Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Extraordinary Writ (talk | contribs) at 00:51, 12 January 2023 (→‎Appeal of a arbitration enforcement topic ban regarding Lithuania and Poland topics: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Feb Mar Apr May Total
    CfD 0 0 12 15 27
    TfD 0 0 0 5 5
    MfD 0 0 0 2 2
    FfD 0 0 0 2 2
    RfD 0 0 8 37 45
    AfD 0 0 0 32 32


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (21 out of 7770 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Wokipedia 2024-05-21 23:50 2024-05-23 23:50 edit,move Shenanigan precaution. BD2412
    Draft:Zard Patton Ka Bunn 2024-05-21 20:22 2024-11-21 20:22 create Repeatedly recreated: targeted by Nauman335 socks Yamla
    June 2024 Ukraine peace summit 2024-05-21 18:38 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C
    Template:English manga publisher 2024-05-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Draft:S S Karthikeya 2024-05-21 13:27 2025-05-21 13:27 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla
    Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 2024-05-21 01:18 2024-05-28 01:18 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Draft:Roopsha Dasguupta 2024-05-20 21:26 2029-05-20 21:26 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla
    Gaza floating pier 2024-05-20 17:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Science Bee 2024-05-20 15:26 2027-05-20 15:26 create Repeatedly recreated Rosguill
    Wikipedia:Golden Diamond Timeless Watch 2024-05-20 06:54 2024-05-23 06:54 create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    Screams Before Silence 2024-05-20 04:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Tyson Fury vs Oleksandr Usyk 2024-05-20 03:49 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Atom Eve 2024-05-20 02:53 2024-08-20 02:53 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
    Ebrahim Raisi 2024-05-19 22:02 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIRP; upgrade to WP:ECP, 2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash-related; aiming for the short term (remind me) El C
    2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash 2024-05-19 21:15 2024-06-19 21:15 edit Contentious topic restriction Ymblanter
    Koli rebellion and piracy 2024-05-19 21:08 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Spicy
    Khirbet Zanuta 2024-05-19 12:15 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA ToBeFree
    Poppay Ki Wedding 2024-05-18 20:42 2025-05-18 20:42 create Repeatedly recreated: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter
    Joseph Sam Williams 2024-05-18 11:59 2024-05-22 11:59 move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Robertsky
    2024 University of Amsterdam pro-Palestinian campus occupation 2024-05-18 06:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Edcel Greco Lagman 2024-05-18 03:31 2024-07-18 03:31 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Removal of sourced content, per a complaint at WP:ANI EdJohnston

    SashiRolls requests a !ban

    To whom it may concern:

    Hello. I was banned from en.wp back in the summer of 2020 ( § ) after an ill-conceived tussle with El C about a temporary block from the Edward Colston page. At the time, it was suggested I come back in six months. When I did, I didn't stick out my appeal until the end. Since then, I've waited about two years to ask again, to be sure that any trace of annoyance had disappeared, at least on my end.

    In the time I've been away, I've made roughly 5000 contributions to non-en.wp wmf projects:

    I've also made minor edits to other projects ranging from haitian to latin.

    The disruption to my en.wp contributions also gave me the chance to do some work on my own mediawiki for which I sincerely thank all those involved. I've also worked a bit on the French version of one of the last en.wp articles I created before I left. It's about the Gère river. (fr | en)

    It will probably come up that I frequent WPO. Since joining over there in Dec. 2016, I've never to my knowledge caused any serious problems, nor have I ever been thrown out, which suggests I may not be such a bad egg as all that. Here and there things I've said there or that have happened to me have led to changes at en.wp (in articles, policy) or have caused an occasional ripple.

    I would say that what I've learned is that things on wiki go fast. Too fast. What starts out at as a minor thing can quickly be escalated into something that wastes a lot of time and leads to disrupted work. Sometimes, as I mentioned above, disruption can be productive, but most of the time it isn't, and it's better to always strive to deescalate. I'm not here to test boundaries. I know I can't edit GMOs, Am-Pol or WP:AE. Best practice will be to keep away from those who might tend to rile me up. I do think that the past two years of on-wiki production at data, commons, fr.wp show that I'm able to colloborate, as well as contribute.

    The immediate impetus to this request was a request for file-mover tools at Commons, during which my en.wp ban was brought up as a reason to be circumspect. So, it seemed to me like perhaps the time has come to resolve this.

    How about we get out the calumet and agree to peacefully co-exist? :)

