*:Furthermore, I want to emphasize that if there is a possibility of the topic ban being lifted, I will avoid unnecessary interactions with M.Bitton and take greater care with my words to prevent engaging in personal attacks. Moreover, I am willing to forgive and let go of all the false accusations and personal attacks directed at me by M.Bitton, even in the absence of an apology from them. In regards to handling sources, I pledge to be more diligent in ensuring their accurate representation and to avoid any misrepresentation. [[User:SimoooIX|SimoooIX]] ([[User talk:SimoooIX|talk]]) 01:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
*:Furthermore, I want to emphasize that if there is a possibility of the topic ban being lifted, I will avoid unnecessary interactions with M.Bitton and take greater care with my words to prevent engaging in personal attacks. Moreover, I am willing to forgive and let go of all the false accusations and personal attacks directed at me by M.Bitton, even in the absence of an apology from them. In regards to handling sources, I pledge to be more diligent in ensuring their accurate representation and to avoid any misrepresentation. [[User:SimoooIX|SimoooIX]] ([[User talk:SimoooIX|talk]]) 01:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
*::{{u|SimoooIX}}, here is my recommendation to you: Spend at least six months making productive edits outside the Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topic area, entirely avoiding edits in that area. Then, ask for your topic ban to be lifted. Productive editing elsewhere and waiting the full six months since the last infraction are both very important elements to a successful appeal of a topic ban. You can also work on drafting articles about Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics ''off Wikipedia'' that you can move here once your topic ban is lifted. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 19:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
*::{{u|SimoooIX}}, here is my recommendation to you: Spend at least six months making productive edits outside the Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topic area, entirely avoiding edits in that area. Then, ask for your topic ban to be lifted. Productive editing elsewhere and waiting the full six months since the last infraction are both very important elements to a successful appeal of a topic ban. You can also work on drafting articles about Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics ''off Wikipedia'' that you can move here once your topic ban is lifted. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 19:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
*:::As i've previously said, the last violation of the t-ban occurred on May 15th. [[User:SimoooIX|SimoooIX]] ([[User talk:SimoooIX|talk]]) 19:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I am writing to request an appeal of the topic-ban from Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics, broadly construed, that has been imposed on me following this ANI thread. I believe I understand the reasons for which I was sanctioned, which can be summarized as follows:
1. Engaging in personal attacks.
2. Misrepresenting sources.
3. Engaging in tendentious editing.
I would like to assure the Wikipedia community that I now fully acknowledge my mistakes. Over the past two months, I have reflected on them and actively contributed constructively in other areas. Regarding the topic ban, I have made every effort to adhere to it, but I must admit that there have been instances, after this discussion, where I violated the sanction.
For example:
- In this case, I couldn't resist the urge to revert vandalism that occurred there.
- In another instance, I added the Almoravid empire as a place of birth.
User:DanCherek has pointed out that I also violated the topic ban here and here, although I'm not entirely convinced, but it could be true. Regardless, I apologize for all of these infractions.
Dancherek suggested i wait at least 6 months before appealing this topic-ban, however I would like to mention that I currently have free time during this summer, which I intend to utilize for constructive contributions in the area that interests me the most. This opportunity won't be available to me later, so I hope you will take this into consideration. That was pretty much all what i have to say for the moment.
Oppose it has barely been a month since the OP was reminded of their numerous tban violations. They made a handful of reverts after that (in June) and spent the last 5 days reverting some edits. M.Bitton (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. The honesty displayed in this appeal is good, but I would want to see at least 6 months since the last tban violation before voting to repeal. signed, Rosguilltalk20:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Rosguill, As I mentioned earlier, I am eager to utilize the free time I currently have during this summer for constructive contributions in my area of interest. It is important to note that I won't have this opportunity later on. So i can't wait for another 4 months. (The t-ban was imposed on me almost 2 months ago). Also the most recent violation occurred on May 15th.SimoooIX (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like this summer would be a good opportunity to build up a track record of solid edits outside of north Africa to serve as the basis for a future unblock request. Wikipedia will be here next summer as well, mashallah. signed, Rosguilltalk21:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) That's a good reason for you to want the topic ban removed now; it isn't a good reason for others to want to remove it now. Do you see what I mean? Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is to have any chance of success (which, full disclosure, I don't foresee), I would suggest approaching this as an opportunity to convince people that there is some reason for them to expect that you'll behave just about opposite the way you behaved before the topic ban. What are you going to do differently? (hint: "I will not make personal attacks, misrepresent sources, or engage in tendentious editing" is not going to cut it) How will you interact with M.Bitton in the future? What will you do if M.Bitton (or anyone else) reverts one of your edits? What if someone reverts pretty much all of your edits? Do you acknowledge that it is quite possible for other people to be right and you to be wrong? So far, this kind of proforma "I was topic banned for the following reasons. I acknowledge they were mistakes. Please remove the topic ban" request is definitely not persuasive. In general, we aren't interested in allowing you to edit what you want this summer. We're interested in being confident we aren't going to have to put up with that again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, I have learned from my past mistakes. If given the chance for the topic ban to be lifted, my editing behavior will undoubtedly change in my interactions with other editors. I will make every effort to avoid the types of interactions that have been seen as problematic by the community. Additionally, I will refrain from reviving any content disputes that I was previously engaged in before the topic ban. In other words, I am willing to put the past behind us and start fresh. However, it is important for other editors to also refrain from edit warring, personal attacks, and false accusations.
