in this topic area, I don't engage with the area with the regularity of such editors. However, a few thoughts as to that: first off, that is not exactly a rare perspective about ANI's complications, issues, and the general caliber of discussion there from editors in...oh, I don't know, let's say every single topic area under the sun. That low opinion of what can happen at ANI (unavodiable to a certain extent by virtue of the fact that it specializes in intractable disputes) does not automatically invalidate the role that space serves or the necessity for preserving the ability for concerned community members to bring issues there for the community's consideration.

So I would say the onus is upon you as the party proposing such a massive carve-out to explain why this one topic area should deviate so drastically from how our policies and procedures operate for every other topic. I mean, have you even considered the fact that your proposal would essentially make it impossible for any disruptive party in the GENSEX area to hereafter ever receive a CBAN from that area (or the project in general) as a result of their conduct? That's a pretty humongous abrogation of the community's inherent purview as it has historically existed on this project--and yet also just one of several such outsized implications of the proposal. Is GENSEX so much more inherently disruptive an area so as to seize the entirety of all such determinations from the community at large, even when compared against other DS/CTOP topics? I just don't think so. The community needs to be able to weight in on longterm abuse regardless of the topic area, and your proposal would instead shift that role entirely to just those admins participating at AE. That's incredibly problematic to me, for more reasons than I can begin to list here.

For that matter, putting aside for the moment how extensively this proposal would usurp the broader community's role in preventing disruption in this area, and hamstring our ability to respond to longterm abuse, I am equally, if not more, concerned about the impacts upon the interests of the reported parties. For all the issues inherent to ANI, it does permit for more shades of grey to enter the discourse than does AE. Taking TT's case as an example, some of us were compelled to modulate our recommendations based on the nitty-gritty details and context of the dispute. Let's remember that the responding admin at AE has a fundamentally different role from the closer of an ANI thread. At ANI the closer must, to some degree, take stock of any ameliorating factors which gained significant support among respondents, because they are finding a community consensus in the discussion. At AE, the admin's role is much more that of the party actually making the determination in the first instance, based on the information provided by involved parties. That's a fundamental difference that effectively narrows the decision making from a group (which can, in the aggregate, often reach a more nuanced and reasonable conclusion that balances competing interests) to a single person, who is more likely to act in a very black and white (or at least far more idiosyncratic) fashion.

Again, sometimes that is precisely what we want, for the sake of efficiency and fairness. But often we want the broader community weighing in, in complicated or nuanced cases with competing community interests, and creating a blanket rule that would just completely pull that decision making into the authority of a increasingly smaller subset of the community is a bad direction to take, and even more questionable when you consider that the proposal is that we do it for a given topic area on the justification that "it gets ugly at ANI sometimes when we discuss this subject matter", because 1) what topic would that not apply to? and 2) sometimes the areas with the most contention behind them are the ones we want the community at large to be able to dig into, to avoid oversimplifcation in the handling of those disputes. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Moral support - I'm generally in favor of making ANI operate more like AE (read: get rid of threaded discussions between the OP and accused party), and thus for as long as AN/I continues to not look like that, I'd generally support delegating more to AE over ANI. But, I do agree with Snow that there's procedural issues with raising this proposal here (at least as anything other than testing the waters), and beyond that would be more in favor of a proposal that cuts down on threaded discussion at ANI rather than just delegating work away from there in a piecemeal fashion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  Reading through the proposal again, I guess my above reasoning puts me in the soft camp? But I don't think we need more guidance for this topic area so much as modest changes to how ANI operates, and for as long as ANI continues to be a free-for-all, AE will be a preferable forum for addressing pretty much any conduct dispute that it has authority to address. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  There's a fine line between accused having an opportunity/obligation to respond to their accusers and the potential for accusations of WP:BLUDGEONing and the current format makes it hard to tell which is happening. Very much agreed with you @Rosguill. Lizthegrey (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't believe this is something we need to formalize. However, a few times in this saga I've said that it would be a good idea for the closing admins to suggest that future incidents of this type might be better suited for AE. I still stand by that. I suppose this is similar to the Soft version above, but less formal. We can make a recommendation, but we don't need to make the process so rigid by reducing out flexibility to handle new situations at the most appropriate place. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, preferring hard This case has pretty conclusively proven that in a controversial topic area it's possible to remove an opponent who has not actually done anything wrong just by showing up to ANI. Needless to say, this is bad. So I support any reform that would fix this situation, including this one. Loki (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

who has not actually done anything wrong - hmm, seems like a questionable summary to say the least. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, this is a completely inappropriate carveout of one topic area, basically making WP:CBANs impossible for that topic. That is unprecedented and disempowers the community. It is not the place of a few people on AN and a few people unhappy with the recent closes to give/take that away. And the idea that AE is inherently superior to ANI is questionable. The limits there make it hard to document a pattern of misconduct; and without a pattern, it's easy and common for bad behavior to be handwaved away as though it is an isolated incident, or just sour grapes from transphobes or whatever. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Crossroads: CBANs are beyond AE's authority and would thus obviously not be covered by this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is not at all obvious, and besides, then why propose this? It was two CBAN discussions that sparked this idea in the first place, and is motivating some of the votes. A technicality of "the discussion has to be explicitly for a CBAN from the get-go" would make it much harder for problems to be addressed because it's not common for one editor to have all that evidence personally and know that it is that severe. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  CBANS are pretty much exclusively a product of ANI discussions, so if you create a rule which prevents the community from bringing disruption attached to a given topic area to ANI, you effectively are creating a situation where a CBAN can never be applied to a user who has proven disruptive in that area. So, yes, your proposal very much removes CBANS (or similar actions taken as an expression of community will) as an option in any case of disruption that took place in the GENSEX topic area. Indeed, under your proposal, even an LTA or a suspected sock of a previously CBANned editor couldn't be brought to ANI to be dealt with if the disruption touched upon GENSEX editing. I honestly don't wish to be rude, Tamzin, so I hope you will forgive how stridently I am about to word this, but the fact that you didn't recognize this extremely obvious result of the proposal suggests you made it without due consideration for its very broad and numerous impacts. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, there are two possibilities here. One is that I didn't consider the possible negative outcomes. The other is that you're wrong about those negative outcomes being remotely likely. Unsurprisingly, just as you tend to think your analysis is correct, I tend to think mine is. Perhaps after ~15kB of reiterating your parade of horribles that will come to pass if we so much as discourage these discussions, now would be a good time to step back and let others decide how valid your concerns are. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Tamzin I'm fairly sure I've seen you a lot around AN/ANI so I'm fairly surprised that you're so unfamiliar with how CBANS work. While some CBANs start from the get go as someone reporting some behaviour problem an proposing a CBAN, I'd say most CBANs do not work like that. Instead they start of with someone reporting some misbehaviour. Others than may report more misbehaviour. Sometimes the OP responds extremely poorly as well. Eventually someone decides their behaviour is bad enough and proposes a CBAN. The community discussions/!vote this and we hopefully come to a consensus. Even better if it is an uncontentious consensus although sadly that isn't always the case. The organic nature of CBAN discussions means that saying this proposal excludes CBANs simply makes no sense. How can a proposal exclude CBANs when we have no idea if a CBAN may result until we've discussed? Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: I'm well aware of how CBANs work. I'm also well aware that there has not been consensus to CBAN someone for edits primarily relating to GENSEX since... Since when? I can't think of a time in recent memory, and I can think of one particular case where a CBAN proposal failed despite strong evidence of systemic discrimination against trans editors. If someone gets TBANned at AE from GENSEX, and continues to disrupt in other realms, then AN/I can still handle it, probably much less dramatically. "User:Example was indef TBANned from GENSEX last month at AE. They have since made comments X, Y, and Z regarding abortion. This user is clearly NOTHERE and further sanctions re in order" has a much better chance at AN/I than "User:Example has been saying A, B, C in this dispute about trans pronouns and D, E, F in this thread on gender dysphoria and also unrelatedly X, Y, Z about abortion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamzin (talk • contribs) 03:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Look, I don't want to get in a cycle of counter-criticisms with you, especially because I can recognize that your proposal is a goodfaith response to seeing one too many trainwrecks in this area that could have driven away a valuable contributor (thankfully, from the above, it seems we have avoided that outcome with TheTranarchist). However, I will say that the vast majority of the "15kb" you reference is a necessary response to your hand-waving away observations about some pretty major consequences of your proposed course of action--which I would not describe as a "parade of horribles" but rather a series of results that would be direct consequences of that policy were it implemented, and which (far from being hypothetical or hyperbole), would be automatic and inevitable outcomes.

As Nil Einne, Crossroads and myself have already explained, almost all CBANs result from discussions where they were not suggested at the outset, and your personal recollections and feelings about their necessity not withstanding, there's no good reason to believe the community might not need to CBAN someone in this area from time to time, and no argument for stripping that option from the community's potential responses to disruption. Considering we just had two such CBANS of the sort that you describe as uncommon in one day, and considering there have been numerous other GENSEX TBANS implemented at ANI over the years, clearly the need for such tools is not as super rare as you suggest. And frankly, anti-trans sentiment is a reason why we should be concerned to preserve this option, not toss it away, because it's equally (if not more) likely that the next person we need to indefinitely remove from GENSEX editing will be a problem user aligned against trans rights.

And even as regards that rare exception where a CBAN proposal is a part of the initial complaint, that actually highlights another can-of-worms knock-on effect that would result from the framework you are advancing here. Because as soon as people adjust to this new dynamic, here's exactly what is going to happen: every single time that an editor with an ounce of WP:BATTLEGROUND in them at the moment wants to bring what they perceive to be disruption in the GENSEX area to ANI, they are simply going to include a request for a CBAN in their filing, because that will become the most obvious way for them to get past the arbitrary "must be an issue that AE cannot address" threshold that is a part of your model. And I fail to see how forcing every complaint filed at ANI over GENSEX disruption to start out with the posture of a proposed CBAN is going to make the resulting discussions less inflamed. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Kommentar: Just spitballing. What about a system in which CT issues are still reported at ANI, but they can be forwarded to AE if it's determined that there was disruptive behavior? This would theoretically retain the benefits of the discussion format, but it would end the discussion before the thousands of words dedicated to arguing about whether sanctions are warranted and what sanctions are applicable. Of course, this system would not address the legitimate concerns raised by Crossroads above. I also think that any solution should involve reform that allows for topics to be delisted from CT more easily per Barkeep49. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Puts the cart before the horse. If "it's determined that there was disruptive behavior" then a conclusion has already been reached and an appropriate sanction or warning can issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Having watched AE proceedings over the years, I am quite confused on why anyone would see that as an improvement in venue. In fact the ability for a single admin to supervote by design, has been a detriment to the encyclopedia in my opinion. Arkon (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• oppose. this is instruction creep. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose in a number of ANI cases involving an DS area, I have suggested that it might be simpler to take things to ARE. Indeed in a number of cases where someone was not formally aware, I've given alerts as a result of an ANI cases and if the problems were minor enough I've suggested perhaps it would be easier to just leave things be for now and take it to ARE if it repeats. I haven't done so since it changed to CT mostly because it's just something I do where I happen to see a case where this might help. In other words, I fully support the idea that often it is better for areas well covered by CT to be simply handled by CT rather than going through normal community discussion.

  However I'd oppose trying to force cases must be treated as CT without very strong evidence that this is the best for the community. And to be clear this includes the soft variant as it also include a degree of force.

  As noted above, there are numerous possible consequences for this e.g. how we handle cban or other sanctions that aren't something CT can impose. Note also that CBANs technically include topic bans even from CT areas. While I am personally not fussed whether an editor is subject to a community topic ban or a CT one, there is always going to be editors who feel a community ones is better since it will require a community consensus to remove. (After all, we even had community site ban of an editor because the community was concerned about an earlier arbcom decision to unban the editor.) There's also how this affect cases that might be better for the community to handle since they are more complicated than the simpler disruption in a certain topic area CT handles best.

  I'd even more oppose it for any specific CT area (instead of all CT areas) without strong evidence there's a reason to treat these as special areas. I'm far from convinced that the two reason cases resulted in this are the worst we've seen at ANI. And concerns over people trying to get rid of opponents covers pretty much all CT areas and frankly anything contentious which isn't CT. E.g. the notability/ARS wars.

  Most importantly though, IMO this is simply a bad idea at this time. To some extent there is an aspect of hard cases make bad law here. But more importantly, emotions are clearly still running high over those two recent cases. I don't think it likely holding this discussion at this time is going to improve that or ensure we make a good decision. Instead we get comments like "who has not actually done anything wrong". Clearly quite a few members of the community do not agree with that for one or both of those editors. This includes many who are not opponents. While a discussion like this is always likely to be contentious and may get controversial comments, the best outcome and least disruption and harm to the community will come if we hold it when editors aren't already affected by two recent controversial cases, cases which resulted in this proposal. Fanning the flames when emotions are still so high is not going to benefit the community.

  To be clear, I'm not suggesting any editor involved in this proposal ill motivations, I have no doubt they're genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia and fix a problem that they feel was highlighted by recent cases. However having good motivations doesn't stop an editor making bad decisions and I feel that's clearly the case here. (Actually part of the reason why they have made such a bad decision is precisely why we should not be doing this. Perhaps they weren't able to see what they may have seen when if it wasn't so soon after those two cases namely that it was a terrible idea to discuss this right at this moment.)