    SashiRolls (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Copied from c:Special:PermaLink/719472438 per utrs:67199 — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • First! 👍 P.S. I think I was first in the last appeal, too. But I can't immediately find it. Whatever I said then, though, still. El_C 01:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Special:PermaLink/1000836596#Ban_removal_request_of_SashiRolls. 97.120.124.88 (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Fixed link, pretty sure this is where it should be pointing. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Is everyone else seeing that red gg+ button in the mobile thingy? It takes you to your notifications for some reason! El_C 21:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You seem to be referring to the notifications icon. Everyone logged in on mobile should see it and should go to their notifications when they click on it, as has been the case for ?~8 years. However not everyone will have 99+ "unread" notifications so their number will vary. The colour will also vary depending on whether the mobile site considers there are new notifications, somewhat akin to the desktop site but their newness is handled different. Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm. I find myself looking at [1] in an inability to personally desire the described person's return to a community I'm a part of. A request for an "agree[ment] to peacefully co-exist" sounds as if the community had denied this opportunity to you. That's probably not correct. They threw you out because you weren't able to do so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it concerning that the request doesn't contain a single hint of acceptance of responsibility for any behavior that led to the ban. Schazjmd (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Reply to @Schazjmd:: some expansions on text included in my appeal with more straightforwardly mea culpa formulations
      ill-conceived tussle
      I shouldn't have done it.
      things on wiki go fast. Too fast.
      I should have known that, recognized my limitations, and acted with more kindness. I apologize.
      I know I can't edit XYZ
      I had problems there before, so I won't be going back.
      keep away from those who might rile me up
      I can be riled up. This is one of my limitations. I am here on the projects to build an encyclopedia and must not let myself get distracted by that limitation.
      it's better to strive to deescalate
      I shouldn't have escalated with El Commandante, he's a good egg. Or with anyone else, whether big-, middle-, mixed-, or little-endian. I will strive, again, for kindness and calm.
      I am able to collaborate.
      I gave some people reason to wonder about this.
      Revisiting the specific disputes and the snark that, in part, got me thrown out, or the modifications to policy that resulted from it, strikes me as being mostly a bad idea. Other than my sincere apologies to anyone I offended and the analysis of my errors above, I don't know what good resassing the past will do. Except to remind me, I guess, that I shouldn't be snarky.
      Wiki moves fast. Being bold in a land full of complicated templates means that things break when you forget a pipe, a field, a tilda, a closing </spanner>, or put a semi-colon where the parser expected a colon. You can usually fix things with patience though.
      Proposal: 3-month review at AN, renewable. I would accept having a parole officer. If anyone is willing to keep an eye on me, I hereby promise you it will be very boring as far as PvP-drama goes.
      SashiRolls (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Copied from c:Special:PermaLink/719762216 — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure how big of a requirement 'accepting responsibility' is. The only thing that's required is that problematic behaviour not repeat. People aren't really required to drop their pride and accept wrongdoing, or even to honestly feel that they acted improperly; they only need to convince that the same behaviour won't resume. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You raise an interesting point. Strictly speaking, that's true, in that future conduct is, indeed, what matters. As I see it, this isn't about policing thought, but rather it's about the confidence that the community can have in the request. It's all too easy to promise that one will stay away from trouble, so it becomes important for the community to have some insight into how credible such promises are. When the unban request contains a well thought out acknowledgement of what the past concerns were, that enhances confidence. But when, as I believe is the case here, the request seems to deflect any suggestion of personal responsibility (and this has been a pattern over numerous previous appeals by this user), then it becomes reasonable for editors to be skeptical. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a really good point. Part of an appeal is demonstrating there is no longer a WP:PREVENTATIVE need for the sanction. Deflecting, not acknowledging, etc. behavior issues that led to the ban, is usually an indication that preventative sanctions are still needed for the future. It's not a matter of penance with your hat in hand begging for mercy, etc. KoA (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      ProcrastinatingReader says above: People aren't really required to drop their pride and accept wrongdoing, or even to honestly feel that they acted improperly; they only need to convince that the same behaviour won't resume
      I agree wit this and also with what Tryptofish says in reply: Strictly speaking, that's true, in that future conduct is, indeed, what matters.
      The only thing we need to determine here, as a community, is whether we think SashiRolls will act like this again, within any stone's throw of reasonable likelihood. Bans aren't punitive, yada yada. I think this person has waited a long enough time, in proportion to the initial infraction, that we can be reasonable sure they won't disrupt the project again. And all we risk is coming back here to reinstate a ban.
      To help guarantee that, I agree with GizzyCatBella on Conditional Support with a 1-way IBAN with Volunteer Marek and a TBAN from Russia and Eastern Europe (including Poland). These particular sub-sanctions can be revisited in time, when and if the user shows themselves capable of behaving appropriately on wiki. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Obviously, I appreciate that you agree with what I said, but I've been thinking about it, and I want to clarify what I meant, because the way that you quoted me gives my quote a meaning slightly different than what I intended. I'm not looking for policing thought, as I said, but in evaluating what to expect from future conduct, I believe it's entirely fair to look at how an appeal is framed. And the opening appeal strikes me as being like I'm really not such a bad person, and I hope that WP will realize that now. Subsequent promises have been worded much better, but, after so many prior bans and appeals, it feels to me like this has been coached. In the end, it looks to me like editors who support the appeal are persuaded by the work on other projects and editors who oppose are persuaded by the long history of repeated harassment and sanction violations, and someone with a paygrade higher than mine will have to figure out what the consensus is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. As someone who was frequently the target of unpleasantness from this user, I feel very strongly that this is not something where the community should give the benefit of the doubt and give another chance, but instead it is something where it is entirely the responsibility of the user to demonstrate, without coaching, that they truly understand their own responsibility for the ban and that they have a clear idea of how to become a net positive. This is all the more important because this was made very, very clear by the community in all of the previous unban requests. What I see above is, instead, something like I'm really not so bad and I hope that WP will agree with me about that. That's not OK. (Also, I look at WPO from time to time, and what I see there is this user posting stuff that's just kind of strange, and the other WPO people ignoring it and talking around it. When you get to the point where WPO people treat you with WP:DENY, it's time to look for another hobby.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic sniping
    • But imagine the personal growth if you, for your part, were willing to drop this near decade-long grudge. It'll be an XMAS miracle! El_C 21:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Victim blaming at its finest. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Gaslighting at its finest. El_C 04:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyway, beyond the drama of Floq going out of his way to be unpleasant to me, which is par for the course — I, being the admin who had originally imposed an WP:IBAN (poorly-formed, but still) on both Sashi and Trypto back in 2017, feel that I am in the position to say that it isn't in fact one-sided, one victim. The argument could be made that it is, sure, but incendiary statements, like the one above where Floq accuses me of "victim blaming"... How does that help? Or, for that matter, how does Trypto's closing ("WP:DENY," etc.) sentence help? And I happen to also be speaking as the 'victim' featured in the original ban (Sashi's CBAN), of which I was not in favour of back then, either. Either way, much could be said for forgiveness, of letting go of grievances (real or perceived). It really is good for the spirit. El_C 06:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      El C, this is beneath you. WP:2WRONGS. Maybe you could have some personal growth in your relationship with Floq, but any life advice you have for me has nothing to do with the merits of the unban request. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Tryptofish: El C, this is beneath you. Also Tryptofish: When you get to the point where WPO people treat you with WP:DENY, it's time to look for another hobby. El_C 18:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If anyone wonders why I raised the issue of WPO, it was because SashiRolls brought it up first, as one of the reasons for lifting the ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:DENY, etc., is the issue, still. Not the WPO, per se. I'm surprised I still need to point that out. Oh well, hopefully, I spelled it out enough now. El_C 19:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue is whether or not there is merit to the unban request. And I've already pointed out WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Within the scope of that issue is you telling someone who productively contributes to several Wikimedia projects to look for another hobby, on the basis of WP:DENY. If you think replying with WP:2WRONGS suffices; if you support Floq's attack on me, for having "victim blamed" you — Okay. I still think forgiveness is good for the spirit. If you dislike that life advise, feel free to ignore it. But hopefully, others find value in that maxim, so it wasn't said for naught. See ya. El_C 19:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I support and appreciate what Floq said to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So much venom, yikes. El_C 19:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of information. (Sashi, I see you still don't have talk page access here, but I assume you're watching here and that if you respond on Commons or Meta or some other place, someone with more gravitas than I will copy it over.) The disputes that led to your being banned were off my radar or before my time. I'm doubly ill-equipped to express an opinion since despite defensive Latin and adequate French, I frequently can't follow what you post at WO, and just had to look up calumet. I quite understand that you're more concerned these days with editing at Commons and (ugh) Wikidata, and that may continue to be the case even if your ban here is vacated; I note your statement above about avoiding problem areas and editors with whom you have had disputes; and I understand you're subject to various topic restrictions ... but I'd like to see what you say in response to a simple question: what kind of editing do you envisage doing here on en.wikipedia if the ban is ended? Yngvadottir (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I’ve restored talk page for the duration of the appeal, so they can answer your (and others’) questions. Floquenbeam (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Reply to @Yngvadottir:
      Hi again! First off, happy Yule tidings!
      You are right to assume that I would not be very likely to abandon fr.wp, commons, and data to become an exclusive en.wp editor. One of the things I most appreciated about this time while blocked is that it convinced me to dare to edit fr.wp (French is not my native language.) I've found people to be very helpful and forgiving over there concerning gender mistakes and grammar matters.
      The coverage in English Wikipedia of the area where I live is not very good. I talked about this a bit over at WPO, mentioning some problems with Anne-Sophie Pic's bio over here. They got fixed. (Thanks, again!)
      Chances are very good that I will find pages to improve about French cities, mountains, regions, and river valleys (the Gère valley and the Rhône valley in particular). I see that a few of my photos were added to the Vienne page while I was gone, for example. There being no page for the ViaRhôna at all I could probably create one... :)
      As a jazz fan, I may occasionally also be able to translate information about local artists, e.g. Camille Bertault or Naïssam Jalal.
      If I get particularly ambitious I could translate some of the truly excellent work Zythème has done describing Rabelais' Book Four and its critical reception. (no page on en.wp)
      In short, there is no shortage of gaps in the English-language encyclopedia's coverage of Francophone letters, geography, and culture. I believe this would probably be my primary mission, with music and linguistics as likely other areas of interest. (I wrote a short article about Pierre Vernet, for example, before leaving en.wp. I see that the English article on en:Antoine Culioli could use some significant work.)
      And you know, as an active reader, things are always coming up. One of my favorite recent reads was John McWhorter's ("English is not normal"). Maybe there's something of value to pull out of such articles.
      Outside of the high-pressure topics that Iridescent pointed out at the time I'd been working on, I had little trouble. Even on some pages where potential for heated disagreement was high (e.g. Yellow vests movement, Algerian / Haitian / Sudanese protests) I luckily managed not to have too many problems at all. So, really as long as I stay away from AmPol and GMO, I think it's pretty likely there shouldn't be any problems... that said, I'll probably avoid much of anything likely to stir up great passion.
      This is a first look at your question. I also like smoothing translations, working on page layout, cleaning up references, and trying to find new ones when needed, e.g. one quick example --> Ken Burns does not even mention Theo Croker, much less source the entire first en.wp paragraph of his early life. These are the sorts of things I find on a regular basis. I could fix some of them (though not all of them) if unbanned.
      — SashiRolls (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Copied from c:Special:PermaLink/719815580 — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - It's no secret I think the ban was a mistake, but in any case, Sashi's productive contribs to other projects for years demonstrates the ban is no longer preventing anything except productive contribs. Levivich (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - So first let me say that I have stayed out of all the Sashi blocks, unblock requests, reblocks, appeals, reappears, denials of appeals, provisional unblocking, unprovisional block reinstatements and what have you. Last I recall interacting with them was when they were, I think, in between their indef blocks, and it seems they sought me out to, um, “edit alongside me”. It was not a constructive experience. Other than that, since their last blockin’ I guess they were busy at other wikis but I don’t follow those so can’t comment. I have however been engaged by Sashi over at Wikipediocracy, one may even say, “relentlessly”. If I comment there, or if someone comments about me there or even if someone writes a word that starts with a “V” on something completely unrelated there, Sashi is sure to show up there and post their latest insights and gleaned revelations they’ve acquired about my person. Usually something somewhere between “pointlessly petty” to “aggressively nasty”, all with the usual side of esoteric bizzarness. To put it transparently and curtly - judging by their behavior THERE, there’s no way in hell they’ve “reformed” or are ready to come back to editing HERE. Volunteer Marek 06:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I opposed the ban, partly because I think malice was being attributed where I'm sure there wasn't any. SashiRolls is, in my view, someone who has been afflicted with too much enthusiasm and too little patience in subject areas that pushed his buttons. If he can keep away from such topics, then I think the project could welcome back a positive contributor here. The edits to other projects while banned here convince me that can happen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose from my oppose rationale from the last appeal: SashiRolls was unblocked in November 2018, with "considerable skepticism of unblocking" and subsequently racked up five blocks in less than two years (two of which were undone by the blocking admin), plus four other sanctions, until the ban was reimposed in June 2020. It's clear that unblock was a mistake which wasted plenty of time from constructive editors.. There's a high chance the ban would have to be reimposed if it was lifted. Giving yet another last chance to banned editors is not an effective use of editor time. Hut 8.5 11:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (on hold see below) - per Hut 8.5. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @SashiRolls You wrote --> Best practice will be to keep away from those who might tend to rile me up. Who are those? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (@SashiRolls - please respond on your talk page) - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be steering well-wide of anything even remotely to do with the war in Ukraine, in addition to the other Arbitration Enforcement areas alluded to above (I forget the acronyms for them all, but in general I'm not interested...). I did not come here with a calumet to battle or to say mean things about people. I came because I see en.wp's coverage of the francophone world could use work. Best to you GCB, -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @GizzyCatBella: Copied from Special:Diff/1129711020 –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      [2] - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Support - only under the condition of additional one-way IBAN with Volunteer_Marek (see --> [3]) and a Topic Ban from editing articles related to Russia and Eastern Europe (including Poland). (If all these conditions aren't met, then consider my voice as Oppose) - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Lev and Boing. Their edits would be closely watched and I’m sure someone would report any potential issues quickly (though I don’t expect there would be any). Mr Ernie (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, with a caveat. I had a couple of interactions with SashiRolls in the past, and they were not so negative. That was a fair ban in the past, and I do not see what has changed based on the comments and responses by SashiRolls. Perhaps she/he could be unbanned if one of the admins takes a responsibility of observing their future editing and re-blocking SashiRolls again at the first sign of trouble. However, after looking at the very long block record of SashiRolls, it seems such approach had already been tried, so that the chances of success are slim. Based on their comments, SashiRolls is planning to voluntarily stay away from a number of different widely defined subjects and a number of contributors (an equivalent to multiple topic bans and interaction bans). Will it work in practice? If SashiRolls is going to be unbanned, the lists of such topics and contributors should be explicitly defined. This all seem to be problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is something for admins to decide because they will be responsible for enforcement. According to Yngvadottir (see below) there are 4 active topic/interaction bans for SashiRolls. If admins think this will not ensure waste of time and drama in the future, then yes, let's unban. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The in practice comments are really spot on here for unban considerations. Those are some wide topic ban areas, so if they cross the line there again or start it up in a new topic, how much sniping and denials are editors who try to bring the issues up going to have to deal with? How would that past problem be alleviated? I don't know of a good answer considering past history where it's likely for someone to just paint editors either being pursued by SR or trying to deal with problems as just out to get SR. That's really the can of worms I'm worried about. KoA (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeh, the ability of SashiRolls to stir conflict, even between admins, is definitely a factor here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Levivich and Boing!. François Robere (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an aside, I find it somewhat disingenuous for one to object to the appeal on the grounds of posts made to WPO, when elsewhere they claimed it as a "safe space", writing that "[the] whole point of WPO is that you can say things plainly and directly without genuflecting to the gods of hypocrisy the way you do on Wiki".[4] François Robere (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That block log is pretty terrible; it's not that hard to not rack up a lot of blocks, or heck, to not rack up any blocks. It's fair to assume you probably didn't have the most enjoyable editing experience here? So a blunt and genuine question: why do you still want to participate here, verses just finding another hobby? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      A number of the early blocks are related to a bad actor Sashi and others like me tangled with, who turned out to be a exceptionally skilled former admin socking to avoid a topic ban. These blocks were frequently brought up in later cases and should be considered in the context. If you set the clean slate post the Cirt stuff I don’t think a site ban would ever have been considered. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      In fairness, the point about needing to look past Cirt is a very valid one. For easy access, here is a link to that block log: [5]. The unblock on November 5, 2018, is the unblock resulting from recognizing the Cirt problem. So everything after that, from June 4, 2019 onward, is really what we should consider relevant to the present discussion. And it's still pretty awful, even after making that correction. Again and again, personal attacks, battleground, harassment. Not trivial stuff, and not isolated instances. And violating existing restrictions ([6]). Consider what that means: where some editors argue here that we should unban while setting restrictions, past experience demonstrates a tendency to break those promises. I wasn't exaggerating when I talked (below) about a time-sink. There needs to be a lot stronger case than saying that one opposed the ban in the last discussion, or it's just too much enthusiasm, or at least there's been no socking, or this is a good time to try WP:ROPE because there will be lots of eyes on him. We are ridiculously beyond the point where the WP:ROPE ran out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. As others have mentioned, their appeal is filled with WP:NOTTHEM language, which is a pretty strong indication they're going to continue the tendentious behavior that got them banned and continue the time sink they created for the community when they were here. We also definitely can't give weight comments calling a ban to correctly prevent community-wide disruption a "mistake" either. One needs only to look at their block log and especially the last straw ban proposal by TonyBallioni [7] and the close by MastCell there. That attitude is just a repeat of what I remember dealing with back when they were here.
    Volunteer Marek also makes a good point on relentlessness. SR would often pursue editors on-wiki, and I among others ended up having to try to cleanup major disruptions in the GMO topics because of SR doing that. When folks mention SR's off-wiki activities after the ban especially I'll echo Volunteer Marek that SR was often pursuing editors off-wiki that they had hounded on-wiki. This appeal falls pretty flat after seeing that. The trouble with the relentlessness that I'm seeing revived here again is targets of SR were often hounded and victim-blamed/gaslighted by SR or others. That often complicated cleaning up the disruption or just simply getting action on sanctions because you'd often have people rushing to say it was SR's target that was causing the problems.
    Mix that with NOTTHEM comments, they were just getting "riled" up, etc. like I'm seeing in this appeal and we have a recipe for being right back to the situation we were in before the ban. For the amount of disruption they were the center of, the bar for an unban is much higher a general lack of acknowledgement appeal like this. Too much of a time-sink for the community with this apparent attitude continuing. KoA (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Levivich, Boing! and Mr. Ernie. I haven't followed the off-Wiki drama so I won't evaluate that. Opposers fail to convince. I do feel that SR has followed the procedure that leads to reconsideration of an unban. SR obviously knows they are going to be watched, and if SR keeps it clean, the 'pedia wins, and if not, gets rebanned. Simple. Jusdafax (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For background, a frequent problem at admin boards often were editors such as Jusdafax, Mr. Ernie, and Levivich jumping in to defend SR regardless of the disruption SR caused. The AE where we had to modify SR's GMO ban is a good example of that.[8] Generally you'll see various forms of denial there claiming no disruption by SR despite admins still determining the sanction was needed (and tweaked to clearer language). Similar things happened at SR's site ban thread too despite plenty of evidence.[9] There's also usually bits where those of us who were hounded due to SR's actions were portrayed as just out to get Sashirolls peppered in some of those discussions too.
    Denials of SR's behavior have been a recurring issue from vocal minorities, so for those who are entirely uninvolved, I do advise reading the closes, evidence, blocks, etc. where simple denials don't really match up with reality. Those of us who were directly affected by SR's antics had to deal with a lot from SR themselves, but also their supporters muddying the waters or outright lashing out when we tried to get help. While I personally shouldn't have to deal with Sashirolls much due to their topic bans if they came back, I sure wouldn't wish others having to go through what myself or others did. Just punting the buck along to a new topic each time is in part why the community decided on the site ban instead, and crafting an appeal for that needs something pretty substantive rather than merely following unbanning procedure. KoA (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am continually surprised that people can hold grudges like this over such petty reasons for so long. I wondered why you came after me at an unrelated AE case a few weeks ago when I didn’t even recognize your name or know we had interacted, but now I understand. The topic bans should handle the areas where there were concerns as you acknowledge so why not let’s give that a try on this volunteer project? Mr Ernie (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly the kind of gaslighting multiple editors had to deal with, and you've been repeatedly cautioned about hounding editors like at that AE you mention. Yes, I noticed your behavior issues during the Sashirolls stuff and at that AE, but trying to claim anyone who notices behavior issues from you or others as just having a "grudge" is a tired old WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic. That just disrupts admin boards.
    With that, the sniping at those who tried to deal with Sashirolls and related behavior issues clearly hasn't gone away. That is why it's being brought up because it contributed to the issues resulting in SR's ban and is yet another hurdle to navigate in a potential unban. The whole point above was that topic bans didn't help the behavior since it just moved to whatever topic SR moved on to, and whoever got stuck dealing with it had harassment and wikilawyering to deal with. The serious question to answer is why should we burden other parts of the community (yet again) with that likely scenario even in a WP:ROPE situation? There needs to be really good justification rather than talking past it that we've seen from SR's appeal so far. There's a lot of red flag language in that regard. KoA (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing editors of gaslighting and lying about sanctions they’ve never received is poor form at the admin boards. But par for the course I suppose. I don’t expect anyone to defend me, but maybe this type of behavior will color uninvolved reviewers perspectives on this issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I trust that uninvolved reviewers will follow the evidence (diffs and links) in order to gain a perspective, per Dorothy Gambrell, perhaps 🐈. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. We even needed to craft a new WP:ASPERSIONS principle in the GMO case because of unsubstantiated claims, though that was before SR's involvement. Either way to be clear, the AE section Mr Ernie was referring to earlier[10] is where their previous sanction related to hounding was recently discussed, specifically that they had been banned from WP:AE for a time for hounding/aspersions and that it was a concern again. They were already aware of their past sanction though (and they even referenced that AE I just linked despite the flourish above), so it's really odd that they go on a tangent about an easily verifiable thing being a lie here when it wasn't even in my initial comment. That's a confusing tangent.