Regarding your question about acknowledging the possibility of being wrong, yes, I do. I have already acknowledged my mistakes even prior to the topic ban.
Furthermore, if the topic ban were to be lifted, I have plans to expand and create articles, which I believe would be highly constructive work.
Furthermore, I want to emphasize that if there is a possibility of the topic ban being lifted, I will avoid unnecessary interactions with M.Bitton and take greater care with my words to prevent engaging in personal attacks. Moreover, I am willing to forgive and let go of all the false accusations and personal attacks directed at me by M.Bitton, even in the absence of an apology from them. In regards to handling sources, I pledge to be more diligent in ensuring their accurate representation and to avoid any misrepresentation. SimoooIX (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SimoooIX, here is my recommendation to you: Spend at least six months making productive edits outside the Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topic area, entirely avoiding edits in that area. Then, ask for your topic ban to be lifted. Productive editing elsewhere and waiting the full six months since the last infraction are both very important elements to a successful appeal of a topic ban. You can also work on drafting articles about Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics off Wikipedia that you can move here once your topic ban is lifted. Cullen328 (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: Next time you have similar issues you can't figure out, WP:VPT is the best place, not here. It's usually not the case that admin help is needed, and even if it is there are probably enough admins there to handle it. And of the problem is with a fully- or template-protected transcluded page (the most likely scenario needing admin help) and no one at VPT can help you, an edit request on the talk page is the next step. Animal lover|666|08:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you've come to the wrong place. You should discuss your issue on the talk page of the concerned article not here. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You came to the Wrong Notice board, i recommend that you discuss your issue on the talk page of the article itself and not on this noticeboard. Untamed1910 (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although there has been a recent spate of vandalism on the article Luther Vandross, I don't think this has anything to do with Wikipedia point blank. It seems to be a typical case of Google doing some crazy stuff that did not originate from us and people are coming here to complain [1]. I assume the vandalism is coming from people visiting after the Google kerfuffle. Nil Einne (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
E-Mail thing...
Can I get someone to remove my E-Mail off my user space? Thanks. My device shows it publically for any and all spammers to play with. I can't get it off. Unfriendly Aliens (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the email address at Special:Preferences, that should only be visible to you when logged in - anyone else looking at that page will see their own email address. If you have an email stored somewhere else, you'll need to tell us where you mean. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unfriendly Aliens The homepage you are looking at is private, the only person who can see it is you. Your email is private (though other editors can send you emails via wikipedia) and only you will be able to see it. If you still want to remove it go to Special:Preferences, go to the "Email options" tab and delete it. Note that if you do not have an email set you will not be able to reset your password if you forget it. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin That sounds like a excellent idea. I can't for the life of me find the discussions, but I remember seeing similar questions at either the teahouse or the help desk in the past. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one has protect notice on it. Was going to place matter on it about two unusual pens. One is that there are ink pens that have a LED light, used mainly by police on night duties w/o blowing their night vision. I've bought and used them, the other is a pen that has 10 colors of ink in one pen, and I've bought that one at Wal Mart, bought the light pen at a few Truck Stops. How can this be placed in the pen article? Thanks for the help on this and a earlier matter. These are unusual pens🥰😘🥰😘 Unfriendly Aliens (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When adding recomendations on the page 'Woman' a person with handle 'A socialist trans girl' attacked me, putting words in my mouth I never spoke, trying to demonise me. She added irrelevant topics like my IP address and that I was coming from a mobile edit etc which not only is incorrect - it has absolutely no relevance to the topir.