  Nil Einne (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per most of the above, especially SnowRise. Not going to repeat it all. I do think that an "ARBGENSEX2" case is ultimately inevitable, but it will be after the community has failed to be able to resolve the problem without having to defer to ArbCom. And that time is not upon us yet. I agree also especially with Crossroads in observing that AE is not a good venue for establishing long-term patterns of disruption, only short-term "outbursts", because of its strict limits.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I recognize that Tamzin's suggestion is entirely a good faith effort to deal with a pressing problem, I believe that SnowRise's analysis of the results that would occur if this were put into effect to be more accurate and representative of the general history of AN and AN/I. Community discussion can result in a CBAN, which requires that the community overturn it. It is therefore a more powerful sanction then an admin-imposed AE indef, which -- like every other admn-imposed sanction -- can be overturned at any time by any individual admin (for whatever reason). We should not lose the potential use of CBANS as an option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: I'm fairly sure you're wrong about CT sanctions as alluded to by User:Barkeep49 and maybe others above. As documented at Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction, these can't simply be overturned at any time by an individual admin for any reason. That can only happen when it's an indef and was imposed by a single admin and it's been more than a year or the imposing admin is no longer an admin. Otherwise if the imposing admin agrees (including when imposing the sanction) but note this sort of means it's not overturned solely by any admin. Oh and if it's imposed by a single admin, they (but only they) can change or remove it themselves without needing to ask anyone. Maybe more importantly a case which makes it to AE will often result in discussion before sanction is imposed by rough consensus of admins in which case none of this applies and it needs to be appealed either at AE or AN or by arbcom. To be clear, this is only for sanctions imposed under CT. I believe in some cases an admin will just quickly impose a sanction as an ordinary admin action rather than under CT and AE will decide to just leave it at that. (And as noted to some extent even if it is imposed under CT, if by a single admin which I think is another possible outcome of an AE report, this admin could allow it to be treated like a regular sanction and overturned by any admin by saying so when imposing it.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  I may be confused about that, I'm not certain, but it *is* certain that if all GENSEX issues are required to be settled at AE, then a CBAN is out of the question, and I still consider a CBAN to be a more powerful sanction, because it comes from the community at large. It may be more cumbersome to *reach* a consensus to CBAN, but the direct consensus of the community is, to my mind, a stronger action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• OpposeAs a general principle leave it to us on the ground to thrash things out. The existing structure can take care of those fairly rare times we can't.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I appreciate Tamzin making an effort to find a way to improve our resolution of disputes and to avoid having difficult mega-threads like these two ANIs we just had. However, I am among those who does not believe that AE is better at resolving disputes than ANI (although I do believe in some cases we should make some ANI threads more formal, like AE, to e.g. reduce bludgeoning). I also don't think AN is the right place to decide structural changes to ANI; that should be at the pump; the Administrator's Noticeboard is not an appropriate place for any RFC in my view. Discussions here will attract attention from administrators, and RFCs might bring in FRS, but that's still not a pool representative of the overall community. Ironically, my procedural objection is rooted in the same principle as my substantive objection: fundamentally, if you reduce the pool of decision-makers from "everyone" to "administrators", you don't end up with a better decision. Levivich (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Apparently we're testing the theory. Levivich (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  So much for that. Closed promptly with "It is debatable whether ... that would be a matter for AE".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral on the soft proposal, though I think it should be worded to encompass all CT areas, oppose the hard version. I do think AE is a better venue for most CT-related conduct disputes, and I hope our admins feel empowered to strongly suggest that newly filed ANI reports be moved to AE when possible. I would be fine with admins closing such discussions and directing the OPs to AE, though I think all it should take to reopen them is the OP saying "no, I definitely want this to stay at ANI". I oppose the hard proposal as GENSEX doesn't need this treatment over other CT areas, and because I agree with those that are concerned about missing out on some ANI-specific potential remedies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: I've placed a notice of this discussion at WP:VPP and listed it on the WP:CD ticker: these issues and the proposed solution have implications far too broad to be considered by just those of us here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - My lead reasoning will remain that our community members are intended to be able to pick their forum, depending on what they think can work best (I suspect GENSEX regulars are likely aware of the options). I oppose revoking that choice. There are more personal reasons someone might have this reason (e.g. So long as I continue to find complex discussions harder to understand in separated discussion than ANI rambling but more continuous format (while many are fiercely the opposite); or someone preferring to have an area settled by the general editing base than a small subset of admins), that encourage them to prefer one format over another. In terms of proposer's request to find alternate solutions, then I believe they may be best off indicating what the most problematic factors are, then mitigations to those can be advised, which may well more be in execution than mechanics. Time? Length of reading? Both no doubt come with negatives, but the flipside is both indicate significant numbers of editors trying to find a solution and struggling. A shift to AE may well resolve on those two aspects, but at the issue of cutting the people participating, or the views & evidence given. In which case, it's not a solution, but a tradeoff. We deal with tradeoffs all the time, but for any tradeoff, the proposal should be noting the negatives that arise and why we should accept their cost. I do not believe those costs are sufficiently covered here, with either option. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• I've been a bit conflicted on this but I think I'm coming down on the side of weakly supporting the soft version of this proposal.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is my firm belief that this proposal would not have been made if it had been any other topic area. Gensex editors should not be treated any differently from other editors that wind up at ANI. Gensex editors are not special and exceptional. Wikipedia is not here to coddle any editors, regardless of their editing experience and editor level. Gensex editors must follow the same Wikipedia community policies that affect non-gensex editors, and if one of them pushes an envelope too far, he/she/they must face the same action and consequences faced by editors who have engaged in similar behavior in non-gensex articles. ANI is where issues regarding a user's conduct need to be discussed and determined. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 12:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the same reason I opposed making ANI more like AE, there is a need for a place to report issue that has no bar of entry. No matter how low that bar can be made. Maybe taking discussions to AE is a good idea, and could be suggested once a report has been made, but there shouldn't be any formal direction on the matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose hard, neutral on soft - AE is too bureaucratic. Allowing an admin to move a discussion to AE puts the bureaucratic responsibility to the admin, not the (possibly new) user who wants to file a complaint. Animal lover |666| 16:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral to support on hard, support on soft - I know this sounds vague, but in this case, any solution is better than no solution. The way I see it, most GENSEX editors have it significantly harder on virtually every level and WP might not be well equipped to handle all of it with its existing administrative structures. @Tamzin I hope this will not come off as if I am rushing through the nuances of this proposal; rather, I am trying to say that this is one of those cases where, in principle, I'll support attempts to lessen the burden on GENSEX editors, even if those are not "perfect" by WP standards. I'll add that to VP discussion. And I really think some editors in ANI should take WP:WALLOFTEXT to heart. Ppt91^talk 19:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cases from all other topic areas can be brought here (can't they?). I don't see how it is helpful to make an exception for GENSEX. Editors should not be curtailed from raising important issues so that the most people can see them. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Does not seem appropriate; cases should be filed where appropriate as appropriate. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see even from the previous ANI threads that GENSEX topics are unique in a manner that would make AE the only appropriate venue, especially since AE tends to languish in my experience from lack of input. If there's thoughts that ANI itself could be restructured to address issues, that's worth talking about (BilledMammal's suggestions etc.) But I don't actually see how this solves any problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Actively trying to reduce community involvement in banning people for their problematic behaviour is counter to the core consensus-based approach to community management. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Snow Rise's very valid concerns around procedure and CBANs have still not been addressed. Obviously contentious topics like GENSEX invite contentious editing which is why said topics are over-represented at ANI, doesn't mean we need to palm them off elsewhere and out of the hands of the community. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 01:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per SnowRise and Arkon. Buffs (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

A plea: Propose a better solution

I don't think I have ever felt truly desperate on Wikipedia before. I have not come here trying to offer a magic bullet to this problem. I have presented two drafts of solutions to a problem that is making a highly sensitive topic area unsafe to edit in. Most people who edit GENSEX have been neutral to supportive of this proposal. It has largely been the "AN(I) regulars" here saying no, we have to continue to stew in this mess—a kind of mess that, no doubt, AN(I) regulars are used to, else they wouldn't be AN(I) regulars. The people in this topic area do not edit so they can have month-long dramaboard threads. We edit because we see issues in Wikipedia's woefully inadequate coverage of gender issues. Inhumane treatment of BLP subjects. Coverage of sociological subjects that is sourced to Tumblr blogs rather than academic papers. Coverage of highly sensitive biomedical subjects that is sourced to Tumblr blogs rather than academic papers. All to push both pro- and anti-trans narratives, sometimes in the same sentence.

So I'm begging y'all, please. As a fellow editor. As someone who has poured her heart into writing two GAs in this topic area. This is a request for comment. I am requesting y'all's comments: Propose a better solution. Propose something that does not drive away editors from a topic area desperately in need of them. I still think my ideas work fine or would only nned slight tweaks—in particular "soft", which may oppose !votes haven't really addressed—but if you disagree, I get it. That's how consensus works. But there is a massive problem here. I don't think anyone familiar with the facts disputes that. If you won't support either these solutions, then something else. Please. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The same sort of plea could be made about every WP:CTOP subject area. There's nothing magically special about this one. What you have boils down to a complaint about how WP:ANI operates, and we all have complaints about how ANI operates, but there isn't a clear consensus on how to improve it. "Carve my preferred topic out of ANI" isn't a solution, and an RfC predicated on that idea isn't going to be the vehicle by which we arrive at ANI reform.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I edit in quite a few CTOP areas. I am not aware of another one that routinely triggers weekslong battles of this sort at AN/I. But if your response to a request for a better proposal is "I acknowledge a systemic problem, oppose a solution, and have no better solution to offer," all right, noted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Instead of engaging in a petty straw-man argument, try reading what I wrote more carefully. To spell it out: This proposal is basically a poisoned well. If you want to propose ANI reform, do it in a clean proposal in an appropriate venue and there may be enough other editors fed up with ANI for the same reasons to support some changes. (Comment length/frequency limitations are a pretty commonly suggested idea, so that's a likely starting point.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It's entirely possible to conclude that there's no better solution without radically changing how Wikipedia works, Tamzin. Yes, there are all manner of areas -- from deletion discussions to noticeboards to RfAs -- where things would just go so much more smoothly if we just figured out how to keep the "wrong" sort of people from participating. My blood pressure would be a fair bit lower myself if I could just exclude or evict people who disagree with me from discussions (which, in my observation, tends to be the fundamental element of "safe spaces").

But the bottom line is that contentious areas attract controversy. There is no feasible way to immunize Wikipedia against it. You speak about poor treatment of BLP subjects, people sourcing to blogs, the interference of politics, as if such behaviors are somehow unique to GENSEX-related topics. Heck, the bulk of my articlespace edits are to ice hockey topics, where the temperature -- if you'll forgive the mild pun -- is a couple orders of magnitude lower than in GENSEX. We still get screaming over such things.

And in many cases, that's simply the price of doing business. By choosing, over the years, to be a regular in areas like AfD and ANI, I've accepted that there's going to be a lot of screaming, a lot of disagreement, and a lot of assholes. If that's too much for me, I walk away. Ravenswing 07:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

( Peanut gallery comment) I may be overusing this template, but I really want to make clear that I'm a newbie here. I don't mean to be a bother. In my lowly opinion, the first substantive community response to a new editor's behavioral issue should not be a vicious, humiliating, overlong, utterly unsympathetic ANI case. And if you're just going to hand out a TBAN anyway, you might as well make it policy to slap an editing restriction on anyone with more than one warning in the GENSEX topic area. It would eliminate a lot of the pointless bureaucracy.

In my lowly opinion, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (Metric friends may substitute '28 grams' and '0.45 kilogram'. /j) If the WP:Adopt-a-user program were reasonably effective I wager you wouldn't find even half as many chronic, intractable behavioral problems in this area. You can try to whip GENSEX into shape all you like, but do you really think that increasing sanctions will entice new users to come edit the area? (I certainly am not enticed. Thank god I stay on the refdesks.) If the broader community were more proactive and less reactive in responding to flawed editing, things would surely not escalate so rapidly.

In any case I don't really have a concrete suggestion. I would greatly like to see increased collegiality between old and new editors with a more developed mentorship program. But anything that gets the community to act before things have escalated to a TBAN is a better solution than what exists presently. Stop punishing people when you veterans haven't even figured out how to solve the underlying problem. In the meantime (I know my comment is unrealistic), I think AE is probably a better place than ANI for things like this. But maybe it would be best to introduce an "AE mode" for use at ANI, so discussions could be more structured yet not as limited in scope and jurisdiction. Just a thought.

I don't mean to be impolite with this comment, just impassioned. If I've been incivil, let me know and I'll strike it. Shells-shells (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd be all for a radical restructuring of AN/I—perhaps limiting it into actual incidents and creating a separate Administrators' noticeboard/Recurring issues without threaded discussion—but that seems even less likely to happen than fixing the handling of GENSEX discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Shells-shells, topic bans are not "punishment", they are protection of the project from recurrent disruption. I don't know what you think AE does, but go observe it for a while, and you'll see that it largely hands out topic bans (and blocks). It is unlikely that either of the GENSEX editors recently sanctioned at ANI would not have been sanctioned at AE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I have read WP:PUNITIVE, yes, which is why I specifically used the word punishing. With the exception of its first sentence—I would rather say bans should not be "punishment"—I completely agree with your comment. Shells-shells (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Shells-shells, topic bans are not "punishment", they are protection of the project from recurrent disruption.

They are both. It's meant to be protective, but it's absolutely a "you did something wrong and now we're taking away your ability to edit here" punishment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I do think there are some issues with that framing: it's really the low hanging fruit/Wikipedia equivalent of a politician's baby kiss to say ANI is ugly and that we wish the process of dispute resolution could be more collegial--and less dispiriting for newcomers in particular. But nobody is excited when a dispute or issue grows to the point that it lands at ANI, let alone when a CBAN has to be issued, and when I check in at ANI, I fairly regularly see people doing their best to make the process (borrowing upon your wording here) as un-vicious, un-humiliating, and sympathetic as they can, in the circumstances. But let's have a dose of realism and pay at least lip service to some important constraints here: sometimes there are values and priorities of our community and methodology (for providing reliable, neutral, factually-accurate material to serve the needs of our readers) that have to take precedence over encouraging the editing of every contributor, in every area, all the time.

That important caveat said, my overall thoughts are that you've identified a fruitful area here--indeed, maybe one of the few areas that actual stands a chance of improving the situation in question, as it stands. I think you are very much correct that more effort at the front-end, when onboarding volunteers, could pay immense dividends in the long run, in terms of decreased disruption, acrimony, and need to re-set editorial conduct when problematic patterns have already been formed. As you say, mentorship in one form or another is surely an under-exploited potential tool. I think there's a cognitive bias at work here that is not at all uncommon to institutions of governance: we are fixated with and dissuaded by the upfront costs, failing to rationally apply a longterm analysis.

On the other hand, I am not surprised that "adopt-a-user" has failed to catch on: what a patronizing choice of title for such a program. I imagine it has an especially discouraging impact on precisely the type of editors we are talking about here and would most like to reach with such a scheme: those who come here specifically to edit in CTOP areas: some of those editors would be just simply battleground and avoidant of the idea of the need for guidance by nature and others, as a consequence of what their communities have historically had to deal with, are justifiably sensitive to implied condescension. Anyway, that last point is a nitpick observation. I agree the mentorship angle is something this community needs to invest in. Not just to ameliorate the issues being contemplated here today, but for purposes of editor retention and community unity/harmonized outlook.SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I may simply be naïve, but I don't think ANI is really as bad as people say. It seems to work pretty well as an ad hoc tribunal, or as a grand jury. But once in a while it gets acrimonious, and the last people who should be subjected to an acrimonious ANI thread are new users. In fact I think there's far too much bureaucracy facing new users anyway (even excepting ANI), but that criticism is also low hanging fruit. There ought to be better options, with lower stakes, in the first place.

I agree completely with your second and third paragraphs. It would be wonderful for a mentorship culture to develop here, and 'Adopt-a-user' may well need a rebranding. Shells-shells (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Throwing this out there: ArbCom. We pay them to deal with problems that are, well, really bad. We haven't actually tried this yet; WP:GENSEX is not a "real" case. HouseBlaster^talk 00:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I've said before that I think a GENSEX2 case is ultimately inevitable, but why do you think an ArbCom proceeding would be preferable? It would ultimately take several months, dig even deeper into various individuals' editing habits, and probably result in more sanctions, on more editors, that are harder to appeal. Few things drive editors away from a topic area better and faster than WP:RFARB attention.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that I would agree that such a case would be per se a bad thing: if it gets to the point that ArbCom forms a case, presumably it will be a situation where there are at least potentially bad actors needing scrutiny--which would not be a happy occasion but would surely be better than their hiding their heads in the sand. That said, it would all come down to the particulars whether it would be a positive development in the aggregate.

Those caveats made, I agree with your central point: I don't see how such a case would really remedy the systemic issues being contemplated here. For all its overriding authority, ArbComs remedies in a situation like this are rather limited. They can make a subject CTOP (and this one already is), they can sanction individual editors, sometimes they publically hold harmless someone who got pulled into a dispute through no disruptive fault of their own, and they can take steps to protect individuals from harassment. All vital work, such as it goes, but making substantial changes to our community structures and processes, at least in this context, is largely outside of their remit. To the extent we want to reform ANI or any of our other community processes, it's just not something we can pass to their shoulders. The buck stops here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It depends what the issue is? If the issue is certain editors who cannot behave in the topic area, but the issue becomes too obfuscated in ANI discussions for the community at large to get involved, then ArbCom would be a good venue to deal with it. DS I don't think dealt with these problems too well either, and ArbCom directly does I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry T. I do feel bad about opposing one of your remedies without proposing an alternative. The thing I keep hoping for in GENSEX is a group of three to five admins that hang around. It's the main difference I see between GENSEX and American Politics or Pseudoscience. The early intervention of an admin warning is little seen in GENSEX. I'm looking for things like "If you continue to bludgeon discussions/to misgender the article subject/to rely on evidently unreliable sources/to skirt the bounds of civility, I will block you." They'll have been witness to the patterns of editing that might eventually prove to have been problematic. The only other suggestion I have is stricter enforcement and clerking at AE. If we're counting on that as the good option, let's tune it up.