    My focus was on the links I gave in my main reply above on interactions related to Sashirolls at admin boards with editors repeatedly dismissing SR's issues or things like we're seeing here now accusing others of grudges. There is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that seems to follow SR, in part because of their own actions, but also what we see playing out here from other editors. It just makes an unban appeal even trickier to navigate and why some of us who had to deal with SR are so cautious. KoA (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It had nothing to do with hounding. Please stop lying. You are the only one who has mentioned hounding, and now you just fait accompli refer to it as that. When you are wrong about something, referring back to it doesn’t make it any more right. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to respond to that point about supposedly holding petty grudges. For me, this is no more about holding a grudge, than it is about being an enabler when editors who have long memories about past disputes over GMOs or AmPol come here to support the request on behalf of someone they perceive as having been on their "team". And an awfully high percentage of the editors who have commented here fit that description. So we can go back and forth calling one another grudge-holders or enablers, or we can look at what would be in the best interests of this project. And there's nothing petty about wanting to spare the project the highly predictable time-sink that would result from bringing back someone who has long been a time-sink, and has never, even at their best, been a particularly helpful contributor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I was against the ban when it was first imposed and I'm still against it now. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I have read the statements above by editors who don't trust SashiRolls because they have been hurt in the past. I cannot judge anything SashiRolls has written in the non-public areas of Wikipediocracy, because I'm not a member there, so I hope I'm not slighting the concerns of Volunteer Marek, in particular. So I spent some time reading and re-reading the June 2020 siteban discussion (also linked by SashiRolls at the top of this discussion). And I searched ineptly for restrictions to which they're still subject. It is my understanding that these are: (a) an interaction ban with Tryptofish (whether one-way or two-way has been a subject of some disagreement and/or change); (b) a GMO topic ban; (c) a post-1932 American politics topic ban; (d) a prohibition on commenting on AE requests to which they are not a party, imposed in 2016. Are there any others? It seems to me that the core question is whether these restrictions are sufficient. SashiRolls has pledged to keep away from those who might rile me up and strive to deescalate. I don't think they should be judged harshly for not listing the names, especially since they have an IBan with at least one, and the emphasis in the appeal is on how they intend to stay out of trouble, so I don't find the mention of their own thought processes—getting riled up—to be inappropriate. I also note that their statement I know I can't edit GMOs, Am-Pol or WP:AE corresponds to their edit restrictions; so I see no truculent "I wish I could ... " in it. If there are indeed no other edit restrictions or IBans in place, given that SashiRolls has named several areas where they plan to make edits, has been editing productively on several other projects, and has responded plainly and levelly to questions so far in this appeal, I'm inclined to support. I will add that on my reading, that 2020 ban discussion was very divided; MastCell's key point in closing it was: While there is no numerical threshold for consensus, it would be inappropriate to close a discussion like this—with >2/3 of commenters supporting action—as "no consensus". There has since been a withdrawn appeal, followed by 2 years. Consensus can change in that time. Wikipedia can change in that time, and I have a tiny, inexpert suspicion that after 2½ years, we might today be less inclined to siteban an editor after a discussion that shook out the way that one did (including El_C's attempted intervention). Anyway, we're here now. If the ban is rescinded, it will of course be a WP:ROPE situation, with many eyes on SashiRolls' editing. Perhaps, in addition to the topic bans, the concerns of some of those in opposition could be allayed by addition of some more IBans? Volunteer_Marek, for example? And I would suggest the IBan with Tryptofish should be made 2-way, if it isn't, in order to simplify matters. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic ban from Eastern European topics, including Russia, would also be a minimum since I’m not the only one they’ve “followed around” in that topic area. Volunteer Marek 18:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would suggest the IBan with Tryptofish should be made 2-way, if it isn't, in order to simplify matters. One thing we absolutely should not be doing is re-harassing one of SR's old targets from past disputes by doing that, especially since the original 2-way I-ban on appeal was considered a throwing the baby out with the bathwater situation and very uncontroversially changed to 1-way.[11] KoA (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    KoA just beat me to saying what I was going to say, thanks. Yngvadottir, if you're going to say stuff like that about me, please get your facts straight first. There's nothing close to a subject of some disagreement and/or change about it. I suggest that anyone who wants to know what actually happened go to the link that KoA just gave, and open the collapsed AE section to see more than just the closing statement in the header. You will see that the original 2-way version was explicitly designated as having been "no-fault" with respect to me, and you can read for yourselves the admin discussion by Newyorkbrad, Thryduulf, and TonyBallioni. It's worth seeing what three highly trusted admins determined about the merits of the situation. And it's worth noting how they were quite able to see through and dismiss the same kinds of WP:2WRONGS diversions that are being offered again here in this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, Tryptofish; in researching the situation, I missed that discussion. Some of your talk above of editors ... jumping in to defend SR and of vocal minorities strikes me as unpleasant, but you're entirely right, I am not aware of the extent of the disruption SashiRolls has caused in the past, or of the suffering you and others are referring to. Volunteer Marek, I think a lot of editors are also at a similar disadvantage to me in judging whether SashiRolls might be disruptive in the area of Eastern Europe / Russia, since you appear to be basing that judgement on non-public forum posts? I haven't seen anyone mention that as a problematic area in the previous discussions? But then again, there's a new war this year. However, it appears to me that between their pledge to stay away from editors who "rile them up", and the innocuous topics they say they forsee editing here (it seems that apart from my error about the basis of the IBan, I've got it right that those are the 4 in force?), new restrictions shouldn't be necessary. I find myself persuaded they will be a net positive if unbanned. But I admit that's partly because I find the argument that they never were to be exaggerated; respected editors at the banning discussion, when the dispute was hot, made that point. More importantly, it's now two and a half years later; people can change; their appeal is calmly couched and lists good contributions on multiple other projects; they appear to have sensible plans for proceeding (including not being fixated on this particular project). Yngvadottir (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that. However, the "unpleasant" comments that you now attribute to me are not things that I ever said. It was another editor, not me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, one thing that I did say is relevant to the argument about not needing new restrictions. I linked above to blocks for violating existing individual restrictions ([12], also [13]), and I think that history gives pause to being confident about accepting promises on face value. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record...I strongly oppose a 2-way iBan naming Tryptofish, and believe the one-way should remain as a show of good faith on SR's part that they truly have started a new chapter in the book of WP. Atsme 💬 📧 21:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - If there's been no socking, during the ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral, with a proviso - As one of their victims, I won't !vote. But, if they are unblocked, they should be TBanned from all DS articles and all admin boards. A promise has little meaning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unban. Even though I'm not familiar with the history of the case, I am confident that a person with this kind of block log is not going to return as a collegial and productive editor. Sandstein 17:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      🤦🏼‍♂️ Levivich (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - last chance saloon, and beware of controversial areas. starship.paint (exalt) 13:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose guys, this isn't a second chance request. SashiRolls has had multiple chances throughout their involvement on the English Wikipedia, and every time it comes back to one thing: they view every disagreement as a battleground, make up enemies in their head, and relentlessly focus on showing how their enemies are out to get them. Then when people get tired of having to deal with that and point out the problems, they claim it is evidence that what they have been saying is correct, without pausing to consider if whether the objections to their behaviour might have some grounding in facts.
      If we unblock them, there will be another dispute. That dispute will follow just like all the others had. And we won't be able to do anything about it because we just unbanned them and an unban is a get out of jail free card where no admin is willing to take any action against you for 3-6 months. I'm around a lot less these days, so this isn't anything personal against SashiRolls or something that I think will have that huge an impact on me. But I do absolutely think an unban would be a firm net negative to the project and would increase the amount of disruption that admins who work in controversial areas have to deal with. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose My thought in supporting or opposing lifting the ban is simple: Do I feel like we will be right back here again in a relative short period of time. In this case, I do. SR has shown that they are going to go bull in a china shop to get their way. The ban WAS the last chance, and if we are back to this again, are we going to be arguing this all over? RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Levivich's current (see above) and previous comments: "the incivility from Sashi is narrowly focused at very few people, who frankly aren't blameless themselves. I would support two way IBANs all around, but not a site ban". This would have made much more sense then...it makes even more sense now. The site ban should be lifted, but all other restrictions should remain.
    Also of note: the comments about "a person with this kind of block log" seem unnecessary. If you read, most of the recent ones are blocks and unblocks to allow for appeals/ArbCom proceedings. If you feel that something in particular is a problem, please specify. I'd much rather place trust in someone with 30 traffic tickets in 40 years of driving than a one-time murderer (even though the former's "rap sheet" is longer). Buffs (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, it's getting pretty old to keep hearing that those of us who have been harassed by SR are the ones at fault. And there are a ton of blocks (post-Cirt) that were not mere adjustments for appeals, but were for personal attacks, battleground conduct, harassment, and violation of existing individual restrictions. I'd say that that's something in particular that's a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then please point it out vice a vague claim. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already provided that here: [14], [15]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said you were to blame for SR's block. I stated that you weren't blameless regarding your own actions. Each one stands on its own. We will agree to disagree here. Best of luck in the future. Buffs (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What?? If you think that I'm "not blameless for my own actions", then start a separate section about it, and provide diffs. But you are just moving the goalposts and playing WP:IDHT. You asked me to back up what I said about problems in SR's block log: what you called "a vague claim". I gave you two diffs of what I had already said in this thread, and those previous comments of mine provided the information you seemed to be asking about: problems with his block log. All of that is plainly visible just above. But now, you jump back to where I said that I was tired of being told that those of us who were harassed by SR are the ones at fault. And you're wikilawyering that you didn't say that we were at fault, just that we were "not blameless". And that's what's been going wrong over all the repeated time sinks created by SR's repeated appeals and the shameful conduct of his enablers. SR harasses good-faith editors. And gets blocked for it, and it's in the block log, post-Cirt. And his enablers respond by saying that the people he harassed are themselves bad actors. Victim-blaming. Rinse and repeat. Again and again. And heaven forbid that anyone point out that it's victim-blaming. Because that's met with the crying of schoolyard bullies who got punched back by the bullied. Shame on Wikipedia if this appeal is granted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) For those claiming there is no victim-blaming going on in this thread in past ones, this is a "great" example of such a personal attack by Buffs directed at Tryptofish where they cast what is called vague WP:ASPERSIONS about Trpytofish "not being blameless". In reality, we had an AE awhile back related to the interaction of SR and Trpytofish where admins were in agreement with statements such as no administrator has found serious or repeated fault with Tryptofish's behavior among others.[16] If anything, those claiming Trpytofish was at fault were politely chastised for not having any real evidence at that AE. That's how aspersions like Buffs is making now become commonly so disruptive in Sashiroll topics. KoA (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Tryptofish: Then let me be succinct and clear: your actions are not 100% in line with WP:CIVIL, et al throughout the timeframe in question. You (and others) have unnecessarily raised the temperature. If you want to take that as victim-blaming/victim-shaming/personal attack/etc, that's on you. The point is that you can do better, not that you "caused" SR to behave in the manner he did or are the "ones at fault". I am not asking for sanctions on you or anyone else opposed to SR's return, but don't confuse that with saying your actions are "above reproach". If you are "punching back" then you too are "fighting" when you can choose to walk away. To be fair, I too have made snide or unnecessary remarks that have raised the temperature as well here on WP, but that doesn't mean that it excuses the stalking that's happened to me (I've literally been doxxed and accused of murdering another user).
      That, however, is completely separate from my assessment of SR. The only reason I bring it up is because that temperature has been raised on both sides and the actions need to be seen within that context. That doesn't mean "you deserved it", merely that I see it within a larger context of events, not in complete isolation. If you cannot separate these two assessments, I can't help you. Likewise, you've responded 21 times in this thread alone...time to let it go and let the admins determine what needs to be done. Buffs (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've never claimed to be perfect. If in fact, we agree that SR's conduct should be evaluated on its own, and cannot be explained as having been caused by the actions of other editors, then that's something we can agree on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I am new here, but it looks like there are a lot of strict rules that are easy to break by accident. Wikipedia administrators should be able to give people a second chance when they mess up and they should un-ban SashiRolls. If SashiRolls returns and keeps making the same mistake over and over, then administrators should ban the user again until the problem is fixed. Lobster from Maine (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (note - the above is a one day old account) - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Levivich mostly. Frankly, I don't see anything preventative about this ban that wouldn't be as easily and comprehensively covered by extant restrictions. And the idea that somehow SR could get away with even breathing in the wrong direction without this ban / a block being (re)imposed quicker than you can imagine. They have clearly been editing productively elsewhere; I suggest that we demonstrate some trust, after some years, and that perhaps if we don't poke the bear, the bear might bring some of that productivity back here. We gain a useful editor, SR behaves themselves, and a happy vista is viewed by all, hein? SN54129 18:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm agnostic about unbanning SashiRolls—they're clearly passionate about the project and have contributed substantially, but also seem a poor fit for the social aspects and expectations of this website. Maybe that's changed, although my experience is in line with TonyBallioni's in that I think we're more likely than not to end up back here, with regrets, if we unban them. That said, I could support an unban as long as it's clear that this isn't a second chance, but more like an nth chance, and that there won't be an (n+1)th chance.
      Setting aside SashiRolls, I do have to say that I'm really disappointed by the behavior of some of his supporters—a dynamic that goes back to his original ban. The victim-blaming is just a really shitty thing to do, but there's plenty of it in this thread. We should welcome or even solicit victim-impact statements when we consider unbanning people who were banned for cause, and we should consider the impact of an unban on people who previously bore the brunt of the banned editor's behavior. We should center the time and goodwill of those victims at least as much as we center the banned editor's perceived right to another bite at the apple. Instead, we usually pontificate about forgiveness, patronize the victims for their "pettiness", and pat each other on the back for our greatness of spirit—easy enough to do when the cost will be paid by someone else. MastCell Talk 19:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That second paragraph: amen! Thank you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Music to your ears, Trypto, I'm sure. Anyway, while this appeal doesn't seem likely to pass, at least MastCell, whose stated "agnosticism" here seems highly questionable, doesn't get to WP:SUPERVOTE this one, as such a SUPERVOTE wouldn't be needed. This, folks, is the absurdity. I, the actual victim in the original ban am accused of "victim blaming" (but I'd likely be lauded by Floq, Trypto and MastCell if I were to forever not forgive Sashi). It was I who was disparaged unrelentingly at the WPO during the original ban (though not so much by Sashi). It was I whom WPO admin trantino attempted to doxx back then.
    And these carefully-crafted words from MastCell are hurtful, but in my experience from other disputes, that is MastCell's intent—though he cleverly doesn't mention me by name—to cause hurt to the opposition. I've been on the receiving end of it several times in the past few years. Otherwise, I never really see him around. Trypto's grievances of many years, however, are far from "petty." If they were, they'd be easy to overcome.
    As for Floq's fire-and-forget animosity, I'm not gonna bother addressing that beyond my now-hatted comments. Obviously, my humor there had the opposite of its desired diffusive effect, as admittedly, I might have miscalculated/forgotten how deep these grievances go, to the point of being seemingly insurmountable. Should we expect anything different in an appeal years from now? And years from then, as well? Et cetera, etc.? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be a resounding no. El_C 18:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, everyone is being so, so unfair to you, which demonstrates that this appeal has merits. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, yes, poor me, sad merits. But no, Trypto, far from "everyone." But I do expect much disparagements against myself from certain people to pile on high, irrespectively of anything I could possibly say now. It's gonna suck, but it's almost certainly unavoidable. It is what it is. El_C 20:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MastCell, while I somewhat appreciate the point you were trying to make in your second paragraph, I do not think it was wise or fair to use an emotionally-charged term such as "victim-blaming" to describe what is happening here. In this thread, several editors have argued against the unban by making unsupported negative comments about Sashi. I haven't seen anyone bat an eyelash over that. If that sort of thing is going to be allowed to stand, then I'm afraid we can't have it both ways. Besides, if the full context of Sashi's ban involves problematic behavior by his antagonists, then I think it is highly relevant to bring that up here. So, while your disappointment is noted, I suspect it is misguided. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are wrong about that, and your comment should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. If there is a concern about bad conduct by anyone else, then raise it in a separate thread specfically about that, instead of throwing around a vague aspersion in the hope that two wrongs make a right. And if there is a concern about unsupported negative comments about SR, refute them. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Challenge me all you like, but you greatly overestimate my interest in wasting my time on this matter, especially since the community is clearly unwilling to allow Sashi back at this time. At any rate, I haven't really seen any "victim-blaming" in this thread, and I remain of the belief that the background context of Sashi's ban is relevant to this discussion. Opening a separate thread would generate more heat than light, as you undoubtedly realize. And no, the onus is not on me to refute other people's unsubstantiated assertions about Sashi. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a challenge to you, personally. But if people are going to complain that what MastCell said was unfair, then it behooves them to back up their claims, rather than just fold when someone asks them to show their cards. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. I don't see MastCell backing up his claims either, and you don't have any problem with that. Heck, last I checked you were quoting him in an essay. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for looking into my edit history. That essay is WP:DEFLECT, which is about, well, deflecting from the issue at hand. MastCell wrote about comments in this thread, so it is self-evident what he was referring to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as I said earlier, I have not seen any "victim-blaming" in this thread. So regardless of whether a person could infer which comments he was referring to, I wouldn't say that he backed up his claims. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't seen any victim-blaming? I can, in fact, infer that you can infer which comments he was referring to. Obviously, you are looking at the same comments that MastCell and I are looking it, but seeing them differently. That doesn't mean that he didn't provide evidence, just that you disagree with the evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Beg pardon? I never said anything about not being able to tell which comments he was referring to. I expressed disagreement with his characterization of said comments. Those objections were raised two days ago, and he has yet to respond. IMO, that means he hasn't backed up his claims. I feel as though you and I are talking past one another. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, indefinite doesn't mean permanent and SashiRolls has been doing verifiably good work on other projects. On the other hand, he was given a "last chance" in his 2018 unblock and after two years of issues wound up with this ban. On balance, I don't see myself supporting, but if the community wants to give a "last last chance" given his work on Commons, I wouldn't be strongly opposed, though I agree with MastCell and TonyBallioni that prior history isn't promising. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I have no opinion about Sashi's request at this time, having read this thread I do have an observation and a thought. My observation is that we don't have good ways of assigning responsibility in a conflict. We essentially end up assigning it as 50/50 or 100/0. If it's really say 60/40 a 50/50 outcome isn't too bad. But sometimes it seems like when it's lopsided - say 90/10 or 95/5 - we're just as likely to default to 50/50 as 100/0, if not formally at least in comments. I don't know what there is to do about that but our lack of nuance in these discussions is something I see reading through comments here and see as the cause of some of the rancor that has happened. My thought is for people with Sashi's general profile, if rather than a straight unblock if something more akin to the unblock ArbCom did with Lightbreather might leave people feeling better. This would also address the general point Tony made above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. SashiRolls has made two further replies that they've asked to be copied over here. User talk:SashiRolls#Reply #3 and User talk:SashiRolls#Reply #4. They've both received responses there, but I'm drawing attention to them here as was intended. I don't feel comfortable copying them over myself. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my comments in the original ban discussion. I don't agree with the "unblocking will restart long term problems" arguments above. Sashirolls's reserve of AGF will be minimal to start with unless and until he earns more by not starting arguments even when he feels he's being baited, and he presumably knows Wikipedia well enough to know that the next block will be permanent and essentially unappealable. This means a de facto condition of any unblock—whether or not it's written formally—is "you are topic banned from anything remotely controversial". Either we're here again on one single future occasion to formally approve the permanent ban, or we gain an editor who's obviously knowledgeable and trying to help. ‑ Iridescent 05:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For the tape, this comment was technically canvassed as it's in response to a mention of me on Sashirolls's Commons talk page. Other than my participation in the original ban discussion, to the best of my recollection I have had no previous interaction with this editor anywhere. ‑ Iridescent 05:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (adding) It seems fair to address Tryptofish's instead it is something where it is entirely the responsibility of the user to demonstrate, without coaching, that they truly understand their own responsibility for the ban and that they have a clear idea of how to become a net positive directly. English Wikipedia isn't like any other site (even other sites in the WMF ecosystem), and someone who's unable to participate here can't demonstrate changed behavior. It does seem to me that, by participation at related sites like Commons, SashiRolls is making a conscious effort to demonstrate they can get along with others in a wiki environment. Regarding WPO, the site isn't searchable so I can't comment on their conduct there, but I wouldn't really consider it relevant to an on-wiki ban appeal unless they were saying things spectacularly and irredeemably offensive. Since we're not even allowed to take other users' conduct on the official Discord and IRC channels into consideration, I certainly don't see why we should take into account someone's activity on a website with no connection to us at all. ‑ Iridescent 06:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm past being tired of this discussion, and I'm only replying because you addressed me directly. I don't buy your reasoning, because SR can participate here, by posting the appeal request and by posting replies to comments here, via their talk page. I've never argued that they also would need to demonstrate good editing in mainspace here while blocked, as that would be a ridiculous expectation. And if you are referring to what I said about WPO, I said it only in response to what SR had said about it in the opening appeal. I appreciate, of course, trying to address what I said, but let's please deal with what I actually said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry if I wasn't clear, by someone who's unable to participate here can't demonstrate changed behavior I wasn't referring to this discussion or his own talkpage; I meant that SashiRolls can't participate on Wikipedia in general, to demonstrate that they can get along with people without arguing. Anyone can make promises, but whether or not someone has actually changed their behavior is something that can only be tested in a live environment. (Somewhere like Commons doesn't really translate, as their different culture means that unless one consciously goes looking for trouble it's actually fairly difficult to have an argument there. I have upwards of 50,000 edits there, and I don't believe I've even been involved in so much as a minor disagreement.) ‑ Iridescent 20:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for that. You also raise a good point about Commons (that I suspect is also applicable to WikiData). Consequently, a lot of this discussion boils down to how to balance the edit history at the French Wikipedia with the history here. (And I've already made clear how I would balance that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You know, this comment chain reminded me that we have seen SR's behavior a bit here already through their talk page. In the process of this appeal, they've already been trying to get Volunteer Marek sanctioned with an interaction ban in User_talk:SashiRolls#Reply_#3 when there was mention of a one-way ban being needed to protect VM. User:GizzyCatBella correctly called that out.[17]. That comes across as still pursuing VM despite claiming they'd leave VM alone without the ban, and has a bit of that "winkyfaced insinuation" that Rhododendrites mentions below. If anything, it's more of the wikilawyering and "civil" POV-pushing attitude that the community had enough of. That kind of stuff can be hallmark under the radar WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior not noticed by those unfamiliar with SR's past issues unfortuantely. KoA (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hesitant support per Boing, Levivich and Iridescent. SR is going to be on a very short leash, and their words suggest they know it. I note that there's a few folks I respect opposing this, but I'm quite unimpressed with the comments others have made here about people whose conduct isn't under discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the initial ban, SR went over to WO to blow off steam. In that [apparently now-deleted] message, he highlighted a few people's opinions in particular, including making an off-hand comment about my job. It wasn't outing, to be clear, wasn't an attack, and didn't seem intended to be harmful, but it did illustrate one of the reasons I supported the ban in the first place. In the original block proposal, I wrote that that "they seem to have a particular kind of consistent battleground style characterized not by outright name calling or direct accusations of bad faith, but by pervasive winkyfaced insinuation, subtle personalization, and conspiratorial musing. It makes it harder to point to one or two diffs to hold up as especially egregious, but I find the effect much more damaging (and even chilling) than a more typical battleground approach".