I like to remind you that WikiPedia is a tool from everyone for everyone; It should in no way be a tool for personal vendettas when people have different views. When you get attacked because you cite sources others don't like, the contributions will end and Wikipedia will end up with single-sided bias.
There, I stated a few reasons for me being suspicious of a potential sockpuppet, saying that the reasons are quite suspicious, but that there's no definitive proof.
You claimed I made accusations that 'you did not belong on this page'. I never said anything of that sort. Also I fail to see why you started to attack me with this IP/mobile device nonsense which totally has no truth nor relevance. We should all try to stay on topic and make the page as truthful as possible. When people attack others hoping this will empower their own narrative I feel you are at the wrong place. Wikipedia is a community. Not a solo slim site. RealHarveySpecter (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a quick look at this and to my, non-admin, eyes it looks more like a boomerang case than anything else. The only thing I can see A socialist trans Girl getting wrong here is in feeding the troll a little bit too much, a mistake which almost everybody makes at some point. Rather than engage with such unedifying and WP:NOTFORUM discourse the best thing would have been to roll it all up per NOTFORUM and WP:DENY. So what of RealHarveySpecter? He looks like an SPA. His is a recently registered account which started straight off by leaping into an existing argument on a Talk page, which always strikes me as a little suspicious. He got warned for incivility and this report seems like it might be retaliation. He has zero edits in article space and already he is causing drama on the noticeboards. Is it too early to say WP:NOTHERE? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say calling a WP:NOTHERE is justified. And I've responded to it as I wasn't sure if was trolling, and I wanted to respond to all the points to be civil and so it didn't look like I was conceding, but they just said cisgender is a slur so they are definitely trolling. I'd say do a CheckUser and do the appropriate action for a WP:NOTHERE. A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added 2 sources for my statement. 1) Elon Musk recently posted that cis is considered a slur. I also posted another article confirming that most non-trans people feel offended by it. Instead of commenting on the content you decided to attack me by dragging totally off-topic things like IP address and the false claim I was on a mobile device.
Wow. So you call me a troll? How about not attacking people? Why don't you comment on the things I said? You seem unable to do so and instead attack the person. Again; Wikipedia is a community. It does not belong to you personally. You should comment on the content; Not on the messenger. No it is not a retalliation at all. Are you saying the attacks on me are invented? I have been called a troll, I have been called 'suspicious'. You are talking more about me than about the original topic. Seems you are trying to deflect a little, no? What does the amount of edits have to do with it? THe question should be: are the things I said and the sources I added relevant. You decide not to discuss those. Instead you decide to attack me personally which I believe is a violation of your rules. I again remind you Wikipedia is not the playgarden for political or personal gain. It is a community that should write about subjects in a neutral and scientifically and factually correct way. Instead of trying to help with that, all you do is attack those who's sources you don't like. Be better! RealHarveySpecter (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For avoidance of any doubt, I am happy to clarify that by "suspicious" I did indeed mean "possibly indicative of sockpuppetry". Based on what I have seen so far, I wouldn’t go further than "possibly indicative" but a checkuser seems like a good idea. Anyway, we do not need to decide whether the above argumentation is advanced in good faith or intentional trolling. When an editor defines their own prejudices as "neutral and scientifically and factually correct" then that argues for a WP:CIR block. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added several links. I am not the one who puts personal ideas as facts. Others are. It is very clear you do not want to consider the views you may personally not like. You have not refuted any of the links I posted. I will contact administrators about this abuse of power; I have done nothing that warrants a block. I find it quite an abuse of power on your end to just play God here. You should be ashamed or yourself mate. This is a community. Not your personal vendetta site. RealHarveySpecter (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)First up, I am not an administrator. I don't get to block anybody. I make my case, as we all do, and the administrators decide.