Though I do think there are deep problems in GENSEX, I don't share the view that it's at the top of the CT/general sanctions problem pile. Within the past year, we've had knock-down-drag-outs tied to Armenia-Azerbaijan, Russia-Ukraine, AmPol, and Palestine-Israel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

"The thing I keep hoping for in GENSEX is a group of three to five admins that hang around." And there's an answer right there. Ravenswing 07:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If there were no sanctions imposed, would you be making your proposal or this plea? Arkon (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Two out of three sanctions proposals went "my way", including one that I literally proposed, and the third one I only weakly opposed, so... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't feel like an answer. There was literally nothing different in these reports than the thousands of reports before it, other than the accused throwing out so many bytes of text without reprimand. If your concern is separate from the results, you may want to wait and propose in isolation. I think divorcing your concern from the results may be helpful to your cause. Arkon (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not framed this thread as an objection to the outcome of the TT thread. I've framed it as what it is: about that thread, and several others, being "shitshow"s. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin here is clearly frustrated with the manner in which WP:ANI operates generally in these sorts of cases, and I don't think that this is purely some reaction to being dissatisfied with a single closing statement. She is being extremely candid in this thread, and, while I disagree with her proposal above, I do share her sentiment that there are certain topics and situations where ANI is not capable of handling disputes without consuming an inordinate amount of community time in exchange for at most marginal benefit to the community. She's being sincere here regarding her motives, and I don't think it drives the conversation forward to insinuate otherwise. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

For three months, trial structured discussion at ANI:

1. ANI reports are to be titled using the format "Editor name(s), topic area(s), type(s) of disruption". For example "BilledMammal, Platypus, Disruptive cite-tagging"
2. Editors wishing to make a statement on the report should create a fourth level section (====) titled using the format "Statement by editor name". There is no word or diff limit, but editors are advised that the longer it is the less likely it is to be read.
3. Editors may edit their statement as required; normal requirements to ensure that replies are not deprived of context are waived, and editors making replies are advised to quote any relevant sections.
4. Editors may reply to no more than five statements; there are no limits to the number of replies they may make to those statements. Editors may additionally reply to any statement that discusses their behavior. Replies should not introduce new information, and should instead seek to clarify or discuss the information raised in the editors statement.
5. Statements should remain closely related to the initial topic raised. If additional behavioral issues need to be raised, including behavioral issues related to the editor who opened the discussion, editors should create a third level section (===) using the same format of "Editor name(s), topic area(s), type(s) of disruption".
6. To propose community sanctions, editors should create a fourth level section (====) titled "Proposed sanctions on Editor name(s)".
7. Editors !voting on community sanctions proposals should keep their !vote concise and reference their statement for more detailed arguments and evidence. Editors may not reply to other editors community sanction !votes.

The intent of this suggestion is to keep discussions on topic, to prevent bludgeoning and impenetrable walls of text, and to try to introduce a level of neutrality into the opening of the discussions. It also attempts to keep things less structured and limited than AE, as I don't believe that level of structure is appropriate here.

Issues I see are that the structure will be excessive for some discussions (for example, WP:ANI#IP range from Poland, trouble with one article - although I do believe the proposed title format of "Polish IP range, Weedkiller (album), edit warring" would be more informative than the existing title), that it will make boomerangs more difficult, and that the structure will be difficult for editors to enforce. However, if editors are interested in attempting to apply structure to ANI, I hope that making a proposal - even an awful one - will at least spark a discussion on what that structure could look like. BilledMammal (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Bill, I know it's a big ask, but I think a rudimentary mock-up in a sandbox might be helpful here: perhaps it's just me, but I am having a bit of difficulty visualizing the overarching format of how these pieces fit together. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: See here; I hope it manages to make it more clear. BilledMammal (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely helps. Was close to what I had in mind when I originally !voted "Let ArbCom (or delegate) sort it out in a more structured way" because of the mess of accusations and counter-accusations threaded together. Lizthegrey (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Reading sectioned discussion is always a massive pain to try and understand any lengthy discussion - I've never seen a good explanation of how to easily read replies and replies to replies in a smooth fashion in such a discussion, as well as seeing how the discussion tone in general changes as it runs. So on that basis alone, I'd be against any such trial - but especially as a general ANI structure. I believe points 1, 4, 6 do have serious potential value to them, and point 5 could be used in certain circumstances/categories of discussion, although I'd like to see a clarification on how it worked with threads that raised multiple behavioural issues initially. Would each need its own section? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

First Law of Wikipedia Reform: Calls to reform a page, made on the page to be reformed, will result in no reforms. Levivich (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea_lab)#Allow administrators to enforce structured discussions in CT/GS to workshop a possible proposal. I feel that keeping it separate from this discussion may help keep it focused. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Editing from the Brooklyn Public Library

I'm writing for anyone to look into the block of the IP range 208.87.232.0/21. The editor blocked this on suspicion it was an open proxy. As a result, many people whose only access to the internet from the library computers are unable to contribute even when they're able to get an account. Given there's no way for anyone to access the library's network outside their buildings can someone with IP address experience review this. We have many meetups at the central library and I don't want anyone complain or getting discouraged because of someone mistaking this for an open proxy. Indy208 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Indy208: The range is registered to what looks like a VPN-type service, the sort of thing that remote workers use to connect to company networks. Is the entire /21 used by the library and only the library do you know? Courtesy ping for @ST47:, the blocking admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

We might also want to ping Blablubbs for an opinion. I've had reason to look at this range a number of times, so I can add my opinion. It's a Forcepoint range, which is a filtering service used by various legitimate institutions. Just like Zscaler I believe we shouldn't be blocking these as open proxies. I have seen evidence that at least parts of this /21 range are used by the Brooklyn library system. I believe they're mainly on 208.87.236.201 and 208.87.236.202 (IIRC). You can see a different institution mentioned at User_talk:208.87.234.202, and that appears to be a likely typical example. Brooklyn Library has a number of ranges available to them, and I don't really understand how they do their filtering, but there's some obvious local collateral from this library. I should note that at least one LTA likes to also use it (presumably by visiting in person), and this might part-explain why there's been no hurry to lift the block. Frankly some of the other account activity from the library is just weird. My own view on balance is that the range can probably be soft-blocked, though you'll undoubtedly get another socker on it. I think an unblock might be asking for trouble, though I wouldn't particularly object at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: My thoughts pretty much align with yours. I'm not super thrilled by some of the activity on the range, but I think dropping down to anon only is unlikely to blow up in our faces, so it's probably worth a shot. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Blablubbs, Zzuuzz, Indy208, and ST47: I've dropped it down to anon only with account creation allowed. The three CUs among you might want to monitor account creations on the range and act as necessary. No need to defer to me if the block needs to be changed again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't hesitate to turn off account creation if you see any vandalism from new accounts. Indy208 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Eyferth study - Inappropriate RFC Closure

I notified both user:LokiTheLiar and user:Generalrelative about the issue below:

This is my first visit to AN, so bear with me. I believe I am in the right place, but if I am wrong, please tell me the appropriate venue for filing something like this. With that said..

Recently there was an RFC at the Eyferth study article. For multiple reasons, I believe the close of the RFC was improper and against procedure. I'll list the reasons first and then go into greater detail:

1.) The editor who closed the RFC, User: LokiTheLiar was WP:INVOLVED, and therefore should not have performed the close

2.) In his closing, user User:LokiTheLiar stated that he discounted !votes of users who were either WP:MEATPUPPETS or WP:SPA's or users with "very few edits". This normally would not be a problem, however there were a large number of users who were labeled as SPA's (by another editor), who were neither meatpuppets, nor SPA's as I shall show below.

In regards to Loki being WP:INVOLVED, in his close, Loki uses a past RFC regarding Race and Intelligence as part of his reasoning. However, Loki himself was involved in the RFC in question. According to WP:INVOLVED, editors should never close a discussion where they created or non-trivially contributed to the object under discussion. I realize this may be a judgement call, however there certainly is an appearance of impropriety.

In regards to Loki discounting !votes from SPA's and MEATPUPPETS, the problem is much more serious. Roughly 15 minutes before the close of the RFC, another editor, user:Generalrelative, incorrectly labeled several accounts as SPA's. Loki took this labeling into account when making his vote count. Every !vote that was removed/discounted by user:LokiTheLiar was an !include vote. None of the !exclude votes were discounted. Now, I am not accusing user:Generalrelative of bad faith, this is more a WP:CIR problem. I attempted - several times - to explain to Generalrelative that by adding a "/64" to the URL for IP user contributions, he could then see all the contributions for that particular user. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to understand what I was getting at, and continued to revert me. Eventually I gave up and allowed him to leave the SPA tag, even though the accounts were NOT SPAs. They all either had well over `100 edits in multiple topic areas, or had been around for several years with few or one edit to the topic area in question. This would not be a problem, except for the fact that Loki used Generalrelative's SPA labels in determining his vote count.

Bottom line, this is a potentially important RFC. I feel it could be better served by a closer who is not even tangentially involved in the topic area. I also feel that numerous votes were discounted when they absolutely should have been considered. Hence, the close was not in keeping with policy, and I ask that the RFC is reopened and a different user/admin perform the close. I also ask that someone take the time to explain to user:Generalrelative what an SPA is, and how to properly view the contributions for an IP editor.

Thank you 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ll respond to the points regarding SPA tags and leave others to comment on the issue of whether Loki should be considered INVOLVED:

1) AndewNguyen reverted his SPA tag before the RfC was closed [1], and no one restored it. That's the first diff of my SPA tagging provided by the OP. It seems odd that they would then claim Loki took this labeling into account when making his vote count. I see no evidence of that.

2) I reverted four attempts by the 2600:1012:B068:8277:0:0:0:0 and 2600:1012:B043:216D:0:0:0:0 ranges to remove another SPA tag only after the RfC was closed: [2][3][4][5]. My understanding is that these reversions are within process since closed discussions should not be altered. If I'm incorrect on that point I will be happy to be corrected. I requested page protection so that I wouldn’t have to keep reverting [6] and then removed the request when the IP agreed to self-revert [7]. In any case Loki stated in their close: I count only two (maybe three counting an IP) include !votes from users with more than 100 edits. So it's clear that they made their own assessment regardless of the tag.

3) I added these SPA tags almost four hours before Loki’s close ([8][9][10] versus [11]), not Roughly 15 minutes before as the IP states. This hardly matters; it’s just an odd assertion.

4) For a bit of context, this discussion and RfC were targeted by significant off-Wiki canvassing on Twitter and 4chan, and involved concerted disruption from two LTA sockmasters (Mikemikev and Tristan albatross). There was very good reason to be wary of meatpuppetry here.

Generalrelative (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Generalrelative, I didn't realize that AndewNguyen had removed the tag prior to the RFC close - my bad. However, you still have not answered the question as to why you were labeling IP editors as SPAs when I demonstrated to you several times how to view their complete contributions. I even went to your TALK page, but you promptly ashcanned my message. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

My understanding was that a /64 is not necessarily a unique user. After doing some googling just now it seems that I may have been mistaken, but I invite input from anyone who knows definitively. In any case, we're talking about two SPA tags where I labeled an IP, and one of them is still very obviously an SPA when running the /64: 2601:581:C180:1980:0:0:0:0. So it's really only your IP that I may have mistakenly tagged (at least the one you're editing on now, though you're evidently also the user who edits in the /64 ranges 2600:1012:B068:8277:0:0:0:0 and 2600:1012:B043:216D:0:0:0:0). The "include" side was still massively outweighed, even without considering the policy aspects of the close relating to WP:FRIND and WP:ONEWAY. Generalrelative (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I also wouldn't call a single Tweet with 4 responses "significant off-Wiki canvassing". Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hard to think of a more clear long-term SPA than AndewNguyen. (And I see that they've been blocked as such at long last by Moneytrees two days ago -- well deserved and overdue, thanks.) --JBL (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

user:AndewNguyen is about the farthest thing from an SPA. His last edits were in September 2022, and he has contributed to everything from Pentecostalism in Norway to Forensic anthropology. So I have no idea how you would think he is a single-purpose account. In fact, AndewNguyen rarely contributes to article mainspace, he almost always first discusses his edits on TALK so as not to run afoul of policy and procedure. Calling him an SPA makes literally zero sense, and there is no evidence for such an accusation. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Well over 300 of his < 500 edits concern the single subject. --JBL (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Right. And most of those edits were made to TALK. So as I said, not a single-purpose account. By any measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B014:8929:9C2E:1D53:CEA1:B912 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

An account that makes edits primarily on Talk pages related to one single topic (in this case, a CT domain) strikes me as a paradigmatic single purpose account. And the idea that an account can only be SPA if it engages primarily in article-space edits seems to me to be both implausible and perplexing. Newimpartial (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah AndrewNguyen seems to clearly be an SPA in the race and intelligence area. I'd add that even many of their contributions in other areas seem to relate to linked stuff like demographics statics or immigration or (non intelligence) aspects of race or ancestry e.g. [12] or their sole contribution to the article Norway [13]. And some of them may be in their SPA area even if it isn't obvious from the article e.g. [14] [15]. (The edit summary of the second one makes it clear. The edit summary of the first one less so except based on knowledge of the editor's interest.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I should note here explicitly that AndrewNguyen was one of the two (maybe three counting an IP) include !votes from users with more than 100 edits I mentioned. The other two were Tickle_me and possibly 12.31.71.58. (Honestly, I was a little unsure how to count the IPs, but none of them other than possibly that one seemed like they were long-standing users to me.) Loki (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It has 144 likes which seems a more important metric than responses. Also 25 retweets and 19 bookmarks. I'm guessing some of those retweets also got unique likes. While by no means is that a lot, it's not insignificant considering also that this is RfC with not that many participants, it's a highly problematic area, and any canvassing which is likely to have inspired people to take part in the RfC is a problem in terms of assessing numbers. While RfCs aren't votes, ultimately unless those discarded editors actually had some strong arguments that no one else thought of, they don't contribute much. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

So, in order:

1) I was not WP:INVOLVED. I never edited Eyferth study or its talk page even once before I closed that discussion. Voting in an RFC in the same topic area does not make me WP:INVOLVED, especially one that just affirmed an existing consensus, and which was WP:SNOW closed in under half the time such an RFC normally takes. This is true even if the result of the RFC happens to be relevant to the entire topic area.

To put it another way, someone who has previously expressed an opinion that perpetual motion is WP:FRINGE doesn't suddenly give up the ability to close discussions about thermodynamics.

2) In addition to the general rule that the result of an RfC is based on the strength of the argument and not the raw numbers of votes, WP:MEATPUPPET explicitly says In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. I didn't have to have concrete evidence that meatpuppetry was going on to do this, but I did have such evidence anyway: editors linked specific discussions on Twitter where other Twitter users had been explicitly canvassed to that RfC.

The fact that all the !votes I deemed to be suspicious (using the criteria of fewer than 100 edits) were "include" voters is, by WP:MEATPUPPET, evidence in favor of excluding them. Again, it applies especially if there are many [new users] expressing the same opinion. The whole point of the policy is to prevent canvassed users using sheer weight of numbers to sway a discussion to their preferred side, which was by the evidence provided "include".

(Oh, also, to be clear, I did not take the labeling 15 minutes before the RfC closed into account. Like I said in the close, my actual criteria for deweighting !votes was less than 100 edits. I felt that matched better both with which votes felt intuitively suspicious to me and the text of WP:MEATPUPPET than trying to parse account histories. I started the close more than 15 minutes before I submitted it and so didn't even see those labels until after I closed.) Loki (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There was only one way this RFC could have been closed. Lets not continue to waste community time with this, particularly in an area so infested with sockpuppets of LTAs. One last pass to check for sockpuppets (including the account who started the RFC as their first-ever edit) wouldn't be amiss, though. - MrOllie (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

+1. --JBL (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The argument that Loki is WP:INVOLVED in the dispute seems tenuous at best, their de-weighting of potentially canvassed votes seems perfectly appropriate, and I can't see that any reasonable closer could find consensus to include the disputed content in that discussion. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close. Not only do I think the closure was a valid reading of the discussion (the normal standard to review closures), I do not think a reasonable closer could have come to the opposite conclusion. Courcelles (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close. Having participated in a previous related discussion does not make someone involved, but even an involved editor can close a discussion that has no other reasonable outcome. Given that almost all !votes to include were from new/inexperienced editors, it's pretty clear there was canvassing somewhere, looks like in this case it wasn't just twitter but also 4chan. I don't see how else someone experienced and well-intentioned could have reasonably closed this discussion. Valereee (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• A reasonable closer would not close. The discussion has not run its course, and there is no consensus.