      Now it's been a couple years, and in the absence of anything truly problematic to point to (I haven't seen anyone provide any evidence at all of problems with his contributions elsewhere) I'm not going to oppose this. While I'm also not quite supporting, I do think SR is a clever, well-read sort and has the potential to be able to improve a variety of topics constructively. The question is what will happen when he gets into disagreements. Even with a lot of scrutiny, we have a hard time dealing with battleground behavior when it doesn't involve crossing bright lines, so I suspect if this is successful, we'll see a lot more community time being spent here in the future. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe some sort of restriction on speculating about motives or something would help, but that'd probably just be a nightmare for everyone. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This illustrates very well why their behavior was hard to deal with at ANI, etc. in the past and still would be. In the event they did return, it wouldn't be quite so simple as many supports make it seem to be in terms of SR being watched closely.
    So whenever this does get closed, I think the closer looking at what you said and seeing how whatever proposed remedy in an unban (if any) would alleviate the situation you describe would go a long way. I'm obviously opposed, but in the event of consensus for an unban, that would need to establish consensus for a pathway the community is at least somewhat comfortable with for return. I'd say there really isn't consensus if a good number of supports are looking at all these other additional restrictions (though very reasonable avenues being explored to try making it work) to add to the long existing list, but the burden is really on the supports to show an avenue that deals with the numerous legitimate issues we had with SR that resulted in a site ban rather than additional restrictions. KoA (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot about it Rhododendrites, but SR actually was subject to a personal comments restriction like you mention from 2019-2020.[18] Nightmare or not, it was deemed necessary back then. Yngvadottir, that's another one to add to your list of old sanctions or potential returning sanctions too as I don't think anyone has mentioned that one yet. KoA (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We've done this before on other users, and I've seen how those play out. I can safely say that a restriction on "speculating about motives" will lead to two things: 1. People rushing to report SR for every small violation or non-violation, and 2. People rushing to defend SR for every violation, period, because they feel the restriction by design is too draconic. I think any discussion of an unblock ought not include a condition that ArbCom had previously deemed unenforceable by nature. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of ArbCom saying they are unenforceable, and in my experience, they've been very effective in protecting the community for editors that just can't knock off battleground behavior. If anything, it's just a WP:FOC policy enforcement sanction. Some editors need a bright line that forces them to only work on content and actively keep their nose clean. Draconian maybe for someone who just got short with someone one time, but not so much in extreme battleground cases that resulted in a site ban. I think I can speak for most of the more outspoken opposes here that most would rather be glad just to not even worry about SR if such as sanction was in place rather than rushing to report SR. Most are instead more concerned about burdening other parts of the community with repeats of SR's past behavior, and I haven't really seen anyone here at least out to get SR. KoA (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I went back and reviewed the notice that ultimately ended in the indefinite ban.[19] I have very little faith than anything is going solve the problematic behavior. If an editor receives a "last chance" and squanders it then that that should be the end of it. I'm sure there are blocked editors worthy of reconsideration, but this isn't one of them. Nemov (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said earlier today that I was tired of commenting in this thread, but seeing yet another unfounded attack on me as a cheap tactic to WP:DEFLECT from the real issues at hand, I'm going to say something more. The conduct of several editors here, defending SR, seems to me to violate the WMF's Code of Conduct, as indeed SR's own conduct has done in the past. I hope that this appeal is declined. But if it isn't, if the en-wiki community just falls back on let's-give-yet-another-second-chance, it might just be a subject ripe for Trust and Safety. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tryptofish, regardless of how hurt you feel, that's a remark intended to chill discussion. Please don't dismiss your fellow editors' right to their own opinions and to seek to explore options. It causes me to respect your position less. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It also chills discussion when other editors needlessly cause hurt. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that you probably don't want to hear this from me given that we are on opposite sides of this discussion, but please remember that you have repeatedly stated elsewhere in this thread that two wrongs don't make a right. Now you seem to be justifying your chilling remarks on the basis of perceived wrongdoing by others. You cannot have it both ways. And let me further add that as someone who may or may not be one of the intended targets of your threat, I will find it very difficult to take your criticisms of Sashi seriously if you are willing to stoop this low. The code of conduct was not implemented to be used as a cudgel for intimidating people on the noticeboards. Please choose your words more carefully, and please consider the possibility that your attempt to dictate to the community in this fashion may backfire. People don't like being threatened. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are directing that at me, so I'm replying. People who are comfortable with their own actions should not feel chilled or intimidated. There's no reason for the community to feel dictated to. I'm not trying to have anything both ways. I've been saying all along that SR's request should be evaluated on the basis of SR's own conduct. It's other editors, not me, who keep arguing that the real problem is the way SR was treated by me or other editors, and who keep trying to make this discussion focus on me or other editors who oppose the appeal. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    People who are comfortable with their own actions should not feel chilled or intimidated. Are you suggesting that people never get threatened unless they've done something to deserve it? I certainly hope you know better than that. And yes, by threatening to run to T&S if you don't get your way, you are absolutely dictating to the community. Don't bother to pretend otherwise. You say that you don't want this discussion to focus on you. Well, you should have realized that an ill-considered threat would draw more attention to you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck the statement, because it has become too much of a distraction. It's true that people who do not deserve it can be the targets of threats. It's also true that people who did not deserve it became the targets of SR's bad conduct, which is what should be the focus here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already stated my opinion on whether we should consider the broader context behind Sashi's ban. I am aware that you disagree, and it is not necessary for you to incessantly remind me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the unblock in 2018 was SR's last chance. They didn't participate effectively in the community at that point which is seen very clearly from the 4 discretionary sanctions and 4 blocks SR received in the year and a half they were in blocked in 2018-2020. The decision here is will SR be able to return to the community without causing further problems that will require admin intervention. Based on the history and that it's only a couple of years later, the answer to that is no. While this an example of my reasoning rather than the reason for it, as others have pointed out SR's comment in their unban request that How about we get out the calumet and agree to peacefully co-exist strongly suggests that this is not the case at this point and that SR seems to arguing that it wasn't their actions that caused the ban but the community, I dunno, looking for a fight. Turn of phrase or not this is something that SR put in their unban request, the thing that should convince the community that they understand the reason for the ban and that it is no longer necessary. See also TonyBallioni and RickinBaltimore's comments. Having said all of that I don't necessary think that SR fits into the 'never block' category but I think we're a few years off being in a position to welcome them back and that the unban request at that time needs to clearly demonstrate an understanding of the issues that lead to the ban and use that understanding to effectivley explain a commitment to not repeat the same behaviour or other behaviour that doesn't fit with our normal editorial processes and expectations. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, Callanecc. I respect your different perspective, including seeing more than 2 years as only a couple of years, while it seems to me like an appreciable length of time, just as I've also noted KingofAces' very different interpretation from mine of SashiRolls' response to the suggestion of a one-way IBan with respect to Volunteer Marek. But I just can't see the reference to what used to be called a "peacepipe" in popular fiction, and the suggestion of agreeing to peaceful coexistence—which is pretty much WP:CIVIL summed up—as evidence of looking for a fight. I've turned it over and over in my mind and I still just don't see ill will, and SashiRolls' statements in this appeal have been all about how they intend to avoid conflict if reinstated. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it implies that the community needs to do something different in order for Sashi to be able to be part of it, that is agreeing to peacefully co-exist rather than existing within the community. A siteban is a clear statement that the person being banned is not acting in a way that is compatible with the collaborative editing environment on this project. It's up to that person to demonstrate that that is now not the case and hence that the ban is no longer necessary. It shouldn't be a matter of asking or implying that the community needs to co-exist with them, you can be a part of the community or you can choose not to but the community's responsibility isn't to co-exist with someone who isn't upholding its expectations of conduct. This may not be Sashi's intention behind that statement and as I said that statement isn't the reason I'm opposing lifting the ban at this point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never heard of that interpretation of "co-exist" before. Levivich (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/request for uninvolved admin review of this entire request thread. - Wow! In my 15 years of editing here I can't say I have seen a more dedicated effort at outright hostility than that displayed by two editors here, one of whom called me out without pinging me, the other who has now actually threatened to take to Trust and Safety those !voting, like myself, for an unblock in this matter should SR be unblocked, in a patently chilling manner. The 40 plus combined posts these two have made here on this thread on the Administrator's Noticeboard, the major Wikipedia Admin noticeboard, call for a review, as I see it, by an uninvolved admin. Please, review this entire request thread, and if need be, take appropriate action. We are way over the line, as I see it. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Speaking as another unblock supporter, I don't interpret I hope that this appeal is declined. But if it isn't, if the en-wiki community just falls back on let's-give-yet-another-second-chance, it might just be a subject ripe for Trust and Safety as "threatening to take to T&S those voting for an unblock in this matter". I think what Tryptofish is trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong) is "The community clearly doesn't agree here so this needs a formal ruling from the WMF as to where the line should be drawn". Needless to say I disagree—I can't think of anything less likely to cool tempers than inviting the WMF to impose their own idiosyncratic definition of "appropriate conduct" onto English Wikipedia—but I don't believe the suggestion was either made in bad faith or intended to have any kind of chilling effect. (To reiterate, this whole thing looks to me like a completely routine WP:ROPE case. I honestly don't understand why so many words are being expended on it; the only three possible outcomes are "SashiRolls doesn't get unblocked", "SashiRolls gets unblocked and doesn't cause problems" or "SashiRolls gets unblocked, causes problems and promptly gets reblocked", none of which would be earth-shaking or set some kind of drastic precedent.) ‑ Iridescent 06:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think "chilling" is the apt word, but I also don't think the statement in question has the connotation of "the community clearly doesn't agree". It says if the community doesn't agree with a specific desired outcome, then a fourth outcome may be pursued. isaacl (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not really saying that this would be something to pursue if the community cannot agree, so much as it might be something to pursue if the community cannot get its act together. So Jusdafax seems to be formally calling for a review of my conduct, and KoA's. I pointed out earlier in this discussion that some editors have been coming here to defend SR because they see SR as having been on their "team" in previous content disputes. One of the biggest of those was GMOs. And don't for a minute underestimate Jusdafax's participation in that. If you go here and keep reading through to the section about Semitransgenic, you can see just where Jusdafax is coming from. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, so assuming by "get its act together" you mean agree with a specific outcome you have in mind, then failing to reach this outcome might cause another outcome to be pursued. (I don't think the rest of your comment is related to mine.) isaacl (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Enough time has elapsed that SashiRolls should be given another chance. Their contribution to other Wiki projects shows that they want to be part of the project, are aware of its rules and want to contribute. I note that three of the editors opposing unbanning have had content disputes with SashiRolls and were themselves indefinitely blocked and returned. I don't see why they should be allowed back and SashiRolls shouldn't. TFD (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Three mysteriously unnamed editors? This is exactly what I mean when I point to WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you please avoid personal attacks against me such as your claims that I was arguing WP:2WRONGS. Please assume good faith. These three editors were permanently blocked and returned and have managed to remain unblocked for a long time now. The moral is that editors can learn. I didn't mention the names because it should no longer be held against them. But you can check the block logs of all the editors in this discussion.
      Incidentally, I agree it's time for you to stop arguing. I should be able, like other editors to post my opinion without having to explain them to you. I didn't add a comment after your vote. TFD (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm replying because you directed that at me. Thank you for clarifying that you meant that those three editors came back and were net positives, which is evidence that people can learn and improve. The way you originally wrote it seemed to me to mean that those three editors were just as at fault as SR, and so, to be fair, SR should be treated the same as those three others, and my point is that SR should be evaluated on his own merits, and not excused because someone else supposedly had been. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In the same edit as the comment above, you wrote, "some editors have been coming here to defend SR because they see SR as having been on their "team" in previous content disputes". So: some mysteriously unnamed editors? Levivich (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right, that's a valid point. Where I said that, I was referring to Jusdafax. Unless someone wants me to, I won't try to make a comprehensive list of the others. But in the interest of making it plural, let's add your participation at pretty much every AE discussion about SR, where, in every case, the reviewing admins concluded that your assertions were not factual. But, in any case, the discussion here is about SR's appeal, and TFD's complaint that the fact that unspecified other editors were unblocked should be a reason to unblock SR is WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      where, in every case, the reviewing admins concluded that your assertions were not factual is not factual. You're now approaching 30 replies in this discussion; it might be time to stop attacking people who are voting support. Levivich (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright, almost every case. Are you trying to chill my participation? And, to be precise, I'm responding to people who are attacking me. If you don't want me to reply to you, don't direct a comment at me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      almost every case is also not factual. In fact, nobody has ever said that my arguments in any AE was "not factual". Plenty of people have disagreed with my interpretations, my conclusions, my principles... but not my facts. Because at AE I post diffs. The suggestion that I have made false statements of fact... is false. Attacking my credibility was low and uncalled-for, same as your attack on Justdafax's motives, and others', including Sashi's. I've never understood quite why you've had such a bee in your bonnet about Sashi to the point that you bludgeon every discussion about him and even go so far as to attack those who disagree with you, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed. Levivich (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel strongly because I was on the receiving end of SR's malicious behavior. But I'm not the issue here, no matter how hard you or other enablers try to make me the issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      See? You called me an "enabler". That's another attack. Isn't it just OK that we disagree about whether or not Sashi's site ban should be lifted (or should have been imposed in the first place)? Do we have to also label those we disagree with, impugn their motives or their credibility? Can't we agree that we're both reasonable people looking at the same set of data and coming to different conclusions about it? For example, I'm not accusing you or anyone else of axe grinding or holding a grudge or trying to use bans as a way to win a content dispute or anything like that. I think the original ban was uncalled for, and that in any event, two years of productive contribs to sister projects is sufficient to demonstrate that an editor can productively contribute to this project. You disagree. That's fine with me. I hope it's fine with you, too. Levivich (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ha! To be absolutely honest, I wanted to see if you would pick up on that, and you did! So, let's look earlier in this discussion. I said: I want to respond to that point about supposedly holding petty grudges. For me, this is no more about holding a grudge, than it is about being an enabler when editors who have long memories about past disputes over GMOs or AmPol come here to support the request on behalf of someone they perceive as having been on their "team". And an awfully high percentage of the editors who have commented here fit that description. So we can go back and forth calling one another grudge-holders or enablers, or we can look at what would be in the best interests of this project. Then, when I referred back to that, by saying: I pointed out earlier in this discussion that some editors have been coming here to defend SR because they see SR as having been on their "team" in previous content disputes, you jumped on it because I had said "some editors", instead of naming them. You berated me over having a "bee in my bonnet", and now you say that you aren't accusing me of holding a grudge. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To quote from a much earlier discussion, Good people make bad mistakes, more than once. Levivich (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Levivich, I was there at that AE.[20] You did have credibility issues that admins pretty politely rebuked you in your pursuit of Tryptofish there. That is your problem to deal with, not something to label as an attack when pointed out, nor is it appropriate to pursue and rile up editors and claim they have a been in their bonnet about someone else when you are the one shaking the bee (I can say as an entomologist, don't antagonize bees).
      Please take this as a serious warning that you need to back off on the battleground behavior you were warned about at ANI.[21] in pursuing editors. You and I have talked about that plenty before. Not only is it disruptive and blowing up the size of this section, but what you are doing is hardly even centered on SR anymore. The reality is that SR also had serious issues in their motives and actions at the ban discussion and prior. Denying that doesn't help SR return, nor does going on tangents in your pursuit of Tryptofish. It only muddies the water and makes the potential for an unban move towards no consensus. That behavior honestly made things worse for SR then (which is why I brought it up earlier in this thread), and you doing it sure doesn't help them now. I'll be one to say I wasn't really planning to post here again until I saw this going on, so knock it off and let everyone move on. KoA (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Funny, I didn't read I don't find his evidence of "Tryptofish following SashiRolls" to be persuasive. and Levivich seems to be the only one attempting to present any evidence of misconduct by Tyrptofish, but I'm not actually seeing anything in there that demonstrates any wrongdoing as being rebukes. I'll be sure to treat your warning with the seriousness it deserves. Levivich (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      One can get some perspective on this part of the discussion by looking at the first thing I said in the previous discussion that culminated in the ban that SR is now appealing: [22]. Look at what I said then. I wasn't looking for it. Someone (Levivich!) started posting incorrect things about me, and only that made me feel compelled to involve myself. It was way past a second chance then, and it was redundant then. And there's a cost to this project when editors like me become discouraged by disputes like this, and decrease our contributions as a result. How many more times does the community have to say "enough is enough"? And for those who are complaining now that I'm commenting here too much, by my count roughly 26 of the comments I've posted are direct responses to other editors who addressed me by name, or who insulted me, or who misrepresented something I had said or done. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Tryptofish: You may want to review the principles of WP:Bludgeon and how they align with civility. You've made your point extremely/abundantly clear. If you continue, despite repeated requests for you to stop [23] [24] [25] [26] , I will be asking for a block for the duration of this thread as it is becoming disruptive. (link to this addition for ease of use [27]) Buffs (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      One of those diffs is actually KoA agreeing with me. And you don't exactly have a lot of credibility lecturing me about civility. I guess the truth stings. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Tryptofish: KoA may have agreed, but he also asked you to stop...you haven't...here we are... Buffs (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've just re-read that about ten times, and I'm not seeing anywhere he said that. @KoA: did I miss anything? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You are indeed correct; I misread it. Stricken Buffs (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. KoA, no need for you to reply here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For what it's worth, given that Tryptofish was directly impacted by SashiRolls, one way or another, I think he has every right to comment and make his argument. An admin will step in if it's necessary. What does semi-retirement mean anyway? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 01:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I echo a many of the same sentiments other supporters have expressed. Atsme 💬 📧 12:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know I'm going to get yelled at for this. But SR has posted this on his talk page: [28]. One can see it positively, as a demonstration of making constructive edits. But the promise to ignore food-fights and don't interact with folks who have never given and will likely never give up on their quests cuts both ways. On the plus side, it's a promise to stay away from fights. That's good. But it's also, beyond any doubt, a commentary about me and maybe other editors including KoA and VM and others. That latter aspect was not necessary, as he could have just said something like don't interact with folks where there could be a conflict, which would have been neutral language and not problemmatic. I'm willing to allow, under the circumstances, that he should be able to let off some steam. But he has to know that his comments during this AN discussion are going to be scrutinized (and even copied here), and that he is under a 1-way IBAN towards me. If he is flirting with a violation of that, at least borderline, while the appeal is still going on, I think that leaves little room for doubt what will happen if the decision here is to grant the appeal under the expectation that his every move will be scrutinized. Again, I know I'm going to get yelled at now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Let’s try this method. Thank you Tryptofish for bringing this up, and that’s it. We don’t need another argument stemming from this, we don’t need to waste another thousand words for the closer to read. Next person’s vote, please. starship.paint (exalt) 01:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I was concerned about this request from early on, but not concerned enough to look into it more. However SashiRolls comments have convinced me to come off the fence. I'm sure others have been wrong in the way they interacted with SashiRolls, however it's clear that there was also a lot of wrong in the way SashiRolls behaved. While SashiRolls may be sincere in their desire to avoid problem areas and disputes, I'm always sceptical that someone can when they don't properly appreciate that they were the problem which is clearly the case whoever else may also be or have been the problem. However SashiRolls comments lead me to believe they do not properly understand that they were the problem. I'd add that for someone who was given as many chances as SashiRolls, I don't consider that their ban time has been that long. Given all that, their contributions in other projects aren't enough to make me think things will be better this time around, especially since I'm not convinced that the same issues that have arisen here so easily arise in those other projects. To be clear, this means I'm not saying never, but not now and probably not soon either. Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Block request