Second up, I did not remove any of your logged in comments. All I did was roll up some unproductive sections of discussion. The only comments I actually removed where two abusive comments made anonymously. (diff here) RealHarveySpecter, are you admitting to making those comments? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have it your way people. I came here with good intentions. I am absolutely shocked by how undemocratic and hateful some of you are. I offered several links which you rarely discussed; Instead you spent more time arguing about my IP and blocking me because you clearly have nothing to bring into my arguments. It has become clear to me this is more about your personal views and self promotion than about being neutral and fair. Next you block me and accuse me of the things you do yourself. Fine. Have a nice day all and be proud of yourself for hijacking a nice community for your personal gains. I am done here. RealHarveySpecter (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well they are gone so... I don't understand why we are having such a heated silly debate honestly. We should be talking about the information, don't you agree? RealHarveySpecter (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to this edit summary, there is currently an influx of readers from The Daily Wire. They appear to have strong opinions on what the articles Woman and Girl should say, but aren't otherwise terribly interested in helping us to write an encyclopedia. – bradv13:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't for the fact that this isn't even the right noticeboard for the discussion of incidents I'd suggest a WP:BOOMERANG for this silliness. As things stand perhaps an admin can just close this? Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. THis makes no sense whatsoever. We should be talking about how to make the page the best we possibly can and have normal healthy respectful discussion. Instead of attacking people. RealHarveySpecter (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mate I don't even know what or who the daily wire is. I am located in Belgium and never heard of that. In other words, you seemed to let your prejudice get in the way of things. Second, even if people were from daily wire, does that mean their views are by default wrong? I repeatedly asked: let's stay on topic. Let's discuss how we can best define the information. None of you wanted to do so. Instead you decided to throw in whatabouttism about money and fish etc, stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with what a woman is. In all honesty I feel you should have a neutral look at what I said. Oh wait, you can't. You deleted it. Good job folks. Please reflect on your behavior. RealHarveySpecter (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you would. I don't care mate. Save yourself the trouble. I will close my account - if that's even possible - and leave. I do not want to be associated with a group of undemocratic people with a God complex. I have done nothing wrong. YOU have been attacking me. Not the other way around. RealHarveySpecter (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even though RHS may be at fault, I think it's likely that A socialist trans Girl is some kind of LTA sleeper/nothere. They have made a series of bizarre edits, including nonsense uploads to commons [2], as well as extremely large additions to their sandbox. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does that even mean, Hemiauchenia? The prior account name that they were uploading things from is directly page-moved to their current name (apparently because they didn't want Russia in their name after the war started). And I'm going to make a guess, since they have 6 userboxes on their page, that the 6 image uploads back in November was them trying to upload their userboxes or something? Clearly not relevant to Commons, hence why the uploads were deleted, but I don't see how that makes someone a "LTA sleeper/nothere" account in any fashion. Could you please elaborate on what you're talking about? SilverserenC02:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors with long periods of inactivity who then dive headfirst into very contentious topic areas and discussions is imo very suspicious. It's not a smoking gun, but it means that their activities should be closely monitored. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the uploads to commons had nonsense names, but since they are deleted we can only speculate about the content and purpose, although they were deleted as nonsense. The large sandbox additions seem to be intended to work on articles. Can you link to some of the edits you consider bizarre? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Range block not working?
Hi, I spotted and reverted some vandalism from an anonymous user that they'd done earlier today, but when I looked at their contributions page it says they're blocked as part of a 2-year range block that started 2 days ago - see Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:D543:1400:E039:3E75:2DEC:9D50 - so shouldn't have been able to make those edits today. Am I missing something? WaggersTALK11:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be closed as no-consensus already? Discussion has been going on for over two weeks now. This is wasting valuable time from us at WP:WPWIR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}11:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A note that Headbomb is one of the more vociferous commenters in the discussion he would like to have closed as no consensus. IznoPublic (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From "Instructions - Initiating a review" above: "Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action." I don't see where you did that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a direct quote from the instructions, which were developed thru consensus. And, if you read it again, it is clearly not making the admin a "gatekeeper" for the review. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but. To you or me, talking to the sysop who performed the action seems like the normal and courteous thing to do, and particularly when it's a sysop as kindly, approachable and helpful as Daniel is. But to an inexperienced editor, the sysop will seem like a hostile authority figure who's performed actions they see as arbitrary and capricious. A requirement to talk to the sysop might well seem onerous and offputting. I see those instructions as a best practice recommendation for experienced editors, not an AN/I style mandatory thou shalt do this.—S MarshallT/C20:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the policy changed, it would require an RFC, not an ad hoc discussion in one case. This only serves to muddy the waters on THIS case, which should follow existing policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, I'm afraid that nothing on this page is policy. It's a new process where norms are still being established and we ought to be able to make reasoned changes after reasoned discussion without the need for a formal 30 day process.—S MarshallT/C07:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, the history shows that that range had already been blocked three times before, for lengthy periods of time, in the years before. Second, many of the edits on the day I blocked it just over a year ago had been reverted—I am guessing someone had reported the range to AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but 6 months to a year -- not 3! Anyhow I think you need to fix the block summary. The link is missing a right bracket and putting a {{rangeblock}} should make it more understandable with instructions. To be honest, I'm more inclined to AGF if this issue persisted over the past few days or months but often these guys disappear after six of them as shown in the length of time that passed between the first two in the log. Shim119 (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the block log, prior to Daniel's block the previous block was 2 years long, starting in March of 2020, as a CU block. Daniel's extension to 3 years makes sense as it was the same behavior on the range that led to the previous block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This should be addressed on the admin talk page, and then if there is still a problem, taken to AN where more people with experience in these matters watch the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shim119 Could you explain why you're digging into this block from over a year ago? You've just opened a very ill-advised RFC at WP:Checkuser which is hard to believe is unrelated. You began digging at this after returning from your disruption block by Explicit approximately a month ago. To me, it seems the only reason someone would be chasing these particular topics together is because while blocked, they logged out and found they couldn't edit anonymously or create a new account. -- ferret (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret It isn't the first time they've done this either. 3 months ago they took zzuuzz to arbcom over a range block [3]. This is now the second time they've massively overreacted to a range block and opened time consuming community review processes for no good reason and with no attempt to discuss with the blocking administrator. Their entire contribution history in project space looks to be disruption and massively overacting to minor issues, apart from the two IP block intendents there was a mess about a file being deleted (which is related to their previous block). Looking at the sum total of their editing I think a WP:CIR or WP:DE block wouldn't be unreasonable. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
since when is disputing an image deletion disruption. i just feel block a long term rangeblock to vandalism is an overreaction. now why is everyone annoyed when i ask questions about policy? Shim119 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You were blocked for repeatedly uploading an image that had been deleted by consensus. That's very much disruption. And you're being disruptive by accusing admins of abuse because they have rightfully blocked IPs and ranges with long and very obvious histories of disruption. The only reason you know these IPs are blocked is because you log out to evade scrutiny and find out that way. It's unfortunately that you happen to be on these IP ranges, but they don't impact you unless you log out. Stay logged into your account. Problem solved. -- ferret (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disputing an image deletion isn't disruptive, your actions around the image deletion was disruptive.
The images were correctly deleted following a "Files for discussion" discussion [4][5] on the basis that they could not be used under the non-free content policy, the links to the relevant policies were provided in that discussion. You didn't like the result, so you went to requests for undeletion and requested the deletion be reversed, with a non free rationalle that did not fix the issues identified in the discussion [6]. That was closed as an innapropriate undeletion request, so you went to deletion review [7], where the deletion was unanimously endorsed. You didn't like that so you went to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and claimed that the deletion review was wrong [8]. Once that failed you resorted to repeatedly reuploading the same files over and over again [9], with them being repeatedly speedy deleted, you also did the same thing on commons [10]. You then ended up blocked for disruptive editing [11]. Finally you turned around and insulted the admin who blocked you for being "immature" [12]. You wasted a colossal amount of time running pointless review processes WP:FORUMSHOPPING for someone to tell you what you wanted to hear, and when that didn't work you resorted to edit warring and disruption to try to upload the files.
You aren't "asking questions about policy" you are starting time consuming processes over trivial stuff despite already having been told not to. You immediately escalated this to administrative action review, despite already having been told to ask administrators about their actions on their talk page after the arbcom fiasco. When someone at XRV told you "you should ask on their talk page then escalate to AN is necessary" you skipped the entire first part and went straight here. You immediately started a RFC to rewrite checkuser policy over nothing.