All the ink spilled about SPAs is beside the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, and a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comments be given full weight regardless of any tag placed on them.[16]

According to WP:DETCON, Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. It's striking that the close by Loki mentions none of the arguments presented during the RfC — only vote counts, the putative SPA status of contributors, and the results of a previous RfC on a different question. Additionally, Loki states that they disregarded the input of editors that expressed disagreement with that prior RfC, which puts the cart before the horse. WP:CCC and the point of an RfC is determining that.

The close and much of the subsequent discussion of the close is based in "Avoiding substative discussion because of who is involved", one of the characteristics of Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling.

As for those arguments in discussion, raised by AndrewNguyen, myself, BonaparteIII, Mr Butterbur, and tickle_me, they center on the broader campaign of mass removal of high-quality academic sources by Generalrelative and others. The difference between fringe and minority scientific viewpoints is murky. However, the evaluation is supposed to be guided by quality peer-reviewed articles. If any RfC or interpretation of an RfC leads to removals of sources like [17] [18] [19] it is time to pause and reflect on whether something has gone wrong. These are the kinds of sources that should be used in the first place to determine what is or isn't fringe. The fact that WP:FRINGE guidelines are being used to remove them points to deep dysfunction in the policy.

Sennalen (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hatting WP:BLOCKEVASION Generalrelative (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
+1 I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you Sennalen for being a voice of reason. And you are correct, WP:FRINGE is being abused to remove reliable sources contrary to proper policy and procedure. 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:955:684D:6304:C509 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC) o hai tho IP. Weren’t you just given a month’s annual leave by Izno for this type of post? — Trey Maturin™ 21:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC) @Trey Maturin, please leave a note at the relevant section on ANI with the IPs if they keep popping up. Izno (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC) +1 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:955:684D:6304:C509 (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That discussion looks to me (on a brief glance) like it had gone on for a week, then petered out with zero participation for two weeks, and then suddenly two weeks ago a new batch of likely canvassed-in !voters started coming in. IMO at that point it's reasonable to close. Valereee (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't conform procedurally with the guidance of WP:WHENCLOSE oder WP:RFCEND, but especially does not justify a finding of "strong consensus" when there is in fact no consensus. Sennalen (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen, you personally may agree with the now-indeffed editor and the unknown number of IPs participating in the discussion, but the clear, policy-based consensus of the discussion does not (fortunately) depend on whether or not you accede to it. You disagree with community consensus about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory; you disagree with community consensus about the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, and yet in both cases the consensus stands perfectly well without your support. So also does the contentious topic of "Race and intelligence". Whatever your issues might be with the WP:FRINGE guideline, you have not yet been able to articulate (to my knowledge) any issue with or necessary clarification of the guideline that might generate community support for your concerns. Newimpartial (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not coincedentally, these are all areas where there is a Americentric politically-motivated local consensus to disregard or undermine WP:BESTSOURCES. I go where I'm needed. Sennalen (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget GENSEX and Gamergate. Those are spicy ones, too. Sennalen (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close Close is a reasonable interpretation of the discussion and well-explained. Closer was not WP:INVOLVED in any way that I can see. --Jayron32 17:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close This wasn't even particularly in a gray area. XOR'easter (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close I can't see that any reasonable moderator of that discussion could have come to a different decision. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close Once again we're seeing that the same editors who reject the scientific consensus against racial pseudoscience also refuse to accept the consensus of Wikipedia editors that racial hereditarianism be treated as a WP:FRINGE POV, and so they have repeatedly disputed consensus closings of RFCs in the race and intelligence area. Their persistent refusal to accept consensus is antithetical to how Wikipedia operates. NightHeron (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  It should be recongized that labeling a position as fringe, and then using that designation to scrub articles of peer-reviewed sources in high-quality journals is antithetical to how Wikipedia should operate. That is contrary to WP:5P2, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED, not to mention WP:FRINGE itself. The wrongful consensus in this area is not based on the scientific consensus, but rather on what remains of the science after an a priori decision to exclude the scientific viewpoints that don't conform to the preordained outcome. This conversation is happening because of the campaign to exclude exactly those sources that should be the basis of a sound consensus. Sennalen (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Harry Kane

I am not sure, but I've had a couple of pings over this article, but it seems to be a bit of a battleground at the moment from looking at the editing history, people seem to be directly copying over the Draft:List of international goals scored by Harry Kane, (instead of the appropriate move) to the page already on wikipedia which was previously a redirect I had set. I did submitted the draft earlier to be moved to the page as Harry Kane is now the top scorer for England national team. I was wondering if we could maybe lockdown the battle or a way to somehow sort out the issues at play? Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If I understand the OP's concern, there are at least two issues. The first is whether the article should be an article or should be redirected. That isn't the OP's concern, but it should be a concern, because there is slow-motion edit-warring. The second is copy-pasting from the draft to the article, which is happening because copy-pasting is an easier way to edit-war. I have started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Harry Kane (2nd nomination) as the process to establish consensus on whether to keep or redirect the article. It appears at this time that the AFD will result in a Keep. I am aware that some editors think that the AFD is unnecessary, because it is obvious to them what the policy-based outcome is. What is usually unnecessary is edit-warring. After the AFD is closed as Keep, a history merge may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Close review of Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022

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

---

This close, while a significant effort and made in good faith, was flawed; it poorly reflected the results of the discussion and contained procedural errors.

First, the closers failed to exclude the approximately 30 editors who were canvassed by a WMF employee and who opposed reverting to Vector 2010. This contravenes convention and sets a problematic precedent that canvassing can contribute to a consensus or to preventing one. (Including the canvassed !votes changes the support-oppose ratio from ~2:1 to ~3:2).

Second, they discounted arguments focusing on problems with Vector 2022, arguing that those issues either had been or would be addressed. While this argument was raised by a couple of editors regarding a couple of problems for most problems it was not and could not be, as the WMF has either no plans to resolve them or plans that many editors consider inadequate; already, the WMF has refused to implement unlimited width as default despite consensus. For the closers to conclude that solutions are forthcoming merely because Phabricator tickets exist for some of the problems is both novel and unsound, as Phabricator tickets often remain 'in progress' indefinitely, without any fixes being deployed.

Third, they scrutinized the arguments of supporters more heavily than opposers. For example, they considered the results of the user preference survey disputed, despite no editor arguing for any other position than that it showed opposition to deploying Vector2022. They also overestimated the number of editors who found the evidence the WMF presented for Vector 2022 compelling when they said that "many users found (the presented evidence) compelling"; only a small minority referenced the evidence at all, and a greater number argued that they didn't find the evidence compelling, typically on grounds that the evidence was not representative and that the WMF had already been proven to misrepresent the evidence it did choose to present.

Fourth, they discounted !votes based on user opinions, arguing that they were not based on policy and that the experiences of people who aren't UI designers are not concrete facts. There are three issues with this: first, we don't have policies on UI design, and where policy is silent we defer to editors' judgments; second, Wikipedia is built upon the belief that anyone can contribute valuably to discussions, not just experts; and third, this suggests that ordinary Wikipedia users cannot have valuable opinions about the interfaces they use.

Finally, they erred when they used their own opinion (Since we see the changes made by the WMF as compliance with the previous RfC, emphasis ours) to decide that the requirements of the previous close had been met. This was a decision that should have been deferred to the closers of the previous discussion, who believed that they had not been met, or to a consensus of the participants in this discussion, who also generally agreed that the requirements were not met.

This appeal was drafted with input from multiple editors. BilledMammal (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn close - I find all the reasons cited in the appeal above to be compelling. Together, the reasons adequately provide a basis to overturn the close. Disclosure: I participated in the RFC. starship.paint (exalt) 09:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • North8000's point, made below and in the Discussion section, is a sixth compelling reason. starship.paint (exalt) 12:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep closed. The horse has died, been buried, and has a tombstone engraved. This is like the US House Republicans who are investigating the investigators of the January 6 United States Capitol attack. When this is closed, is that going to be reviewed too? 331dot (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  So... keep closed because it's already closed? starship.paint (exalt) 12:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  If the close is blatantly defective and an utter misrepresentation of the discussion, contravening the will of a clear and decisive majority, then yes, it will likely be reviewed. Toa Nidhiki05 12:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's always the side that was not successful that feels it was "misrepresented" and that the process was "defective". See WP:NOTAVOTE. There was a discussion, a review of the discussion, and now we are reviewing the review of the discussion. Is the next step to review the review of the review of the discussion? We need to move forward, lets focus on fixing bugs(which I'm sure exist) and improvements. . 331dot (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is a review of the discussion. Please don't misrepresent this. Beyond that error, you're just making points that could apply to literally any close review. starship.paint (exalt) 13:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm including the initial discussion before the launch of the skin. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  And it’s always the side who was “successful” who will insist on keeping proceedings closed, no matter how inaccurate the close was. Want to go around in circles? Tvx1 15:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  That isn't correct. Often people who didn't participate in the RfC will endorse/not endorse the close. I'm one. Valereee (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Which does make 331dot's whole comment regarding the "side which was not successful" nonsensical as well, doesn't it? And that is exactly what my comment intended to highlight. Also, what you claim is certainly not true. There are already people here would !voted to keep it closed and admitted having comment in opposition to the rollback during the RFC!Tvx1 16:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  As noted, no, that isn't correct. And I'm skeptical that this will provide the result that you want. We have no more right to demand that this website appear a certain way than guests I invite into my home have to demand that I paint my wall a certain color or arrange the furniture a certain way. This is just a timesink at this point and the focus should be on fixing bugs and making improvements. Anyone who doesn't like the skin can use the old one just as some people still use Monobook. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  See, these are exactly the circles I was talking about. You are person opposing rollback and you insist on keeping the close because you "won". You are the prime example of what I was talking. And no, anyone who wants cannot change. Only registered people can do that and our largest user base are pure readers.Tvx1 16:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  And you have surveyed all readers to know that they don't like it? You don't think that the Foundation considered that? 331dot (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The only survey WMF did was objectively biased. Cessaune [talk] 17:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn close One thing I'd note is how massive the 30 canvassed editors are. That’s roughly 5% of all votes and 13% of all oppose votes - the fact the closers didn’t even address this is further proof the close was defective. This is such a blatant oversight, but it's indicative of the way the closers viewed the discussion: ignore or minimize any aspects that rejected the outcome they wanted. That's not the way closes should be done; I appreciate the effort they put, but the actual close simply doesn't make sense. Toa Nidhiki05 11:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn close per my opinions expressed here, here and in the draft of this appeal.--Æo (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Reasonable close. Closes of discussions like this one are extremely difficult, and there are always going to be a lot of people who disagree with the closers' approach. I can see how the close could have gone differently, but that's a given in a discussion this complicated. I don't see any reason to believe this wasn't a reasonable close. Valereee (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, five reasons are given above on why this wasn't a reasonable close. The outcome may have been possible, but the method can be objected to. starship.paint (exalt) 12:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Five reasons were given for why someone else might feel that way; as I said, there are always going to be a lot of people who disagree with the closers' approach in a discussion as complicated as this one. I feel it was reasonable. Note that I did not participate in the RfC, have tried the new skin, and am currently using the old one. At one point I considered closing, but the sheer length and vitriole and bludgeoning and uninformed comments just made the task look like it was going to be onerous, tedious, and ultimately quite likely thankless. Which is exactly what it's turned out to be, as we're seeing here. Valereee (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn close For the reasons given. Also there were implicitly two choices on what would be the default (2010 and 2022), the close treated it as if there was only one. Such would mean that the minority (2022) choice "wins" unless the 2010 choice gets a "supermajority" of views. (quote marks because yes, I know it's not a vote) North8000 (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Rewrite the close. While I think the outcome was reasonable, the reasons listed above are very valid on how the close messsage was pretty flawed. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep closed. I don't doubt the good faith of the RfC closers (Isabelle Belato and Ingenuity) nor that of those who opened this appeal (BilledMammal et al.) — I do truly believe each "side" of this is attempting to act in the best interests of the community. However, this has become an incredibly controversial topic, and there's no reason to believe that should this close be overturned, a more universally accepted close could realistically be achieved. (comment from involved editor) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The vote "overturn" means replacing the existing closure with a finding that something else is consensus, while a vote to "vacate" essentially deletes the existing closure and allows someone else to close as normal. In this case, there is a reason nobody has voted to vacate. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep closed and let's move forward. dwadieff ✉ 12:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  So, you linked to a discussion where the WMF ignored our editors' rough consensus to make unlimited width the default, that's what you want editors to move forward with? starship.paint (exalt) 13:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think the proposal ignored the rough consensus, and I think it's good to contribute constructively in that discussion rather than flogging a dead horse here. dwadieff ✉ 13:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I believe that we made the right choice in the introduction of the limited width and that, for readers, we are continuing to make the right choice in the decision to keep it as the default BilledMammal (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that's exactly it. dwadieff ✉ 13:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint, this is beginning to look like bludgeoning. Please stop. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, you please stop accusing everyone who does not post something in line of keeping the close of bad faith. Tvx1 15:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know a polite way to say this, so I won't mince words: your accusation that Valereee is assuming bad faith is way out of line. Valereee noted a behavioral pattern that was looking problematic and politely asked the editor to stop doing it. Bludgeoning can be (and normally is) done unintentionally, so this was not an accusation of bad faith and should not have been read as one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW I've taken this to the user's talk. Valereee (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn Close The reasoning given by BilledMammal above went through multiple revisions with a number of editors to properly summarize the myriad of ways in which the close was improperly done. It is quite blatant and obvious that multiple aspects of the close, including the consideration of arguments given, number of supporters and opposers, direct canvassing of oppose votes and involvement of SPAs by the WMF, and the closers inserting their own opinions as reasoning when those stances were not meaningfully presented by the oppose voters in question (making the close a form of a supervote). All of these combined make the close very clearly improper and not in line with what is appropriate, particularly for a discussion of this scope and impact. I note that the keep closed editors above do not appear to make any argument as to why the close was proper and instead are trying to push the idea that we should all move on and ignore an improper close just because it's a complicated topic (and likely because they were on the oppose side). Silverseren^C 12:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn The closer's inability or unwillingness to actually read the discussion, preferring instead to cast a supervote, was painfully obvious. ValarianB (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Please try to assume good faith, @ValarianB. Both of the closers are experienced, well-intentioned editors. To assert without evidence that they didn't read the discussion and intentionally supervoted is a personal attack. Valereee (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:SPADE. ValarianB (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Taken to the user's talk, further discussion here seemed counterproductive for this discussion. Valereee (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Per SPADE: Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review. This IMO doesn't apply here. So I don't understand your point. This is an opinion presented in an extremely and, IMO, unnecessarily negative light, and it undermines your otherwise valid point. Cessaune [talk] 17:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, while I normally have the greatest respect for both of the closers, I agree it was clearly a WP:SUPERVOTE, of types 1 (against consensus) and 3 (false compromise). That close used motivated reasoning to ignore a clear consensus. The fact that a revert had consensus was obvious before the close and only started being obscured after people tried to defend such a strange close for reasons that are also motivated by goals other than wanting the correct result (such as, for instance, wanting to not have to talk about this any more). Loki (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Deep sigh. Keep closed on productivity/time sink grounds. And no, I'm not open to discussing my !vote. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• No consensus oder consensus to disapprove of Vector 2022 are the most likely outcomes for question 1. For question 2, no consensus seems to be in line with the comments.
  As some participants noted, it's likely that very few of those commenting in this RfC have any experience with UI design and, as such, the opinions presented here are only that, opinions. - That seems most plausible for both questions.
  Another point of contention was the fact that, while it is trivial for registered users to change back to the old skin if they dislike the changes, unregistered users do not enjoy that option. Many of those supporting the rollback were sympathetic editors who saw this as problematic. The only refutation offered to this was that the new skin was shown to be, according to the aforementioned studies and surveys, an improvement for readers, especially due to the reduced text width. - The proper solution to this problem is to have logged out preferences. Persistent width is already in the works, if not already live.
  With regards to the second question presented in this RfC, arguments presented by both sides were very similar to the first question, in that some like the new limited width and others do not. Some of those supporting an unlimited width noted that many articles contain galleries, tables, etc., and were negatively affected by the new width. There was a lot of discussion on whether scientific papers reached any form of consensus on the best width, with both sides presenting studies with opposing views on the issue. The large amount of whitespace was one of the main concerns of those who supported the rollback of Vector 2022. Since the arguments are equal in strength, there is rough consensus to make unlimited width the default. - If the arguments are equal in strength, shouldn't that equate to "no consensus"? Anyway, since this is such a minor technicality I don't know if it is most productive to actually pursue this overturn.
  Note I was heavily WP:INVOLVED in the discussion, however, I am just applying the guidelines at WP:CLOSE to determine what the result should have been closed to. The closing statement appears to address all the arguments listed, it is not perfect, but it was applied with as neutral judgement as possible. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 14:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep closed Let's avoid the timesink. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  It is not a good reason for keeping it closed and avoiding a review. It is not a timesink insofar as Wikipedia is governed by community discussion and consensus. Æo (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Closed (Involved) I do notice that this is starting to become a re-litigation of the RFC itself than just a discussion of the close itself and whether it was reasonable. I also note that there are a number of !votes (this one included) that come from WP:involved editors, and should be heavily discounted when doing any analysis/close of this challenge.