    request withdrawn, no other support for proposal. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    request withdrawn, no other support for proposal. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Requesting a block of Tryptofish for the duration of this discussion for bludgeoning his position to the point of disruption and incivility:

    • Repeated requests to stop from multiple users: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]
    • Continued behavior after multiple requests/warnings: [34]
    • Support as submitter. Buffs (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boomerang The hypocrisy is staggering. User:Buffs says to Tryptofish "Tryptofish: You may want to review the principles of WP:Bludgeon and how they align with civility" yet it is only six weeks since Buffs themselves was previously blocked for "Persistent bludgeoning of discussions after several warnings". They were unblocked by User:Bishonen after promising "I will pledge not place more than one reply per subheading in any WP:AN forum through the end of the year" [35]. Well, here we are again, six days into the new year, and here's Buffs not only bludgeoning a discussion (seven replies so far) but trying to get others blocked. I think this is probably enough now. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Dumuzid. There is much more I could add, but I have long since learned to simply make your point, and leave. Happy editing everyone!! Atsme 💬 📧 21:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      1. WP:BLP is not a WP:AN forum (thanks for showing that I kept my word)
      2. "Seven" replies is "bludgeoning" now? 4 were actual replies (none longer than the remarks that followed from tryptofish), one was a request/warning, one was a notification, and the last was the block request).
      3. Yes, I was blocked. I admitted fault in the matter...for the same thing I'm asking Tryptofish to be blocked for.
      It is not hypocrisy to ask for the same standards to be upheld. Why is such a block good enough for me and not someone else? (for the record, I think it's reasonably fair to discount any clarification questions made by Tryptofish as he correctly pointed out an error on my part that is now stricken). I would not consider a reasonable statement here "bludgeoning" either as it is a separate, but related topic. Addendum: BK by saying "I think this is probably enough now." are you saying "That's all I have to say" or "If Buffs says anything more, I'll block him"? You're being somewhat vague...the last time I misread the edicts of an Admin, I was blocked. Buffs (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Black Kite, Dumuzid, and Atsme. I don't feel any desire for a boomerang, even though I find this litigation to be vexatious. If I look at it from Buffs' perspective, I can see how it might feel like giving me what he recently got. I'll take this opportunity to point out that, although I'm commenting a lot, I'm not disrupting anything. Exactly simultaneously with this AN discussion, I also took part in this AN thread. I commented a lot there, too. But take a look at how my comments contributed to that discussion, and follow-on discussions here and here. And (despite some claims to the contrary), in the thread here, you can find numerous cases where, although I replied to an editor supporting the appeal, I ended up letting someone else have the last word. You'll also see me acknowledging when editors I disagree with make a good point. And, as I said in the comment that apparently motivated Buffs to file this about me, the vast majority of my replies have been, alas, to editors insulting me, misrepresenting things I said or did, or simply addressing a comment to me by name. (I'll compile diffs if I need to, but it's all visible above.) The fact that this unban discussion has gotten so ugly really does reflect badly on the editing culture here. But the best thing now is to just move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In fact, the first part of this diff: [36], shows me admitting I'm not perfect, and finding a way to agree with Buffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If you're saying you're done here, then the block as requested (which was only for the duration of this discussion is a moot point and I'll withdraw my request. A block at this point would not serve any justifiable purpose. I also wouldn't consider it "bludgeoning" if you responded to someone else's future question directed toward you. Buffs (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not going to bargain with you over this. You've posted a request, and you are free to withdraw it or to let it play out. As you correctly note, I've been mostly responding to questions or comments directed at me. But I'm not going to negotiate in advance over whether something was a question, or a comment. I still see no reason for a boomerang against you. And I appreciate your having struck part of what you said above, so thank you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buffs just struck the request here. I hope that an admin will close this part, and we can just move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    How to request a copy of a deleted article?