Your timewasting in project space combined with deliberate disruption and the low quality of many of your edits to articles [13][14][15][16] makes it seriously questionable whether you should continue to be allowed to edit here. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could an admin check whether the closure for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishtank (series) is appropriate. It is closed as draftify by a NAC per above, despite it being clearly controversial and IMO requires an admin closure. Moreover, no one supported draftification in the AfD, so I'm very confused how that is a suitable conclusion to draw. Thanks. VickKiang(talk)22:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-opened the discussion (per WP:NACD) since it was clearly not straightforward enough for a non-admin closure. NYC Guru, in future, please consider leaving "close calls and controversial decisions" for an administrator to close. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is because that Extraordinary Writ also thought that your close was not a good NAC, so reverted it per instructions here in an individual admin capacity. This is a standard procedure that requires basically reverting your draftification and your removal of the AfD tag as a procedural step. Afterwards, the AfD is temporarily reopened before Rosguill closed it again as redirect. Thanks. VickKiang(talk)08:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, draftify as an alternative to deletion should only be considered if editors in the discussion are suggesting that as a solution. The sockpuppet presence, and a key question being an underarticulated divide over the need for deletion vs. redirect, further made this a bad discussion for an NAC. signed, Rosguilltalk17:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to pitch in. If it helps, up my way it's been just as humid with a periodic mix of wildfire smoke. I don't know how anyone lives further south than my native Connecticut (though I know the feeling is mutual, as a lifelong resident I love the wild temperature swings that make my area so notorious), more power to all of you who manage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An appeal for help
I came here to post a request about AFDs and since this is already open, I'll add it here rather than start a new section. About a month ago, I posted a plea on the Village Pump for editors and admins to return to AFD land if they once participated there because we really need more people to help out there. You can see by today's log, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 7 that next Friday, we'll have 127 discussions to close. This high number of discussions is partly due to the fact that we have to relist so many discussions due to a low level of editor participation or discussions seem deadlocked. We need more editors discussing and evaluating articles and admins and experienced editors to close discussions.
The alternative that I see are to stop relisting discussions that have 0 or 1 participant and close them on the basis of the nomination alone. Personally, I dislike doing that because I think deletion should be determined by a consensus of participating editors but often it becomes a matter of WP:NOQUORUM. So, if you once were an AFD regular participant or closer but you got burned out, please consider returning even in a limited capacity. Your help will be appreciated! LizRead!Talk!04:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been quite a few years since I've been active in closing AfDs, but when I was, I always treated those AfDs as soft-deletes (effectively PRODs or endorsed PRODs), is that not a thing that is done anymore? ansh.66618:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly did the same but have only closed a few AFDs recently and the poor participation in AFD doesn't help as I'd hate us to get to the point where nominations weren't subject to some form of checks and balances SpartazHumbug!18:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of suspect name
Neither appears this to be a fully genuine revision deletion request (or similar), nor would such a request be suitable for this page (A notice explaining this with a big red stop sign is shown when editing this page). If anything at all, it could be the start of a discussion about disruptively point-illustrating behavior, but if there is interest in having that discussion, it's best held at WP:ANI with a new introduction. A solution appears to have been found for now in disengagement, so I'll close this for archival. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reply - @Aoidh:, if this is the case, would it be acceptable for me to make a move request with the name of the suspect in the proposed title? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. We don't, if we can help it, glorify the names of murderers. It's much better that the victims are the ones noted, not the perpetrators. — Trey Maturin™15:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could, but that would likely be a huge waste of time for all involved. It's vanishingly unlikely that a title using the name of the perpetrator would gain consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The convict's name can be a redirect, but nothing more (cf. Stephanie Lazarus). We have only given those convicted of crimes of violence against another their own articles if a) they are notable for something else besides that or b) they are serial offenders (usually killers) with multiple victims. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677: I'm concerned by your actions over this article. It looks like (not is, merely looks like) you are first seeking to protect the convicted criminal involved, then seeking to promote them over their underage victim. It looks like (again, not is, merely looks like) like you're accidentally on the side of the criminal in question.
Reply - If we are going to conceal the name of the perpetrator, then let's do so all over the place. If we are NOT going to conceal this name, then let's name the article something similar to other cases. I think that many people who are seeking information about the case will seek information by the name of the convicted perpetrator. Since we do not have the name of the victim, nor should we, then the name of the perpetrator seems to be the most likely search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - "If we are going to conceal the name of the perpetrator, then let's do so all over the place" / "If we are NOT going to conceal this name, then let's name the article something similar to other cases". Also, WP:CIVIL. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weird indeed. Jax, I would respectfully suggest you do yourself a favor and step back from anything concerning this topic for a while. Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2023_April_17#File:NY_excelsior_plate.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2023_April_17#File:NY2007Plate.png){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_385#File%3ANY_excelsior_plate.jpg){kind=link}