I voted Oppose on the overturn, and found the close fair and an understandable conclusion. I also find the actions of a handful (but not a plurality) of those wishing to overturn, somewhere between badgering and borderline personal attacks. This is concerning. Soni (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Given the questions under contention, which include to what extent existing policy should actually govern the consensus resulting from this RfC, I think it is inevitable that editors will vote here along lines similar to those they had in the RfC. I am not convinced that this is ipso facto a flaw, although it is somewhat annoying. Close reviews normally do deteriorate into relitigating the underlying issue rather than litigating the closure, and this is something an experienced closer of these types of discussion will be comfortable navigating. I am sympathetic to all your concerns, though, and took a while to be convinced that this was worth bringing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would also expect the result to align fairly closely with the actual RfC, which had a fairly decisive numerical majority in favor of rollback. I don't find this especially surprising, especially given how lopsided the result was. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I will note that this comment above (courtesy ping @Toa Nidhiki05:) is indicative of the same badgering I called distasteful in my !vote. You have made your opinions clear on the number/ratio of voters in the RFC. There's no need to re-iterate it over and over. (FWIW, my personal opinion on the numbers differs from you. I believe that there was not an "overwhelming majority" in favour of rollback, based off pure numbers/ratio alone). Soni (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  You're entitled to your own opinion, sure. Toa Nidhiki05 15:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn close. For once, I actually agree with you BilledMammal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Fix the problems that concerned the editors. No matter how this turns out the problems remain, and if WMF has stated that they will not be working on these problems, then that may be a bigger problem than keeping or reverting the skin. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  WMF has already said unlimited width as a default is not on the table, so strictly speaking it’s not possible to fix the problems editors have. Toa Nidhiki05 15:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn close to Consensus for rollback to Vector 2010. The closers simply misrepresented the discussion. They put support comments through a rigorous scrutiny to reduce their weight as much as possible, while never doing the same for equal oppose comments. If you actually properly address similarly poor arguments on both sides, you still end up with an absolute decisive majority in favor of rollback both in numbers and in arguments.Tvx1 15:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• (involved) Endorse close. There's no basis for this; it was a reasonable reading of the consensus, and enough ink was spilt over it. But let's take a look at other case studies: Facebook and YouTube had several major redesigns, which generated huge online backlash, and every time, the backlash died within days, and the UI change didn't get reverted. If average users really were upset, these companies' sacrosaint "engagement" would have gone down, and the changes would have been reversed immediately to protect profit margins. But these changes never get reverted, because it's never average users that are upset; always just a very vocal minority. Also, it would be highly embarrassing (and pretty dysfunctional) for Wikipedia to revert V22 months after deployment, without very strong consensus that such a revert is warranted. And I share Mike Christie's concerns; this discussion is inherently non-representative, since "pro-revert" editors have a very strong incentive to show up, while others have long moved on. DFlhb (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic. Discuss the close, not the skin and its controversy. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And here the backlash is still very much alive months later. So that clearly shows these situations are not comparable.Tvx1 15:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC) It's alive because the vocal minority is keeping it alive. I see no evidence that new people are flooding Wikipedia to express newfound opposition. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC) The only vocal minority here are the people are the 36% who voted oppose. Toa Nidhiki05 16:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I'm sure you are aware of WP:NOTAVOTE. The discussion is only representative of those who participate, and people are naturally quicker to air grievances than offer praise. You haven't surveyed every Wikipedia user. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I second this(DFlhb), strongly. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Opposition to UI changes often does die down, but that's immaterial. Opposition to almost anything will die down eventually. Facebook or Youtube or whatever big company get to ignore opposition to changes because they have no democratic governance of their sites, and are effectively little internet dictatorships. Wikipedia, on the other hand, does everything by consensus, and that means we don't just get to ignore opposition here. Loki (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC) No one is ignoring opposition. Wikipedia is not a democracy. As I understand it, feedback continues to be solicited. Users are free to use the old skin. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC) On the other hand, see the 2018 Discord light mode redesign, whose extensive backlash drove a vital change: the optional restoration of the dark sidebar. The dark sidebar was removed in the redesign, replaced with more white on white. The immediate backlash revealed that for many users, it provided vital structure to the UI, segmenting parts of the screen to let people focus on key sections (a WCAG-recognized issue) while keeping everything from being a bright white eyesore. After weeks of rage and argument, a dark sidebar toggle was added. - 24.246.2.244 (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Uninvolved endorse close as a reasonable read of the discussion. I probably would have found consensus to rollback, but our job here is to determine if the close is reasonable. Addressing the points in order:
  1. The canvassed votes were in fact given less weight because they were all WP:ILIKEIT arguments. I would have given them even less weight (or excluded them entirely), but they were given less weight than a "standard" !vote. But giving them the same weight as ILIKEIT arguments is reasonable.
  2. It is perfectly reasonable to give !votes based on theoretically resolvable technical issues less weight, even if it is unlikely they will be implemented. For example, the CLOSECHALLENGE of the 2021 admin election RfC resulted in consensus to discount arguments based on the fact the WMF has no plans to make it possible to host SecurePoll locally. If there are pressing issues you think should be addressed right now, you can submit code to the developers—some of whom are volunteers. You know, WP:JUSTFIXIT style. If "WMF won't rollback no matter what, so oppose rollback" is not a sound reason to oppose, then so is "WMF won't fix [problem with V22], so support rollback."
  3. First, there are obviously more support !votes, so there were more opinions that needed to be scrutinized. Two, the oppose votes were scrutinized. From the close, "That is not to say that those opposing the rollback presented solely strong arguments. Besides the 'I like it' style !votes, there were also fait accompli (or sunk cost fallacy) arguments, meaning that, since the change has already happened, there is no point in going back. Some also argued that choices like this are outside the community’s hands, per WP:CONEXCEPT." Just because the closers were more concise does not mean something factored less into their decision.
  4. Is false. The close itself states that "they were not entirely discarded but were not given as much weight as other points." More than reasonable. This is a case when ILIKEIT should have some weight, but it should still be weighed less than a "standard" vote; this is exactly what the closers did.
  5. The quote is taken out of context: they were not discounting !votes based on their own opinion. The full quote is "we see the changes made by the WMF as compliance with the previous RfC, this means the previous close stands." The closers were stating their own opinion as to what their own close actually means, which is perfectly okay.
  Finally, the elephant in the room: the supermajority in support of a rollback. WP:NOTAVOTE is obviously relevant, but I want to point out that 2/3 is not as substantial as you might think. It is barely in the discretionary range at RfA, and would almost certainly not be enough at RfB. Yes, they are different processes, but closing something with 2/3 support as unsuccessful is not at all unusual on Wikipedia. HouseBlaster^talk 16:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Most of these are reasonable arguments, but I want to say that I think RfA and RfB are not good comparisons to this. In both cases, the consequences of an "incorrect" promotion (meaning, the person turned out to be a problem) are considered to far outweigh the consequences of an "incorrect" refusal to promote (meaning, the person would have been fine as an admin/bureaucrat we lose out on their service), so the required level of support has been deliberately skewed. In this case, choosing between two different interfaces, it would be difficult to argue compellingly that the stakes are significantly higher in one outcome than the other, so this is not a good candidate for RfA/B-level scrutiny. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  For #1, they weren't all WP:ILIKEIT arguments; most were, but not all.

  For #2, the close stated the point that technical implementation can be discussed and worked out as a part of the process, and is not a reason in itself to close something as unsuccessful when there is community support - this proposal lacks community support. Further, that discussion differs in that it would be impossible to implement the solution, even if there was a consensus for it, unless the technical problem was resolved. It would only be equivilent if the consensus was that Vector2022 could be deployed if all the listed issues were resolved.

  For #3, you make some good points, but you don't address them incorrectly scrutinizing the example "support" argument, nor do you address them overestimating the support for a specific "oppose" argument.

  For #4, to clarify the wording I used was "discounted", not "discarded". It also isn't clear that they only discounted "ILIKEIT" arguments on this basis; their wording suggests that this had broader scope.

  For #5, the issue is that they went beyond the scope of what they can decide; closers aren't empowered to make decisions beyond the scope of their close, and deciding whether previously issued requirements were met on the sole basis of their opinion is going beyond that scope.

  BilledMammal (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm.

  1. Fair.
  2. A fairly small minority of !votes said WMF won't fix [problem with V22], so support rollback. Most said 'WMF should fix [problem I have with V22], so support rollback until it is fixed', which I think is reasonable.
  3. The closers didn't scrutinize the oppose argments efffectively. They hint at strong arguments without actually explaining which opposing arguments are strong. They also say this: While those in support of rolling back had a numerical majority, their arguments were relatively weak. Why? There's nothing to compare to. We know nothing about the relative strength of any argument, as the closers didn't explain it.
  4. A lot of arguments were deeper than ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. A lot were IDONTLIKEIT because [issue person has]. As the close states, where policy is silent we defer to editors' judgments. It's really hard to compellingly argue using policy, a main tenet of good !votes, about something so undefined policy-wise.
  5. The closers have no jurisdiction over anything except their close. Since we see the changes made by the WMF as compliance with the previous RfC, this means the previous close stands seems to me to be saying that since WMF has, in their opinion, addressed the issues that the closers of the previous RfC said must've been resolved before their outcome stood, then the result of that RfC is now final.

  Anyway. Cessaune [talk] 17:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak overturn (Somewhat involved—I !voted neutral.) My preferred outcome to this debacle would've been if we stopped beating the dead horse like, 3 months ago, but now that we're already here, that point is moot because this conversation is going to continue to its end anyway. I think that the close of the RfC was a perfectly reasonable reading that didn't need to be challenged, but if I were the one who closed this RfC, I probably would've said consensus to rollback, and the review makes good points. Any WMF staff reading this—can you topic ban the entirety of enwiki from Vector 2022 after this please? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close - this is a massive waste of time, per my comments last time the closure was challenged, and along the same lines as HouseBlaster and Valereee above. I did not participate in the original RfC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  How is overturning an incorrect close a waste of time. We can only move forward if we start from the correct footing. Tvx1 17:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's a massive waste of time because the odds of finding a consensus to overturn are very slim, as should have been clear from the last time you attempted to challenge the close. In a polarized issue with well-over a hundred respondents on each side, you're going to need an overwhelming majority (i.e. 80%+, not 60%) or decisive policy arguments (not really applicable on either side, as the entire issue is tangential to most written policy) to win a consensus. Your decision to bludgeon virtually every endorse !vote here is further evidence that you, specifically, are wasting people's time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, that close was procedural due to how badly the thing was written. It shouldn't factor into this discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn close (uninvolved) - While consensus is not a vote, it takes some very strong extenuating circumstances to disregard the way the votes are pointing. But the closers of that RFC didn't observe anything like that. They just discounted a bunch of votes for arbitrary reasons. Therefore I believe this close was bad and the discussion should be reclosed by a panel of other admins. Loki (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close The closing statement was thoughtful, reasonable, and well explained. The closers made a reasonable interpretation of the consensus given the complex nature of the discussion, and I can find no procedural issues with how it was closed. Full disclosure: I voted in the discussion to rollback Vector 2022, however I can also see that the discussion was reasonably closed given the wealth of reasonable opinions both ways; "no consensus to rollback the default skin" is a reasonable way to interpret the consensus. --Jayron32 17:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The whole appeal of the closure extensively dissects how the close was absolute not thoughtful, reasonable and well explained. It was biased and disproportionally critical of the support comments. It's sad to see that there are still people who flatly refuse to admit that. Tvx1 17:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I see you asserting that it was so critical, but I find that the evidence I read when I review the closing statement directly myself does not support that assertion. I stand by my assessment; while I wanted the rollback personally, the discussion was not clear-cut in either direction, and the closer made a reasonable closing statement. --Jayron32 17:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close I think the close was the right decision and I don't see any merit to reopening it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The merit is to finally have the correct outcome for this discussion and to finally give the community a Wikipedia they want!! Tvx1 17:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Have a read of WP:BADGER Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close + what a waste of time this is. --JBL (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you any actually argument supporting the close?? Tvx1 17:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'll be yet another editor to ask you to please stop WP:BADGERING those you disagree with. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn. (Diclosure: I watched the original discussion closely, supported rolling back to V10, and heavily influenced the final text of this appeal.) When I first saw this closure, I thought it was reasonable and planned to endorse it, but after following some of the discussions between then and now, I changed my mind. #4 is the decisive issue for me. Policy reflects the accumulated, collective experience of the entire Wikipedia community. On topics we deal with daily, like notability and verifying sources, it is extremely strong. On topics with which we have little experience, policy is less solid and should not be applied so strictly (if it even pertains at all); instead, we fall back on the community's opinions, of which policy is, in the final analysis, merely a wordsmithed summary. This is what the closers should have done. Instead, they relied on so-called "concrete facts": the WMF's research, the solutions under development, the opinions of experts (this one is especially pernicious). Nowhere does policy prescribe or even allow for closers to give more weight to the facts than participants' arguments. That is called supervoting. It is not permitted because facts are difficult to interpret and closers often do so poorly (as was the case here: the significance of all of those things was much more heavily disputed than the closure implied). This should have been closed the same way as all discussions that lack major policy considerations: by considering the validity of the arguments presented and which arguments were considered most compelling by the community (a closure is, after all, a summary of the community's conclusions on a topic, not the closer's). Had this been done, I think most of us would agree that the only truly plausible reading was that the community supported rolling back. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• I endorse the close made and extensively-explained by the (both uninvolved) administrator Isabelle Belato and editor Ingenuity. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close, do not reopen, but vacate. It's abundantly clear that Team Cancel Vector 2022 are just going to keep at it until they get their way, wasting more and more of everyone's limited encyclopedia-building time in the process, over an outcome the WMF is neither obligated nor at all likely to implement. I say we give them what they want: vacate the close noting no fault of the closers, re-close the discussion as "majority votes to roll back", and then whoever is interested can go waste the WMF's time instead of wasting more of the community's. Alternatively, what I said the last time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, what is your opinion of the points laid out above? Cessaune [talk] 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The points above are a list of opinions of the close, written not by neutral reviewers but by a group of editors with the stated goal of changing the result in their favour. Viewing them through that lens, they fail to make a convincing argument that the close is procedurally faulty, they are just stating why they would have closed differently, and that only further enforces the case for a no consensus close. A consensus close either way would be much more obviously consensus, and I think everyone is missing that. I also feel this is argumentum ad infinitum, or throwing mud at the wall hoping some of it will stick. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector Ok so this is actually getting kind of a muddy discussion (no pun intended), but I think the comments and debates are really approaching Wikipedia:CARCASS levels. I don't see any major procedural problems with the close, and the very few minor ones that I do see would not have had a significant effect on the close.

  I am only looking to see if all the proper procedures were followed for the close, and for the most part, they were. It is very difficult to assess consensus impartially when being WP:INVOLVED but it is not impossible. I don't think "consensus to rollback" would at all carry any weight though because it is not within the scope of the community to determine features implemented by the WMF. We can give suggestions and we have but WMF does not have to listen to them. The most consensus for rollback there can be is "consensus to disapprove of the rollout of Vector 2022". Not like it would have made a big difference though.