    Sorry if this is the wrong forum. A user on Twitter wants to look at the first and last versions of a deleted article and the last version of the article's talk page, to access some etymology info. What's the procedure for this? link to tweet thread --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anthonyhcole: Which page? :) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah np, I could put it up temporarily. Let me know which page it is/was. El_C 08:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both. I'll get back to you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What a mystery! Please ping me when you find out because I'm likely to not remember. El_C 12:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C and TheresNoTime, the article name is Castleroid. Could you post it somewhere for a day or two please? Not sure which timezone the request is coming from. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored all deleted revisions (from 1st to last), which you can find in the revision history: here. HTH. El_C 01:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Just FYI I've also restored Talk:Castleroid per the above — feel free to delete it again when you delete the article ​ — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool thx. No rush about re-deleting, either, as TheresYesTime (←see what I did there) — take a day, take a week, it's all good. El_C 02:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you (pl)! I'll ping you when she's finished with it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Content was copied from Castleroid to other articles back in 2006, so its history should not be re-deleted, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline).

    1. 2006-02-20: Non-linear exploration is moved to Castleroid (Special:Diff/40430451) and rewritten (Special:Diff/40430623). Text similarities to later versions can be seen.
    2. 2006-05-04:
      1. Castleroid is rewritten (Special:Diff/51549144).
      2. Metroid-style game is created (Special:Diff/51552011) with copying from Castleroid (cross-page Special:Diff/51549144/51552011).
    3. 2006-06-14: Metroid-style game is merged into Metroidvania (Special:Diff/58571864, cross-page Special:Diff/57707656/58571864).
    4. 2006-06-18: WP:Articles for deletion/Castleroid (2nd nomination) is closed as merge to Metroidvania. Castleroid is redirected (Special:Diff/59316636), but nothing is copied that day (Special:Diff/59216755/59317184).

    I will make dummy edits and add {{Copied}} templates per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution (shortcut WP:RIA). Flatscan (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I made the repairs. For reference, this is my relevant contributions range. Flatscan (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Circumcision related close

    Could I get a sanity-check on this recent close by TryKid at Circumcision and HIV? (Full disclosure: I disagree with it). In adducing a slight numerical advantage, and an incidental point about WP:FRINGE, can consensus really be declared? Bon courage (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a misunderstanding of WP:NOTAVOTE. I would probably have closed as no consensus since no arguments appear to have been particularly persuasive and it mostly consisted of roughly equal proportions of users talking past each other and many many of the "full version" comments were essentially "what they said". — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a bot-summoned respondent to that discussion, I'm gonna have to agree: a 5:6 !vote ratio and these particular facts cannot possibly justify the finding of consensus the closer arrived at in this case: the respondents were clearly highly divided, on an issue that was nuanced and in a contentious topic area. Even requesting a close in those circumstances was a questionable call, since the only possible reasonable outcome would have been "no consensus"; rather, the RfC should have been relisted with the hope that a second wave of input from FRS respondents might lead to an actual consensus of at least some significant weight, and that's probably what ought to be happen now.
    And, meaning no offense, but the closer really needs to re-read the applicable policies on closing, and better familiarize themselves with the burden of weight that the community expects of WP:CONSENSUS determinations before they act further in the capacity of a closer, especially in divisive topic areas: I trust this was an error made from a good faith misunderstanding of what a proper threshhold of consensus looks like, but at the same time, this wasn't even close to being justified. SnowRise let's rap 02:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd have closed as NC. I can't tell what the status quo is, but there's clearly consensus for some form of inclusion, so if the status quo is no mention then I'd say the RfC permits the shorter summary at least. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems some editors in an earlier section did object to the inclusion of the paragraph at all; but not in the RfC. The shorter version was the status quo at the time I closed the discussion, and also at least when it was started. I considered closing as either "full version" or no consensus, but ultimately it seemed to me that the main arguments against the full version—WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE were not convincing enough for a few other commenters or for me to close as no consensus. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 12:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's sound to consider the discussion by-argument, but I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that these arguments (WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE) were not convincing enough. After they were first made by SnowRise, 3 editors were convinced by them, and 3 editors were not, so a cursory glance would suggest to me that there was no consensus on the relevance/strength of these points? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, aside from the six new commenters, there was also a disagreeing reply from the person who started the RfC and wrote the first !vote. I can see how it could be contentious, but it still left me leaning towards a close in favour of the full version. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 14:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @TryKid: how are you evaluating this discussion here at WP:AN? Are you detecting that your fellow editors think your close a good one? Bon courage (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I don't. Some amount of disagreement is natural and expected; what the close should be is not always very clear and these decisions can be subjective to a large degree. While I see others disagree with the close, I don't think I see anyone considering it specially bad; but if an administrator or editor considers it egregious enough to overturn it expressly, I wouldn't object to it. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 21:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Cool, I have accordingly undone the close. In general in situations where it is "not very clear", closes should be left to admins, per WP:BADNAC. Bon courage (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      TryKid, I wrote my original comments above in a hurry, and I realize now that I failed to note that even if the close was in error it was clearly a goodfaith error, so I'd like to make sure to stipulate that now. That said, I'd like to respond, purely for the purpose of clarity to why I think your reasoning (as you've outlined above) deviates from community consensus and best practice on closes.
    First, when you state that you dismissed the value of certain !votes because you did not find them compelling, you are, in my opinion, failing to understand the distinction between what is expected when you lodge your own opinion and what you are meant to be doing as the closer--that is, summarizing the existing positions and their rough levels of support among the participants of the consensus discussion. While it is true that our policies on closures do present a narrow kind of permissiveness to the closer in discarding perspectives that are not well-rooted in policy and broad community consensus, in practice 1) that kind of discretion is almost never invoked to find a consensus when positions among participants are so close to evenly split, 2) when it is invoked, it would be case of perspectives that are just wildly out of alignment with policy, not these kinds of reasonable differences of editorial perspective, and 3) as others here have noted, such a nuanced and out-on-a-limb close that essentially nullifies the participation of experienced community members expressing views that are plainly an egregiously contrary to policy should be reserved to an admin, if anyone. In other words, the NOTAVOTE principle is a pragmatic carve out that the community has chosen to preserve for rare cases of large numbers of inexperienced editors !voting blatantly against policy, but in practice it is just no applied to cases of close calls on a nuanced and reasonably-disagreed-upon topics being discussed by your average collection of editors/community members, and doing so will usually be perceived as a WP:SUPERVOTE, rather than a fair close.
    Similarly, when you suggest the close might as well be for the interpretation that you endorsed, because the default to the status quo in the case of a "no consensus" result would be the same. But this also conflates important procedural considerations. I tend to agree with you that the status quo version here is almost certainly the longer version, and that for the present time, the content is going to stay the same regardless of whether the result was "include (the longer version)" or "no consensus". And honestly, I have no objection to the outcome in that respect: that's just how we approach deadlocks on this project, and it's a reasonable, pragmatic way of dealing with presently unresolved content determinations. However, how a contested discussion is closed has a lot of knock-on effects under our policies and best practices for resolving disputes.
    To identify just one important factor, whether a discussion is closed as "no consensus" or with endorsement for one of the argued-for perspectives determines how quickly the regular editors on a given article (and the community in general) are likely to entertain the next effort to discuss and gain consensus on that topic. If there is an identified consensus result, most editors will want discussion to stay dormant for a while, even most experienced editors who supported another perspective, and trying to re-litigate the issue immediately can be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. If, on the other hand, the result is "no consensus", continuing discussion can usually resume after a relatively brief break. Even then, I don't advise the next wave of debate begin again immediately in most circumstances, but at least if the issue remains undetermined by a genuine consensus, parties don't have to be worried about being described as being tendentious if they chose to bring the issue to the fore again sooner rather than later.
    Now these aren't the only reasons to use an abundance of caution with endorsing one position over another in a close call in a close, but they are the more salient points. I hope the observations come across as more informative than patronizing, but regardless, I think they are essential nuances that have to be considered when doing a close on closely-disputed issue in a contentious area. Indeed, my best advice is just to leave such calls to a mop, but of course I understand that most experienced editors will dip their toes into making a few such close calls in some community capacity at some juncture. SnowRise let's rap 03:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Snow Rise:“Even requesting a close in those circumstances was a questionable call.” I would like to point out, that the !vote margin narrowed *after* I requested a close. “No consensus” was not as clear when I made my initial request for closure. Prcc27 (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @ProcrastinatingReader: Determining which version is the “status quo” may be difficult. The longer version had been on the Wikipedia article for several years, but the shorter version was recently added, and was on the article prior to the rfc, after a couple users expressed opposition to the long version. Prcc27 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeal of partial block on Sca

    The community declined Sca's appeal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Appeal:


    After months of being blocked from WP:ITN/C, I have come to understand that ITN is serious business, not a venue for jokes or personal comments. I again apologize for posting the wholly inappropriate joke I made about Chinese President Xi on Oct. 26, 2022, and for being too garrulous with my comments at ITN/C in the past. I also realize that ITN is a different place than it was in previous years. I absolutely promise that, if unblocked, I would exercise prudent, judicious conduct, seek to collaborate with other users active at ITN, and work cooperatively to make this Main Page fixture transparently informative and useful to its global audience. Thank you. – Sca (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


    This is your second block from ITNC. Why should we now believe your promises regarding editing there? 331dot – (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad you asked that. I was just about to add to this appeal a suggestion that the recipient review the recent history of my civil and collaborative comments at Featured Picture Candidates (WP:FPC). At FPC I've tried to be polite, circumspect and helpful, and some other users there have indicated appreciation.
    FPC is similar in some respects to ITN/C: Proposals are made, comments voiced, and the items are voted up or down. Images that are approved ("promoted") are perforce potential main page Photos of the Day, so in terms of prominence they are analogous to ITN. (I've been active at FPC for years.)


    I would add that the experience of being blocked was a harrowing one for me personally and made a deep impression. – Sca (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Decline – I'm not prepared to unilaterally lift the block; my suggestion is that you make an appeal at either WT:ITN or WP:AN. – 331dot


    • Beeblebrox, What do you think? 331dot (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If I'm being completely honest, Sca's reaction in the immediate aftermath of this block was so clueless and directly irritating to me personally (rapidly archiving discussion here, but persistently trying to appeal the block on my talk page instead) that I don't really want anything to do with reviewing this appeal. Beeblebrox 17:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That was a technical/procedural mistake on my part. -- Sca (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's provably false. Here's you archiving a declined unblock request the same day it was declined: [37]. Here's me closing the first thread you opened on my talk page [38] on that same day. Here's you starting a new thread on my talk page about your block, directrly replying to comments of mine that you had just archived rather than reply to them on the page they were made [39]. Here's me closing that thread: [40], and here's you posting yet again: [41] and again [42]. At that point I came over here and again asked you to stop posting to my talk page about your block [43], which you removed the next day as "impolite" [44]. So, I'm the impolite one for asking you to stop harassing me on my talk page about it? I don't think so. I was going to stay out of this but this ridiculous denial changed my mind. The lack of clue here is staggering. I oppose an unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    — Sca (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I won't either accept or decline this myself as I'm aware I'm potentially biased, but I feel it's worth noting that Sca's constant obnoxiousness is the primary reason I stopped engaging with discussions regarding ITN/C, and I'm sure I can't be alone in that. If Sca's continued absence makes ITN/C a better-functioning process (and I find it hard to believe it doesn't) then I'd be inclined to leave the topic ban in place—we currently have 57,232,304 other pages on Wikipedia to which the topic ban doesn't apply, so it's not as if it's causing a massive hardship. ‑ Iridescent 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:AGF, WP:NPA !! -- Sca (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The single most important line of WP:AGF is This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary; you've disrupted assorted discussion pages relating to the contents of the Main Page for a matter of years. Sorry if this looks like putting the boot in, but as Floquenbeam has previously pointed out your reaction to being prevented from making inappropriate and disruptive comments at ITN/C wasn't to stop, but to immediately switch to making inappropriate and disruptive comments at WP:Main Page/Errors; this is not the behavior of someone who would exercise prudent, judicious conduct, seek to collaborate with other users active at ITN, and work cooperatively to make this Main Page fixture transparently informative and useful to its global audience.
      For you to claim my comment is a "personal attack" shows either a level of cluelessness so deep a total WP:CIR block is appropriate, or more brass neck than C-3PO. I claimed you were obnoxious and disruptive at ITN/C; you are literally currently topic-banned from ITN/C for being obnoxious and disruptive following a well-attended discussion in which every single participant except you concurred that you were being obnoxious and disruptive. ‑ Iridescent 18:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Inappropriate joke"? More precisely it was a racist joke, wasn't it? At first I thought I might be biased as I hail from South Korea, so I kept quiet. But now I realize I probably wasn't. BorgQueen (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it was a racist joke. Sorry, Sca, it doesn't mean anyone is saying you're a racist, but my immediate association, too, was that of putting on a racist and clichéd accent. I watch TV shows (outside the English speaking world) where to this day white people additionally try to make their eyes look like they have an epicanthic fold, in addition to such linguoracist jokes. If you were actually thinking of an archaic usage of 'erected' (or to be fair, simply creating a possibly figurative one), then that only shows that shooting jokes from the hip (e.g. in what are supposed to be somewhat serious discussions on which events to feature on ITN) can totally misfire. Personally, I'd allow you to return to ITN, provided you stop making jokes, as they don't appear to be your forte. --Sluzzelin talk 20:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    • For the umpteenth time, it was NOT a racist joke, and I had no idea that it would be taken as such. Of course, I regret that some did misconstrue it that way. But I haven't a racist bone in my body, as my user and talk pages have long attested.
      I'm sick to death of being portrayed as a 'racist' -- and deeply offended by being called that !!!! Everyone, please stop slandering me!
      This is character assassination on the pages of Wikipedia, and must cease immediately.
      I've been strongly in favor of equal rights for all persons ever since I heard John Howard Griffin, author of Black Like Me, speak when I was in high school in the mid-'60s.
      Here is a photo I took in 2007 and posted on my user page long ago:
      Anne Frank statue
      Idaho Human Rights Memorial
      Boise, Idaho, U.S.A.


    • To save everyone else here the scavenger hunt, here is the comment/joke in question (despite my signature I'm a white American, so I have no personal stake in this). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sca: I'm not sure how you're going to pick up support for an unblock while you so vehemently deny it was a racist joke. Unless it was a reference to the r/l racist cliché, it doesn't work as a joke or indeed make sense at all. It wouldn't have any meaning. Admitting it was a moment of madness/misjudgent is one (understandable) thing but claiming you didn't know it would be taken that way is very hard to believe. What was the joke behind it unless it was a reference to the Chinese pronunciation cliché? DeCausa (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As I've tried to explain before, it was posted during a ITN/C discussion of what verb to use regarding Xi Jinping's third term. I was getting tired of this long (about 10,000 words of comments) debate, and jokingly suggest that "elected" be changed to "erected," not having any idea that it could imply an ethnic or 'racist' comment. I was shocked by the reaction of some to it. Further, I was fine with the verb ultimately used, and the discussion concluded with the following comment:
      • Comment – Current blurb using "is named" is a good solution. Thanks to whomever. -- Sca (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      -- Sca (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      jokingly suggest that "elected" be changed to "erected" - so... nothing to do with the way Asian speakers distinguish /l/ and /r/, then?  Tewdar  16:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Not at all. Didn't enter my mind. -- Sca (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sca, you would find more support here if you understood that, sometimes, it's not about intention, but about perception. Even if you didn't mean for it to be racist, that's how most of the community took it. If you are not willing to accept that and apologize, then editors are likely to believe you will do it again. Isabelle Belato 🏴‍☠️ 16:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've apologized many, many times. – Sca (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it was about the l/r thing, but they don't think the joke was racist? Personally I find jokes about prosodic systems funnier:

    There was a young man from Japan
    Whose limericks never would scan.
    When asked why that was,
    He replied "It's because
    I always try to cram as many words into the last line as I possibly can."