  Same thing with Q2 which was closed as "rough consensus to make unlimited width default". This is just a recommendation to the WMF and WMF does not have to listen, so it would have been better phrased as "rough consensus to recommend unlimited width default". But once again this, alongside what probably better equated to "no consensus" for Q2 is such a minor technicality that it would have not have any effect on the result. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that it carries no weight is irrelevant. We aren't forcing WMF to do anything, we are simply stating what we believe would be the best way to move forward. Cessaune [talk] 20:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• I guess I come down on the side of a weak endorse. I truly don't care about this issue at all, and this isn't the close I would have made. But, for very good reasons, that's not the standard to relitigate closure on Wikipedia, because then there would be no effective closes. I can see how two closers reasonably arrived at the close they made, it's not a poor close, especially not one so egregious it needs to be overturned, even though I would have closed it the other way. Courcelles (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Involved endorse close. I opposed rollback, but would irrespective of that view have come to the same conclusion had I been the closer, even though maybe not for the same reasons. One does not have to agree with how the closers weighed the arguments to see that rough consensus, in a discussion this large and unwieldy, and split roughly 3:2 numerically, is essentially impossible to achieve, no matter how one looks at it. Sandstein 18:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Obvious Overturn. It is very clear that a large amount of WMF-related accounts with in many cases few enwiki edits were canvassed to vote here - all of those should be discarded, at which pointy it would not even be possible to close the RfC in the way it was. I would suggest running a new RfC and immediately removing such accounts. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I can't wait to see WP:V22RFC3. Shells-shells (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn The reasons cited are all convincing. It was not properly explained which and how "policies and guidelines" justify overriding the support votes which were nearly twice as numerous. No account was made of the statistically significant number of canvassed votes, much less of the unquantified SPAs for which there is no evidence of being representative of genuine frequent users of the website. The RfC showed that the new design is very unpopular, and the closers should reflect this prevailing opinion in their close rather than bury their heads in the sand. Avilich (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn close - flat-out dismissing the critiques by unregistered users - who don't have a choice to change skin and were largely all readers - as WP:IDONTLIKEIT instead of actually taking their arguments onboard is a major concern here for me. It isn't IDONTLIKEIT if the skin completely discards everything they used in favour of an interface which has, to my knowledge, pretty consistently been criticised by readers (not editors) as missing features or otherwise less functional. This isn't an inside-baseball issue; this is something fundamental about the skin and how it works for those users. And, as a reminder, not everyone can afford to risk jail time by registering an account just to read an unhobbled version of Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 18:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Uninvolved Endorse - We had over 600 people voice their opinion and the strongest argument to overturn is ~30 of them might have been canvassed? With most of those being likely discounted as an ILIKEIT vote. No, I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water over something like that, even if it was an actual issue. HouseBlaster makes strong points and I agree with them. PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  No the strongest argument to overturn is that the closers disproportionately disregarded support cooments while not doing the same with equal oppose comments. The close just doesn’t reflect the actual consensus. Tvx1 01:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep closed The horse is dead, long live the horse. Can we leave this to a peaceful death? The issue is that in order to overturn this, we would need overwhelming consensus. Why? Because this would be a direct rebuke, and major "screw you" to the foundation. But instead we have 61%. That's the support percentage. If this were at RfA, it wouldn't even pass the discretionary threshold. The community simply did not express enough support for that extreme outcome. Wikipedia cannot be thrown into a constitutional crisis without the overwhelming support of the community, 61% is not overwhelming. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  ~61% only if you are including canvassed editors; ~65% if you exclude them, as you should. Further, consensus becomes stronger when the number of editors increase, even if the percentage remains the same - a discussion with three editors, two for A and one for B, is likely "no consensus", but a discussion with 600 editors, 400 for A and 200 for B, is, absent exceptional circumstances that do not apply here, an overwhelming consensus for A. BilledMammal (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  CaptainEEK, can you do that same analysis for the "Keep 2022" support?North8000 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think I see what you mean North, but I don't think it works the other way. Keeping it has no short term practical cost. But to overturn V22 would be a massive expenditure of the community's political capital, so to speak, in telling the Foundation we don't like their work and they wasted millions of dollars. So the onus is on those who want it rollbacked, and that support is just insufficient. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close Time to move on and build an encyclopedia. - Donald Albury 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Involved endorse close UI changes are almost always unpopular and the people who don't like it are almost always the loudest and most passionate. This would need to be near 80% for me to consider that there was a clear consensus. I agree with CaptainEEK, it's time to move on. Nemov (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  UI changes are in fact almost always unpopular. However, since Wikipedia unlike almost all other websites is governed by consensus, the implication of that fact here is not "therefore we should ignore the community" and far closer to "therefore we should avoid changing the UI". Loki (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why 80%? That seems like an arbitrary threshold, and a high one at that - so high that I've never seen in an RfC. In an RfC of this size, that's roughly 440 supports to 110 opposes - why is that enough and not, say, 400 supports to 151 opposes (or even what we had - 355 to 196, excluding canvassed votes)? Toa Nidhiki05 23:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Ugh. - As someone who backed a rollback and still wants one, and someone frustrated with having basically an open beta dumped on the general reader base, the closers' conclusion of no consensus was not out of line with the discussion. The conclusion of no consensus reflects the lack of consensus. The reasoning, however, has issues - but the largest stumbling blocks are the most sensitive ones, the ones about the WMF's defense of Vector 2022. The handling of the WMF-provided survey in particular is a problem. The closers' representation simply does not reflect the discussion (EDIT for clarity: regarding the survey). It nearly flips the discussion around. A statement reflecting the discussion would be in and of itself a rebuke to the WMF, and a rebuke to the WMF flows awkwardly into a (legitimately discussion-reflective) no consensus finding. In all honesty, they would probably have been better off not bringing it up at all.

This entire discussion has been a slog. These visual overhaul discussions always are - people screaming into the void because that's the only way to restore useful features and/or to get their accessibility needs met, people screaming at the people screaming into the void because they don't want their similar gains lost, people glibly summing every argument up as some general sentiment about change that ought to be trampled over, and people ignoring everything everyone else says, all while we're at the mercy of the whims of distant decision-makers. It's a pain, but it's pretty much the main way to get any needed design changes - and, as with past cases like the restoration of the Discord light mode dark sidebar, it works. Already, some of the navigational tools for advanced readers have been pulled out of hiding, and there's work being done on providing this site some level of much-needed visual structure and organization again. I wish it didn't take so much yelling, though. - 24.246.2.244 (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I thouroughly enjoyed reading this. Cessaune [talk] 03:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• OVerturn close It is clear this close needs overturning as outline in the opening statement by BilledMammal. We do not have tiered !votes based on those who are 'experts' or not, we only value what arguments are made based on policy and guidelines. 'It is a waste of time to overturn' is not a fair argument otherwise we would be stuck with flawed disccusions/RfCs in perpetuity. Disclosure: I was involved in this discussion.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn close. Although I had not previously been aware of how many participants were canvassed by the WMF, my big concern is that emphasized below by Jéské_Couriano. It may not be realistic for this to be reclosed reflecting the majority view. But at a minimum, per Aaron_Liu, the close needs to be redone recognizing the importance of the experience of unregistered readers, rather than dismissing them as if this were a discussion on article content, where a citable source trumps personal experience. Ideally it would be reversed on the basis that this is not a social media company where the owner gets to impose their choice of UI to attract and manage the kinds of users they want, but a project to provide something for readers, all readers, any readers. That may not be possible given our procedures and guidelines for RfCs. But I'd like to see it, and consider both the tenor and the weighting in the close and the calls for ending "drama", especially from people employed by the WMF, to be shameful. (And I note from discussion here that the closers' statement that they considered the WMF had fulfilled or would be fulfilling the conditions of the previous RfC were at best misleading, since there's apparently a WMF statement that they will not budge on width? So add that to my previously expressed scorn for the way the closers went about justifying their "no consensus" close.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Vacate finding and sanction closers. I was going to vote in that, forgot, but calling a discussion against the wishes of over 60% of the respondents is a Jim Joyce-sized whiff. To the point where one wonders if we're all reading the same discussion. Zaathras (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sanction closers? Care to further explain? Thanks. Cessaune [talk] 01:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  This was obviously egregiously-poor judgement on their part. Something needs to happen when something is so badly whiffed, even if it is just a simple WP:TROUT. Zaathras (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Having it overturned would be enough of a trout, at least to me. Toa Nidhiki05 03:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't support sanctioning the closers at all. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are you saying that we should have some sort of "election" process for closers? If so, I disagree as closing is part of admin responsibilities. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's a good time to remind some editors that consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes. Nemov (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  ...nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community Loki (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I would like to overturn the close as a very heavily involved editor. I agree with all the points made above. While I disagree with the way that the points were laid out, I do, however, think that the close's outcome was reasonable, and I applaud both Isabelle and Ingenuity for their work. However, since I was so heavily involved, I don't think my !vote matters.

There are four endorse arguments that I fully disagree with:

The outcome (probably) won't change. So? This is a close review, plain and simple. We are reviewing the close, not speculating about the potential outcome of a new close. This is irrelevant to the point at hand.

Reclosing will take up too much time. So? We are reviewing the close, not speculating about the ramifications and potential drawbacks of a new close. It might take up time, yes. We aren't concerned with that. We should be concerned with reviewing the close, and that's it.

The editors pushing this close review are part of a vocal minority. Yes, many are part of the vocal minority (including me). Again, so? This does not invalidate the points that are represented in the close review.

You're beating a dead horse/let's move forward. This is IMO the weakest argument, as it isn't really arguing for anything. 'We should move on' is not an analyzation of the close, and, as such, is irrelevant.

See the pattern?

The best endorse comment IMO comes from User:HouseBlaster—they actually reviewed the opinions laid out above, and offered their own opinion on each of the points. Despite the fact that I disagree with most of them, I am very happy to see someone actually, you know, review the close, because, this is (at this point I don't know anymore) a close review.

Now, this is not to say that all the overturn arguments are good, or even mediocre. I especially disagree with comments that suggest that the closers acted in bad faith, or were somehow incompetent. However, there is really not much to say as an overturner except 'I agree with the points above'. This isn't an RfC, and the policy on close review is intentionally vague. In addition, the RfC wasn't really a policy-based issue. It was mainly a visual one. This makes it extremely hard to argue effectively to overturn, as there is no specific policy to cite that helps to prove your case.

To sum it up, I am extremely disappointed in the lack of actual close review going on in this, you know, close review. It's basically turned into a forum for involved editors to repeat their RfC !votes (some more tactfully than others). However, at the end of the day, we're all a bunch of volunteer editors doing what we think is best for the wiki. As nicely described by IP 24.246.2.244:

This entire discussion has been a slog. These visual overhaul discussions always are - people screaming into the void because that's the only way to restore useful features and/or to get their accessibility needs met, people screaming at the people screaming into the void because they don't want their similar gains lost, people glibly summing every argument up as some general sentiment about change that ought to be trampled over, and people ignoring everything everyone else says, all while we're at the mercy of the whims of distant decision-makers.

Thanks for listening to my rant, Cessaune [talk] 03:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

As someone who !voted "overturn", if you think the close was reasonable you should vote to endorse, even if you disagree. That's the standard, and it's a big part of why many of the overturn votes are saying that the close was unreasonable or bad faith.

(If you only think the close's outcome was reasonable but not the reasoning you should say that more clearly. That distinction does matter here, although IMO it's somewhat splitting hairs.) Loki (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I only think that the outcome was reasonable, but the reasoning was flawed. That's why I would like to overturn. Cessaune [talk] 03:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep closed not so much because this was a sterling example of RFC closure (how could it be with such an RFC to close), and definitely not because I participated on the side the closer chose (although I did) but because re-opening it now is unlikely to lead to any less of a mess of an RFC or any more of a constructive outcome. We need to sit back, wait maybe six months, and (may I suggest) actually try this skin, as editors, rather then kneejerk reacting based only on the fact that it's not the same as the skin we've grown comfortable with over so many years (monobook, in my case). Only then can we have an informed opinion about which ways the skin is better or worse and whether reverting the default or improving or working around the remaining bugs is the better path. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Am I missing something? This only looks like having someone else close the thing instead, not reopening the RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  If the only question is whether the RFC should have been closed as it was as a "no consensus" or as some other outcome, then endorse close. It was very obviously not a consensus. See Consensus decision-making. Consensus means general agreement, not hundreds of people on one side outvoting hundreds more people on another side. There can be outliers, or people whose contributions were discounted for making weak arguments, but those conditions largely did not apply in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close, per several of the comments above. It was a reasonable close, with the reasoning clearly presented and justified. I agree with the comments by several others above, particularly HouseBlaster. I am unimpressed by the arguments based on simple numerical counts; we don't want closers to be pushed towards simple vote counting to close discussions. Interpreting the worth of an argument is what they are supposed to do. I also agree that for this to pass a strong consensus would have been needed -- we can't whiplash on major issues like this; there has to be clear consensus that wouldn't change if ten or twenty users changed their minds. So something more than a simple majority of votes was required in any case. The same applies to an overturn of the close. I also understand the frustration of those who !voted to rollback with arguments that overturning the close would be a timesink and disruptive, but it is true it would absorb a great deal of time and energy and probably not change anything. It was a difficult close, but I think it did what was needed, and we should not reopen the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well more than a simple majority supported. If you exclude canvassed votes, support was 64%-36%, with 159 more users supporting rollback than opposing; certainly more than 10 or 20. Toa Nidhiki05 12:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that was carelessly phrased on my part. I'll say it a different way: things like AfD can be closed one or another when the consensus is not very strongly in one direction, because it's not very disruptive to reverse it. RfAs require a supermajority for more than one reason, but one of those reasons is that giving the admin bit is not a decision you want to flip-flop on; we need to be absolutely clear the community supports it. A supermajority helps guarantee that. This RfC would have been enormously disruptive if it had passed. I understand the proponents of the rollback feel that the disruption would have been worth it, but to make that call with anything other than a very clear consensus would have been a dereliction of duty on the part of the closer. Along with the other points the closer made I think we were not close to the strong consensus this would have required. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'm disappointed but not surprised to see this. Before I !vote above, I have a question about venue: why is this at AN? This was not an admin-only RfC; any discussion like this, if we have to have it, should have the same constituency as the original discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  All RfC close reviews take place at AN. I have no objection to it being advertised more widely, or to the participants in the RfC being notified (perhaps through a MassMessage, given that IP's can't receive pings, and because pinging that many editors would be difficult). A list of editors who contributed to the discussion can be found here; I believe, but cannot guarantee, that it is complete. BilledMammal (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I'm unsure where I lie on the core question. But a number of the issues are valid considerations (and, at a minimum, should be answered in how they didn't affect the end-outcome, should any close-closer be reading this in the future). For clarity, I specifically rebut any editor who argues that the WMF's more recent CONEXCEPT use renders this discussion moot. Point 4, in particular, I think has some validity with substantive impact. A comparable example of a much smaller (if still well attended) discussion could be the update to the padlocks we use to show protection levels. That did factor them in. For a reclose to not occur, each point either has to have consensus that it just doesn't exist, or that it does exist, but together with the others didn't have significant net impact. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• @North8000: I'm not sure what you mean by the close treated it as if there was only one and your subsequent reasoning. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'll use imaginary numbers to (over)simplify/illustrate and yes I know it's not a vote. Let's say that 65% is a consensus, and that 40% wanted 2022 and 60% wanted 2010. If you treated it as two choices, the finding would be that there was a preference for 2010. If you treat it as one choice (2010) and say that that a consensus is needed to pick 2010, then you are saying that the 40% wins by default because the 60% failed to achieve 65%.North8000 (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  If you exclude the canvassed votes - and you should - then the RfC either was a 62%-34% majority (including neutrals) or 64%-36% majority (excluding neutrals) in favor of rollback. Both of these results are decisive supermajorities. Toa Nidhiki05 12:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  So no one opposed to the new skin was canvassed to the discussion? 331dot (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  No evidence of such canvassing was found; there was no abnormal spikes in support !voters, and no disclosure of off-wiki outreach was provided. It's not impossible, but without any evidence we should not assume that it took place, and nor should we use the possibility that it took place as "both sides" argument to ignore the proven canvassing of oppose !voters. BilledMammal (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia policy says we need to assume good faith. Like BilledMammal said: do you have any evidence that Support votes were canvassed? If not, there is no reason to assume they were. On the other hand, we know for a fact that votes for Oppose were canvassed, along with roughly how many that was. The number is large enough to have a statistically significant impact. Toa Nidhiki05 13:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, but the reason we know is that it was disclosed/discovered. Most canvassing isn't. Valereee (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Arguing we should ignore canvassing because maybe someone might have canvassed on the other side (even though there’s no evidence) is a novel argument. It’s also a terrible one that would set a terrible precedent. Toa Nidhiki05 14:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  It was identified prior to being disclosed; being disclosed, by one of the canvassed individuals to ArbCom, merely added additional evidence, and showed that a WMF employee was behind it.

  I don't understand your overall point here; we shouldn't care about this canvassing because it is possible other canvassing took place, even though we have no evidence of it? BilledMammal (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, sorry for not being clear. We shouldn't assume there wasn't canvassing simply because no one confessed or discovered it. That's all, face value, not an argument there was. Valereee (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  We absolutely should not assume there was canvassing, unless there is evidence. I am honestly baffled you are trying to argue this. "Let's ignore actual, mass off-wiki canvassing because of hypothetical canvassing I've imagined" is not a good argument. It comes off to me as a clear attempt to sweep an actual case of mass canvassing under the rug. There is evidence that around 30 users were canvassed off-wiki to oppose overturning; there is no evidence that any support votes were canvassed. Stop trying to equivocate the two. Toa Nidhiki05 14:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I literally said that it was not an argument that there was. Valereee (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, you can say what you want, but you simply cannot say "well we don't have any proof there wasn't canvassing". Can you at least agree that proving a negative in this case is impossible? Toa Nidhiki05 15:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Of course. Valereee (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  So the views of those that seem to have been canvassed must be totally discounted? 331dot (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. Toa Nidhiki05 15:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why? Why should their opinion not count at all? I can understand it counting less, but not totally discounted. That's utterly wrong. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Because canvassing subverts consensus; it brings in a non-neutral group of editors whose presence will distort the result. The only way to correct this is to exclude their !votes. Further, failing to exclude them will encourage canvassing, as we will be permitting it to influence the result even when caught. BilledMammal (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, you are entitled to your views. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry: In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Both approaches are endorsed by policy. In practice, they are usually disregarded entirely when they would be a deciding factor. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I remember checking "what links here" during the RfC and finding notices placed at Talk:Donald Trump among other odd places. Not exactly canvassing, but clearly an attempt to reach readers rather than editors. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm curious: what is the outcome you're hoping will be achieved here, BilledMammal, such that it's worth advertising this more widely (following the thread with Mike Christie above), and potentially taking up another massive amount of time and energy? Is the idea that if only it were closed properly, the WMF would reverse course and apologize? Is it just to be on the record (yet another record) with "a lot of us don't like this"? The self-evident wikivirtue of an accurate summary, regardless of any other real outcome? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily support advertising this more widely, but I also don't oppose it if editors believe it is worth doing - I see Soni has already notified WP:VPP.

  My desired result is for the close to reflect what I believe the consensus of the discussion is, to rollback to Vector2010, and for the WMF to respect the result of that discussion. I don't know if they will but the fact that they respected the consensus at the banners RfC, despite the significant expense of doing so, gives me hope. BilledMammal (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• This discussion was created without actually informing the closers about it. I have rectified the same. Pinging @BilledMammal: so you remember policy in future. Soni (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  ? BilledMammal (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Seems like Soni owes an apology here. Toa Nidhiki05 15:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  There were two closers, and you are required to inform both. Soni (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  You're right, I forgot about Ingenuity, who has my apologies - thank you for notifying them. However, your comment suggests that I forgot to issue the notification in general, rather than forgetting that there were multiple closers. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  We're now at semantics than policy, so I'm going to stop replying here. WP:AN has a policy (or is it a guideline? I'm actually uncertain) to inform everyone a discussion is about; that wasn't properly met. I wanted to rectify it and note accordingly, so I did that. I did not intend on implying anything more or less, apologies if my wording seems to do so. Soni (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• A lot of !voters were in involved in the RfC. The participants in this discussion !voted as follows:
  • BilledMammal supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • starship.paint supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • 331dot opposed rollback (!voted endorse)
  • Toa Nidhiki05 supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • Æo supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • Valereee uninvolved (!voted endorse)
  • North8000 supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • Aaron Liu opposed rollback (!voted endorse & rewrite closure)
  • TheresNoTime involved (!voted endorse)
  • dwadieff opposed rollback (!voted endorse)
  • Silverseren uninvolved (!voted overturn)
  • ValarianB supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • WaltClipper opposed rollback (!voted endorse)
  • Awesome Aasim opposed rollback (!voted endorse)?
  • MarioJump83 uninvolved (!voted endorse)
  • Soni opposed rollback (!voted endorse)
  • BeanieFan11 supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • Randy Kryn supported rollback (!voted fix problems)
  • Tvx1 supported rollback (!voted overturn)
  • DFlhb opposed rollback (!voted endorse)
  I myself opposed rollback. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  And what are folks supposed to make of this list? dwadieff ✉ 16:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  @dwadieff, almost everyone who opposed rollback endorses the closure, and likewise almost everyone who supported rollback wants the closure overturned. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  ....and Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia. dwadieff ✉ 16:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  This discussion is really just a rehash of the RfC. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  No it isn't. Comments here deal with the close. Tvx1 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Doesn't matter, not a vote either way. The arguments made here will be distinct from the ones in the RFC and judged on their own merits. small jars tc 20:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  WaltClipper was involved; they voted "Inhumanly strong oppose", and other conflicts beyond participating directly !voting exist with some of the other editors; TNT has appropriately declared theirs in this discussion. I largely agree with dwadieff's implication that lists like this are not, however, helpful. BilledMammal (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC) The preceding comment was updated after this comment was made; when this comment was made both WaltClipper and TNT were listed as "Uninvolved" BilledMammal (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Meh, I wouldn't call it not helpful. Valereee (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I feel like using this list to putting a "(this user voted Oppose/Support on the original RFC)" in small text just after any involved undeclared !votes would be helpful for following along the review. I do not know how contentious that would be, so will let someone else decide if they want to do that. Soni (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  And what's that supposed to achieve? dwadieff ✉ 16:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Easier parsing and following along the review, like I said. Involved !votes are supposed to be given lesser weightage in any discussion. Noting the involved comments would make that easier. Your mileage may vary though, but I found this list helpful enough to suggest that Soni (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  No they shouldn't. Comments that are merely another response to the original discussion should be given weight. Any comment that properly deals with the review close should be given it's due weight. Tvx1 17:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wasn't the rollback RFC the largest RFC in Wikipedia history? So many were involved. Now, with this discussion, even more are involved. Furthermore, those who wanted to rollback -> overturn, and those who wanted to retain -> endorse.... duh? Surely this was expected? starship.paint (exalt) 16:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The involvement in the original RfC doesn't matter that much because regardless of whether they participated in the RfC, everyone has an opinion on the skins. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't, actually. I tried the new skin, it was fine, but a script I use all the time doesn't work there yet so I changed back to the old skin. I really have no opinion. Valereee (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I found it nominally irritating so changed it back. Really not an issue for me. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Right, and why is that standard would not be applicable for votes/involvement in the rollback RfC? dwadieff ✉ 16:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  If the RfC was more typical, you're less likely to have an opinion. This RfC is concerned with a very integral part of the whole website. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really care what happens, it just feels like this has been discussed endlessly at this point to the point where I don't even know where I fall in this discussion. Initially I was opposed and then I Tried it out for a bit and got used to it, but then went back after seeing so many people upset. And now here we are again with people debating over whether it should be default or not. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Kommentar I find it very disappointing that editors endorsing the close or otherwise arguing to keep it closed have, with a small number of exceptions, essentially made an WP:ILIKEIT vote, rather than attempting to express any argument for why the close was proper in the face of the detailed issues that have been presented related to it. It is even more disappointing that many of these editors haven't even tried to assert that the close was proper. BilledMammal (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is how I expected things would go, to be honest. I agree it's disappointing, though. I recognize that not everyone can immediately articulate why they find the closure reasonable (i.e., why the appeal's arguments are unpersuasive), but it would be nice if they tried. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, by the very argument of those above endorsing the close saying it's not about numbers, the closer of this discussion should outright ignore any Endorse Close votes that don't put forth any reasoning (which is basically 100% of them at the moment), right? Silverseren^C 21:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely. If we're using the same logic as the original close, "It's time to move on", "I like the close", and perhaps most hilariously, "I'd need 80% to consider this a consensus" are simply not adequate, reasoned responses here. 80% is a standard I don't think I've ever seen applied to an RfC; it's pure goalpost shifting now that it's clear that the margin is closer to 2:1 than 3:2. Toa Nidhiki05 23:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727: I believe what you're doing is similar to asking endorsers to prove a negative. If I had to put my specific thoughts into words, I'd say I land roughly close to what @Ivanvector: (sorry for ping) said here. I understand that you would have closed things differently because of the reasons specified above, but am not convinced that the close itself was faulty to the extent that Close Review requires, per policy. There is a significant gap between "I can see someone else closing more in line with the 5 points raised above" and "The fact that this RFC's closers did not do so is a big blunder".

Which is a lot of words to just repeat my initial !vote calling the close "fair and understandable". A reasonable closer "could" come to this conclusion, and that's the yardstick I used. Hope that helps. Soni (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Soni: I don't mind, but if you want to refer to someone but don't want to ping them, you can use {{noping}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I often like to ping people if I'm talking something specifically about them/something they said instead of generically. I just wanted to be polite just in case you didn't want pings for people citing you. (Thanks for the template note though, I will remember that) Soni (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not expecting endorsers to prove a negative, any more than it is expecting oppose !voters at an RM to prove a negative; it's expecting endorsers to rebut an argument, rather than making a bare assertion that the close was reasonable - and in many cases in this discussion, not even that assertion has been made. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What BilledMammal said. So far, I feel like the only endorsers to seriously engage with the overturners' arguments are HouseBlaster and Mike Christie. Most others have either complained this is a waste of time (which, if that's truly all you think, just don't comment; this doesn't need to be a waste of your time) or said they wouldn't have closed it this way but don't think it's bad enough to overturn, which IMO speaks volumes. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I am not sure what reopening and reclosing would achieve. The WMF has clearly stated they do not intend to follow the current close, much as the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deployment of Vector (2022) was not followed. Community input has been thorough, the response to it is clear. A new close would take up more community time, and I see no indication it would affect the response. CMD (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  The WMF might chose to ignore us, but they also might not. The banners result gives me hope that they won't. If nothing else, this discussion needs to be reclosed in a way that excludes the canvassed !voters, to avoid suggesting to the WMF that the way to handle any disputes they have with us is to canvass editors to it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  While I agree that the canvassing should have been addressed, I do not believe it to be a fair suggestion that the WMF will come away with the idea that they should canvass editors to en.wiki RfCs. They acted promptly to inform both ARBCOM and the community of the matter. CMD (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  My understanding of what happened is that the ArbCom was informed of the canvassing by a third party; they then issued an ultimatum to the WMF, informing them that if they did not inform the community of this by a certain date ArbCom would do so. Given that the WMF only informed the community after this ultimatum was issued I am less than impressed with the WMF's actions in relation to this. BilledMammal (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have diffs proving any of this? There's some serious deducing here that the diffs I found have not supported. There were some strange votes, those votes were noticed and pointed out on the talk page, WMF noticed the mails and informed the community of it and thanked Arbcom for pointing the issue to them (WMF), and promised to keep Arbcom informed about it all. Best I can tell, there's nothing else implying anything about the communication between WMF and Arbcom, except for an editor commenting about how Arbcom did not bring this up to the community.

If there's any Arbcom communique on this I missed, please do link it. Otherwise this is making up arguments that do not exist. I can see multiple understandable reasons for an internal Arbcom to WMF communication on this, starting from the simplest "Hey can someone look into this, thanks". (If any sitting arbs want to comment on this, that's the easiest clarification, obviously) Soni (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have diffs either, but I do remember a member of ArbCom saying this, though not at the RfC itself; it was somewhere else. I think maybe it was CaptainEek? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom's involvement was a bit more than "there's been some strange vote patterns, you should look into this WMF". ArbCom received detailed information about the canvassing. ArbCom, after some fast but extensive discussion, decided to inform the foundation about the canvassing, encouraged them to share this with the community themselves rather than have us do it, and asked for more information with-in 24-48 hours. With-in an hour we'd received a "we're looking into this" email. 15 hours later we got a reply acknowledging and agreeing that there was an issue here, acknowledged that this had been done without foundation sanction or previous knowledge (in other words our email was the first the foundation as an entity found out about it) and were asked by the foundation if they could have 2 days to prepare their message to the community. ArbCom agreed and less than 2 days later the message was posted. As the foundation was fully transparent with the community there was nothing for ArbCom to add so we never released a statement. I hope that answers the question here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is still going on? Can you imagine if a tenth of the effort expended here had been expended at, say, WP:GAN? We'd have cleared the backlog in a week! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• For God's sake, now people are suggesting sanctioning the closers? Don't we think that would make any reasonable editor decide never to attempt a difficult close again? That would leave us with the most difficult closes being made by the least reasonable editors. Good thinking, that's definitely what we should be going for here. Valereee (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  The suggestion has been widely shut down by both endorse and overturn !votes. No one really agrees with the idea. Cessaune [talk] 12:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think I see one person (you) questioning it -- and the OP doubling down in their answer -- and one (besides me) disagreeing. But at least no one else has taken up that particular pitchfork. Valereee (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  THey should. It's not something that is necessary here. Cessaune [talk] 14:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  There is no chance the closers will be sanctioned, the idea is obviously ridiculous. I saw no reason to comment saying so. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Amarnath Vidyalankar

I semiprotected Amarnath_Vidyalankar Could someone check my work? Feel free to modify as needed. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing jumps out at me, DFO. Was there something in particular you thought needed more eyes? Valereee (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Valereee. I was not sure that it did not need ECP. Started with minimum after being pinged back. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah! To me it looks like there may be some non-EC editors who are making valid edits, so I'd agree start with AC. I've put it on my watch, too. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, @Deepfriedokra, missed seeing the ping. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

View a deleted item

Was Jarvisburg, North Carolina an article or just a redirect; and if an article, what was in it? Be sure to check the talk page for information.

Background — I deleted this eleven years ago, and someone just left a message on my talk about it. Since I was inactive for a couple of years, I lost my admin rights and haven't gotten around to requesting them back. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Self-confessed prank, per creator comment on deleted talk page. Courcelles (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  And it was an “article”. A copyvio, at that. Courcelles (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

A user adding external promotional links...

A user frequently adding promotional links in various sports related articles inspite of warning him. It seems the he is adding links of his website to generate traffic. Evid - [20] Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for Repeal of Topic Ban for 3Kingdoms

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning 3Kingdoms

Appealing user

3Kingdoms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 3Kingdoms (talk)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban on Arab-Israeli conflict [21]

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction

Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Newslinger (talk)

Notification of that editor

[22]

• Administrative note - I've removed the formal diff/word cap/reviewing admin rules, as they don't actually apply when AN is used as the appeal venue for an AE sanction. I have prior administrative involvement with the editor, but no INVOLVE-breaching aspects, afaik. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Statement by 3Kingdoms

When I was topic-banned from this area, I was in the wrong. Regardless of how I felt about my edits I let myself engage in edit warring and impolite discussion. I believe that over that last 10 months I have shown my ability to not do that sort of behavior. Instead, I have worked with other editors in discussing disagreements and solving issues. I believe that I can engage in this topic without issue. If people are not sure, I will happily accept a 0rr for 3 months on this topic to show my commitment. Thank you and have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Weak support - I was one of the admins who unblocked this editor in the past, after edit-warring issues (post this TBAN, at that). At the time, it was a distinctly ROPE unblock, that I only went for because the editor had some good activity elsewhere. Nevertheless, they complied with the 0RR and 1RR general timed restrictions in a highly positive fashion. So, why weak? Well, 3kingdoms continues to have more noise as an editor than we'd really like - a significant number of warnings on their talk page for various issues. However, their communication in them has been well improved over the complete failure that saw this TBAN and pre-block warnings. As an editor with a generally positive direction, I think a removing of the TBAN (whether entirely or to 0RR) is in line with our ethos. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Would like to replace old stub article with mine

Hey,

Ive made from scratch what I think is a well researched article that I would like to replace the original article with (which is a stub).

How do I go about doing that? Naeim9146 (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nautilus Minerals is not a stub. Even if it were, you wouldn't be allowed to "replace" it. You can edit the article and replace its text with yours and hope that nobody objects to you changing the whole article in a single edit. Assuming you've done good work, they might not. Note in the edit summary that your edit merges your personal draft to the article. See WP:MERGE. And please use the Teahouse for these sort of questions going forward. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Naeim9146 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Editor keeps reverting edits / Possibly has COI

Please check recent edits for Jason Maza and discussion on it's Talk page. There was a prior discussion on the COI Noticeboard and @whatamIdoing stepped in and resolved and suggested verbiage to use. I personally agreed to this verbiage, so we have 2 people that have agreed and we got one user @Chichickov going against the majority and she keeps reverting it back. She also has a SPA account and possibly is a UPE. I have now revised the article back. Maybe the page can be protected? 24.234.239.100 (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Chichickov hasn't edited since March 21. Why bring this now?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Closure review for Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German

Several editors at User talk:Sennalen#Closure at Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German have expressed dissatsifcation with my closure at Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German#Name of suspect. It has been suggested that it constitutes a WP:SUPERVOTE, but I do not agree with that assessment. I do not wish to withdraw a closure in which I have confidence at the request of involved editors, but a closure without the confidence of the community could lead to further discord, so I'm requesting additional input. Sennalen (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this Sennalen. I have no doubt that the closure was done in good faith, but it does seem to me outside the range of reasonable closes--that said, I have dipped in and out of this topic for some time, so I question my own objectivity. Happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I commented at one of the two times this was at BLP/N, and when it was at ANI just recently. I didn't even realise this was still under discussion at the article talk page, it shouldn't have been. Given the opposition it has faced at locations of broader scope the close should probably be undone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion in question was related to a user behavior, and this is related to a consensus. You were involved in the other discussion related to user behavior and I believe are not able to be impartial regarding this, respectfully.

~~~ Awshort (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A dozen editors at multiple locations have come out against this, and local consensus at a talk page cannot override a more general one. The ANI discussion was about behaviour, but many editors there dismissed you concerns because they believed the other editor was acting correctly by excluding the name. The BLP/N discussions were also against naming the individual. The fact you continue with this is well into WP:IDHT territory. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The fact I continue with what? When a consensus isn't clear, a third party usually needs to rule. I requested that before I posted about what I perceived as stonewalling on ANI. You made my complaint more focused on the BLP issue, and essentially dismissed the rest as 'It's a BLP issue.', or similar. I hadn't posted on the talk page since before the ANI discussion, but a consensus was never determined and every attempt to edit the page with a name by any user said a consensus had to be reached first. I'm not allowed to voice an opinion once it is ruled on?

A fair consensus should be able to be achieved and not stopped by page reverts due to "no consensus", while not actively trying to find any sort of compromise. As I stated before, I respectfully don't think you can offer an unbiased opinion due to our previous encounter which wasn't great.

Awshort (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The background here is that I responded to a closure request at Wikipedia:Closure requests indicating an issue had been open for 145 days. After reviewing discussions at the article talk page and BLP/N, I determined there had been a consensus to name the suspect. There was not unanimity of course, but I did not find a strong policy-based argument against naming. "BLPCRIME is a policy," is not a policy-based argument without considering what the text of that policy says and means. Fuller reasoning is behind the links at the start of the section.

I was not aware of a related discussion at ANI, but having reviewed it now, it doesn't contain anything that would change my assessment of the content dispute. In light of that additional context though, it seems to have been unwise for Awshort to request closure after having been warned of forum shopping, although to be fair, much of that was due to admins telling him to take things to other venues. Sennalen (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your close per WP:SUPERVOTE before stumbling upon this discussion. Anyhow, I stand by my revert. As I read it, you did not summarise the discussion and the various points raised, and weigh them against each other and against the policy. Instead, you penned down your thoughts about the subject matter.

Firstly and foremostly, you did not show that there was a WP:CONSENSUS amongst editors for this option. Let's keep in mind that where there's no clear-cut consensus, discussions are normally closed as "No consensus".

Your willingness to help is very much appreciated, but given the age of your account, don't you think it'd be safer to start with less contentious topics? — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri I believe that Sennalen is a fresh start account, so in fact this editor is much more experienced than their edit history on this account indicates. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri I would highly suggest adding the decision back and letting someone who was not involved in both the talk page discussion, as well as previously removing the contested content [23] decide on what to do, considering this seems extremely biased on your part.

Per [24]

Inappropriate closures

A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations:

1. The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved with the exception of closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep when all other viewpoints expressed were for keeping as well.

Also,

What to do with supervotesbearbeiten

1. If you believe that a closure reflects the closer's own opinion instead of consensus, civilly ask the closer to revert their closure and !vote by their preferences. As closing deletion discussions is an administrative action, closers, administrator or non-administrator, are subject to the administrators' accountability policy, and must explain all closes when questioned. Be careful not to skip this step, or treat it as a mere formality.

You went straight to reverting it, which also doesn't follow the policy.

Awshort (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, this section exists because of a civil discussion on Sennalen's talk page, which caused them to (graciously) open discussion here. For me, that satisfies the process, but to each his or her own. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Dumuzid asked for my opinion on this close on my talk page, but this close review was opened before I had responded, so I'm giving my two cents here instead.

First, Kashmiri reverting the close was improper. I have undone that reversion. The edit summary said "This was not an RfC, so there can be no "closing".", and of course that is not our way: non-RFC discussions get "closed" literally every day on this website. That a closed discussion wasn't an RfC is absolutely no grounds to revert a close. Also, even if Kashmiri thinks it was a super vote, reverting during a close review is not how we handle things. The close stays until/unless there is consensus to overturn it. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for proper methods of close challenge. "Revert the close" isn't one of them and I see no grounds to IAR it in the middle of a close review.

Second, I just looked at the October and January BLPNs, and the February ANI (sorry I'm on mobile so no links), and I don't see any consensus, and very little participation in those threads--I think there was more discussion on the article talk page than all three noticeboard threads combined. So I don't see those noticeboard threads as establishing any kind of global consensus on the issue. (If I've missed a noticeboard thread, then obviously that would change things, so apologies if that's the case.)

Third, I fundamentally agree with the closer's point that simply citing BLPCRIME, as if BLPCRIME prohibits naming a suspect, is not a policy-based argument. I see several editors who appear to take that position--that BLPCRIME is an actual prohibition. It's not, by the plain reading of the page. BLPCRIME allows Wikipedia to name crime suspects, and thousands of articles do just that. BLPCRIME says to "seriously consider" omitting it, to "prefer" omitting it in certain cases, but it is not an absolute prohibition. So it's OK for editors to argue that the name should, or shouldn't, be included. We need reasons beyond "BLPCRIME!"

Fourth, regarding a comment above, I don't think we can accuse an editor of IDHT when, at least for the moment, consensus is on the editor's side, because of this close.

Fifth, I was generally disappointed by how few sources were discussed in all these discussions. Some editors did list sources, but really, that whole discussion needed to be about collecting and analyzing top RS and seeing exactly how widespread the publishing of the name was. In my view, not enough of this was done. (Not that I did anything to help of course :-) )

Sixth, it's probably a serious BLP violation to suggest, as I've seen done in the course of these discussions, that this murder had anything to do with sexual crimes or pedophilia unless that's what the sources say. (I'm not sure if they do, I haven't done much research of this topic, but our article doesn't seem to mention that with regard to these murders.)

Finally and most importantly, it looks like that discussion didn't have an RFC tag at any point. It wasn't an RfC. Also, it didn't have an WP:RFCNEUTRAL statement and I'm guessing no WP:RFCBEFORE. I'm not sure that the OP even intended their comment to become an RfC or a talk page proposal that would get voted on. (Again, if I'm wrong about that, it would change my analysis.)

And that leads me to an unusual conclusion: overturn to procedural close for lack of following WP:RFC, and launch a new RFC. I don't think the closer really got it wrong or supervoted, but I think the discussion was procedurally deficient, it was local consensus and what we need is more like global consensus. So I'd say run an RfC with a neutral statement and an RFC tag, and hopefully there will be more source analysis in the RfC. (The closer could consider revising their close to this, if they think it's a good idea.) Keep the name out until/unless a proper RfC determines otherwise because "seriously consider", in this case with differing views on the talk page, means having a proper RfC. I don't think this talk page discussion counts as "seriously consider" because of the lack of RfC tag and source examination.

Sorry this was so long, it was complicated. I don't think the closer did anything wrong here (and thanks for opening the review), but I think a do-over is in order given the sensitive BLP nature of this content dispute. Levivich (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I find this somewhat compelling. Discussions other than RfCs can be closed by request, but an unstructured discussion lends itself to a unstructured gestalt summary of consensus. While standing by my reading of the discussions so far, an RfC would deprecate the outcome of the close. I would recommend against the RfC being posed by Awshort or kasmiri. Sennalen (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

IMO the closure does not actually take into account the arguments against inclusion that were indeed made, both on the talk page and on the other boards, which were accepted by most commentators, for example: It involves the murder of children (likely with a sexual motive) which is also highly emotive. These are precisely the types of case where we need to take the suggestion in BLPCRIME about being cautious seriously. Not including the name does not detract from the article, while including it could prove problematic. When non-inclusion does not detract from the article, it is best to err on the side of caution in cases involving child victims. and BLPCRIME exists to protect innocent people, not just those who are suspected or even charged with crimes. We need to consider the impact the naming of a suspect my have just not on that individual's life but also on the lives of others. So to say that the argument for non-inclusion is simply that BLPCRIME exists is simply not true. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lard Almighty, (1) Sennalen never confirmed theirs is a CLEANSTART account, even when explicitly asked on their Talk[25]. It appears they didn't even understand the question. So, also seeing the number of warnings on their Talk, I'm assuming that they are a relatively new editor. (2) Their close does not even attempt to summarise the various points raised in the discussion, it also fails to demonstrate that there was any sort of consensus; instead, it consists of Sennalen's own reading of two policies. It's SUPERVOTE plain and simple. (3) To state clearly, I hadn't seen this present discussion before reverting, as nobody bothered to link to it from article Talk. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have misinterpreted the word "yes". Sennalen (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• The closing statement does appear to be a supervote. Valereee (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• I concur that the discussion should be reopened. The closing statement does appear to introduce new opinions rather than being a clear summary of the discussion; as such I suggest we move the closing statement to the bottom of the thread and re-open the thread for someone else to close. I think that Sennalen acted in good faith with their (albeit flawed) understanding of the ways discussions are supposed to be assessed and closed. I think moving their statement to the bottom of the thread and reopening the discussion is the lowest drama way forward here. --Jayron32 13:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• My suggestion is to reclose as a procedural close (using Template:Discussion top) and start a neutrally worded RfC, per Levivich. —Alalch E. 14:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here, I have withdrawn the close. I have left a comment summarizing the rationale of the close, which were based on the prior arguments, and not my own arguments or preferences. I considered some sort of reclose that endorsed an RfC, but that would have actually been a supervote. Sennalen (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

help cleaning up mangled citations

Hi folks,

For at least the past few months, user:Philoserf has been running the script User:BrandonXLF/ReferenceExpander on many hundreds or perhaps thousands of pages, and then committing the suggested changes under the edit summary message "Expanding bare references using ReferenceExpander". Some of these changes are more or less fine, but after skimming a few dozen of them, it turns out that a significant proportion (my guess is at least a quarter) end up removing useful information from one or more of the references modified, as well as sometimes adding irrelevant information. Probably the worst type of change is when one footnote previously included several citations but the script got confused and removed all but one of them. But there are several other types of problematic edits, such as URLs exchanged for wrong replacements (in some cases apparently due to link-rotted originals); explicit quotations from the reference removed; titles and authors modified without justification; translations of titles into English removed; and explanatory commentary/context removed.

I reverted a handful of such changes, but I would guess there are at least hundreds that need to be fully or partially reverted or else carefully manually fixed. I don't personally have the bandwidth to read through all of these changes carefully and revert every one which was mangled in one way or another. Here's a list of the most recent 500 main namespace contributions if anyone wants to take a look.

What I'm wondering here is if there's any way to gather together a group of volunteers to go check through these. I imagine if each person takes just a few dozen we could probably get through them relatively painlessly; for just one person it would take days of work.

Anway, I am not trying to put Philoserf on the spot, shame them, get them in trouble, or the like. It seems clear that they were trying to help the project, and I think they can still be a valuable contributor. In response to my (perhaps too pushy) comments on their talk page, they blanked it with a "retirement" message. I hope my comments there (and here) don't come come across as reflecting any personal animosity. I just don't want to accidentally lose a lot of valuable notes and citations that many contributors have added over the years, based on overeager use of a flaky semi-automated tool.

Cheers. –jacobolus (t) 03:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, if you look at the user talk page history of Philoserf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), you will find many warnings about mangled citations and inaccurate information that he sometimes engaged with and other times ignored. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

My user rights, or lack thereof

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

---

If there's a passing, friendly admin who could restore them, I'd appreciate it. I gave them up cloudlessly last year, and many thanks to Barkeep49 for fulfilling my request. SN54129 13:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Erledigt. Welcome back. --Jayron32 13:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the trust, Jayron32  :) SN54129 13:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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

updating web page of a scientist

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

---

I have attempted to update the webpage of the physicist Toichiro Kinoshita, who passed away last week. This scientist played a crucial role in the development and testing of quantum electrodynamics. The current Wikipedia page is very short and focuses on irrelevant aspects of his scientific contributions, to the point of being misleading. As this is also my area of expertise, I have tried to update/correct this webpage but all of my edits have been undone by Jkaharper, who seems not to understand Kinoshita's scientific contributions and leaves little constructive comments for me to work with. I posted to Jkaharper's Talk page and received no response - thus my appeal here. Schwartzoh (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

According to what they wrote [here, they removed your edits for these reasons "1) you removed a section and its references without explanation, 2) you added a date of death to a biography of a living person without providing a source. That is a serious breach of WP:BLP. An obituary, death notice or news article must be cited for this. I strongly suggest you stop editing this article and go and read up on how to contribute first before going crazy with the editing." You then reverted them without addressing these concerns. --Jayron32 14:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Schwartzoh, it looks like the information has been updated now. Valereee (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, it appears you have never posted to that user's talk page. You should definitely have asked them directly before coming here. You also never posted to the article talk page which could also be used to resolve disputes. This is not an administrator matter. Instead, please discuss the matter with them on the article talk page if their already-given explanation is not sufficient. --Jayron32 14:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

---

• Well, to be fair, this user has 13 edits. They just ended up in the wrong place because they didn't know what to do or where to go for help. They posted to the other editors user page, not their talk. They did try. Valereee (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's still not an admin issue. Unless you think someone needs to be blocked or banned, make a proposal to do so. Otherwise, the thread above will remain closed. --Jayron32 15:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not objecting to closing it. I'm pointing out that the person was likely acting in good faith when they mistakenly showed up here for their 13th edit, and we might want to take that into account. Possibly by pinging them so they can find their way back, and inviting them to the teahouse, which I've done at their user. Valereee (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't believe I ever stated they were not acting in good faith. You're inventing things that were never done, and then objecting to your own inventions. --Jayron32 15:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say you'd said...oh, never mind. :D Valereee (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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