    • ho ho ho...  Tewdar  16:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose lifting block per Iridescent, also, I am not encouraged by the responses here. --Jayron32 16:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, it was just a stupid joke, a lame attempt at humor, and that's absolutely all it was to me. -- Sca (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And entirely coincidentally, currently I'm watching "Inspector Wexford: The Speaker of Mandarin," on You Tube. As if that would make any difference to you. Sometimes life seems to be full of strange synchronies -- Sca (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Erm... i don't think the account who posted that vid is holding the copyright. Should that be shared here? 188.118.188.145 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Unsigned. -- Sca (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Me not having an account is really what you want to argue here? You do you, but you know where to sort it if you think i am doing anything malicious. 188.118.188.145 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No it shouldn't; link removed. Sca, stop digging a deeper hole; deliberately posting links to copyright violations, particularly when it violates the copyright of highly protective companies like ITV, is the kind of stunt that gets people kicked off Wikipedia altogether. ‑ Iridescent 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And even without the YouTube link this kind of irrelevant meandering comment is precisely kind of stuff I'm concerned would return to ITN/C if the topic ban were lifted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just thought it was a strange coincidence, nothing more. -- Sca (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sca: You're not helping your case. Continuing this line of defensiveness and doubling-down on the same problems that led to the block are unlikely to help your cause. I suggest trying the tactic of not doing that. --Jayron32 18:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      OK. -- Sca (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support appeal per Sluzzelin, who covers the issues at hand. I'm a longtime contributor at ITN/C and have been concerned by the culture there for many years. Sca has also been a contributor there for many years, and while I am in deep sympathy with much of what opposers are saying, feel Sca has earned a last chance, even despite his bumbling here in this appeal. My strong suggestion is that Sca, and by extension all others at ITN/C, self-refrain from any and all editorial commentary or attempts at humor. A !vote and extremely brief reasoning will do. And a Happy New Year, all! Jusdafax (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you very much. And I agree with what you said about comments at ITN/C. -- Sca (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Jusdafax, regarding "Sca has earned a last chance", why do you think the result this time will be any different to the previous last chance? Can you honestly say ITN/C hasn't been improved over the past couple of months by Sca being unable to treat it as their personal captive audience for their jokes and personal opinions? ‑ Iridescent 06:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Iridescent, no sir, I do not say ITN/C has been improved, in my own view. Far from it. I repeat, I have long been concerned by the rhetoric at ITN/C. In my last edit on ITN/C, less than a week ago, I was moved to ask for more kindness in the coming year. Sca, as I say, has been bumbling in his explanations of an extremely foolish and offensive jest here, among others of dubious value over the years, and has been slow to grasp the deeper implications of his profoundly poor attempts at levity and unneeded commentary. But I see no intentional malice. For several months Sca has been blocked from the page, which will remain part of his permanent block log, and if you think that Sca's wrongdoing, for which he has repeatedly apologized in full, is outright ban-worthy, then you and I have a fundamental disagreement, that's all. In my view, he deserves a final shot at ITN, which will be scrutinized by numerous editors. One can counter WP:AGF with the "not a suicide pact" argument, but assuming good faith is a policy at the core of being a Wikipedian, as I see it. Cheers, Jusdafax (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not saying his years of disruption—of which the "I wasn't trying to be racist, I was trying to be sexist" incident that led to the community finally losing patience was just the final straw, not a one off mis-step—are banworthy in the sense that Sca needs to be banned from Wikipedia. I'm saying Sca's toxic presence at ITN/C, which consisted almost exclusively of inappropriate comments and trying to bully anyone who didn't share his personal opinion of what was and wasn't important (Bzweebl's experience below pretty much sums up mine also), it pretty much the embodiment of "net negative". Being unable to comment on one single page is hardly a great impediment. As per my original comment I'm not going to actively oppose the lifting of the topic ban as my personal experience of Sca is too negative for me to assess him neutrally, but "assume good faith" doesn't mean "assume good faith when the person in question has demonstrated consistent bad faith over a period of years despite previous warnings and blocks". ‑ Iridescent 15:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't comment on drama lightly, but throughout my years of participation and perusing of ITN/C, Sca would rank at the top of my list for unhelpful contributors. Most of his contributions are 1) tersely opposing serious nominations for lacking "lasting significance," 2) adding comments or pile-on supports as an excuse to provide his personal commentary on the news, or 3) snarky jokes and asides. I'd say he is emblematic of a group of users at ITN/C who are not here to improve the encyclopedia but instead just use it as a forum. I would want to see evidence that he is here to build an encyclopedia before he rejoins ITN/C, as I don't think his contributions have demonstrated that yet. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I haven't been a regular at ITN for some years but the unpleasant atmosphere there has not escaped my notice. The volume and nature of Sca's edits appear to have contributed to that and regular contributors are saying above that his absence has improved the situation. For that reason alone, the block is worth keeping, or replacing with a topic ban if the software block is causing unintended problems. The more I looked at Sca's last 1,000 edits (going back to last August), the more concerned I became. This is a user who spends all their Wikipedia time pontificating in project space and none working on the enyclopaedia. Of those 1,000 edits, barely any were to the mainspace and I can't tell when they last added sourced content to the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @HJ Mitchell, I can't tell when they last added sourced content to the encyclopaedia piqued my curiosity enough that I took the time to check. For the record, the answer is 7 May 2021. ‑ Iridescent 06:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Conduct here gives me no faith their behavior would be a positive on ITN. Star Mississippi 17:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. I'm unsure whether or not to believe his explanation. In my opinion, there is a ring of truth to it. In addition, I also don't really have much room to criticize his contributions to ITN since I'm probably among that group of editors that Bzweebl cites as being a toxic influence at ITN/C. So I don't know if my judgment would be considered impartial in any way. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ha I don't think you're nearly so bad, WaltCip. You at least make an effort to engage with others constructively and have some self-awareness. The user in question has neither. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for the reasons given by HJ Mitchell above, and having reviewed their recent contribs. The obvious lack of interest in mainspace verges on the WP:NOTHERE. I also can't believe their story on the original "joke". It just doesn't make sense. DeCausa (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I can think of a couple of implausible-but-possible explanations for the original 'joke'. One is that it was a wildly misfiring attempt at a boner-joke (which I think is the defense Sca is trying to make); the other is that Sca is a non-fluent speaker relying on a thesaurus or a translation program who has misinterpreted the alternative meaning of 'erection' as a synonym for 'construction' and thought "Xi was erected as President" meant something akin to "Xi was installed as president as part of a pre-arranged plan". As I say I don't consider either remotely plausible, but if one's willing to stretch AGF to the limit I can just about see it. As I also say, given Sca's history I have no inclination to AGF at all in this case let alone to the extreme limits that would be necessary here. ‑ Iridescent 20:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm a native English speaker. I had absolutely no intention of a "boner". I'm not that stupid. It was just a lame, thoughtless joke about the verb. -- Sca (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: All those who posit my motives or thoughts would seem to be claiming omniscience or clairvoyance. -- Sca (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The motives don't really matter. If we take the most generous possible interpretation, it was still inappropriate and completely contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia discussion pages. It's not even as if you tacked on to an on-topic comment as a throwaway comment, you actually made a whole new edit just to make that joke. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The "you can't know my motives unless you're a mind reader" trope is tired and no one buys it. It's a terrible defense. People can infer motives by behavior and speech without having psychic powers. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "just a dumb, thoughtless joke". Sca, that's the bit I can't understand. What was the joke however dumb and thoughtless? I don't mean it was so dumb and thoughtless it wasn't funny or it was a bad joke. I literally can't establish in my mind how it could be a joke or have any meaning at all unless it was about Chinese pronunciation (even more so, now that you've said it wasn't a "boner" reference). That being the case, it's not that I think you should continue to be pblocked because of a racist joke, but that I can't see how your request can even start to get off the ground while you continue to be - apparently - disingenuous about what happened. But to be honest, this is a side issue. The main problem is HJ Mitchell's point about a lack of interest in being here to improve mainspace. Edit some articles. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Iridescent: They have a box on their user page saying they are a native English speaker. Yes, "boner-joke" is what they say they were going for. But what would actually be the joke? That doesn't extend to "lame", it's literally not there - close to being as random as putting in the actual word "boner". I don't know about "construction", but in archaic British English it's possible to be "erected" to a bishopric or an aristocratic estate. That might make sense if there was other evidence of Wilde-ian wit from them.... but...DeCausa (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, not because of the joke (which deserved censure for sure), but for the deeper problems highlighted by Iridescent, HJ Mitchell and others (and having had a look at some of Sca's posting history). We need fewer people driving productive editors away from project pages by trying to dominate them and constantly filling them with whatever irrelevant nonsense happens to be passing through their minds. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As someone who is mainly just lurking but sometimes commenting at ITN, while Sca never made me ever feel welcome at ITN.. I do have to say that to hold their stance towards new people with accounts or IP editors in general against them is deeply unfair. And everyone else 'productive' will just not be dissuaded by it much, as they already are established and know and accept the culture. The way Sca acted was not even comparable to what happens in regards to actual content work. That really drives people away. That is just the culture of Wikipedia. It is a deeply unwelcoming place that always tries to go above and beyond to 'save' people, instead of actually being welcoming and trying to just attract new editors- Many surely are just put off by the culture of the community. Sashis unblock request above is a good example. And i do remember their disruption well. As well as comments they made at WO at the time. How you want someone like that back... just wow. Anyway, i personaly believe that ITN is better off without Sca, but the same goes for numerous other people that are contributing every day. Walt actually not included as they have been nothing but welcoming and just a nice person. Saying, there is more to it than just contribs... who would have thought. ITN is an outlier, a visible part of the main page and so attracts people. Same as DYK that do content work, but mainly bare bones articles that highlight some rather UNDUE point to make any given thing 'interesting' and reach the bit/word count. No offense intended, obviously. Just my impression of that project. Or the ref desk, whiele less prominent, also has loads of people that only reside there, even more forum-y. And probably in a couple other areas as well. People want to be part of something that is visible. Shouldn't blame them just for that. Same person as above, just FYI. 188.118.188.145 (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, following up on the comments of HJ Mitchell and DeCausa, since the block from ITN Sca appears to have made just 20 mainspace edits. There are other ways to contribute to Wikipedia of course, but there isn't a huge number of other edits either, and there has not really been an explanation as to how lifting this block would contribute to Wikipedia. Contributions to FPC are nice, but I don't think they directly translate. CMD (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose To be frank ITN/C has been better without them, and their replies here don't give me any confidence that they would be less garrulous (their word) if they were to return. They basically just use Wikipedia as a forum, with only 18 percent of their total edits being to mainspace. If they could start making some useful contributions to articles that would undoubtedly help in a future appeal.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The rapid reversions by USER:John Yunshire

    USER:John Yunshire has already been warned about their rapid fire reverting, they deleted these warnings off their talkpage. But I think this user needs to have the rules explained to them again. They seem to be on a wholesale reversion crusade edits.146.199.128.158 (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You have failed to notify the user, which is required, and you have not provided any diffs of the user's alleged misconduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also do not see evidence John Yunshire has been warned by anyone recently. @John Yunshire - for the record, although there is no rule explicitly against deleting warnings off your talk page that I personally know of (I could be wrong), it is generally considered good form to let them be archived like other messages. casualdejekyll 14:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion of warnings is acknowledgement that you read. I see no good form or otherwise of removing them vs archiving.
    Also this should be closed. I looked at 2 edits both were vandal reversion and proper so stopped looking. Slywriter (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Archiving makes it much easier to take past warnings into account when looking at conduct of an editor is needed. casualdejekyll 15:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Anil Beephan Jr.

    Hi, Not many sources, and subject to paid editing by Lupsei27, who was advised on Commons to disclore his COI. Yann (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned to declare status here, will wait to see if they need pblock from page. Star Mississippi 21:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeal of a arbitration enforcement topic ban regarding Lithuania and Poland topics

    There is clear and substantial consensus among uninvolved editors here to accept this appeal, so Pofka's topic ban is vacated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Hello, more than 6 months have passed since this topic ban (see: User talk:Pofka#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban) was applied to me. I'm appealing it, according to our terms. During the topic ban term, I joined WikiProject Latvia and made a substantial contribution to Latvian, as well as Estonian topic areas. Moreover, on 15 April 2022, I was recognized (see: HERE) as Precious Wikipedian and currently I am one of only two Wikipedians who received such recognition for content regarding Lithuania. I believe this demonstrates that content I produced is of high quality. I'm planning to continue contributing such quality content. Poland is closely related to Lithuania due to the shared common history, therefore, to fully contribute quality content about Lithuania, please also vacate the topic ban in Poland's topics areas. Otherwise, I would be significantly limited to creating content about Lithuania. I understand and agree that some discussions I participated in 2022 became too personalized, and I violated WP: BATTLEGROUND as I commented about other users instead of the concerned content/topic. I learned from it, and I'll not negatively comment about other fellow editors. Moreover, I also understand that in some edit summaries, I wrongfully described other users' edits as Wikipedia:Vandalism, and that it was a personal attack. By following other users' explanations and by reading Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism I learned what is and what is not vandalism.
    For nearly 12 years, I am Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia and to provide knowledge to readers, particularly about Lithuania. I desire to continue creating quality content for which I was recognized. As a native Lithuanian, a small population nation, I am able to analyze complicated and extensive Lithuanian language sources and provide high-quality output content in English language.
    Sincerely, -- Pofka (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure I have a voice in the matter, but due to the fact that the ban was imposed in my case, I'll just say that I don't mind removing the ban, in the hope that Pofka will be able to keep more calm and a broader perspective. Marcelus (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s nice of you Marcelus. I’m sure Pofka will remember about it. Right Pofka? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Thanks for your support Gizzy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is an essential rule for me and I am sure it is one of the reasons why I was recognized as one of the finest editors in Lithuania's topic. -- Pofka (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This editor recognizes and acknowledges their past mistakes, and is promising not to repeat them. It would be a benefit to the encyclopedia to allow them to return to editing in the Lithuanian (and Polish) topic areas, where they are knowledgeable, as long as they comply with our policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Cullen above, and per WP:ROPE. --Jayron32 15:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. While there appears to be growing consensus here, let me ping the enforcing admin one more time to give them an opportunity to comment if they wish @El_C. It's possible they may not have seen this since it's on AN instead of AE (though both are appropriate venues). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

    Guideline and policy news

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
    • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic new editor

    Someone should have a look at Kernel123 (talk · contribs). I've noted two instances of them issuing invalid warnings to IP editors [45], and [46]. The latter included a false accusation of vandalism, which I removed and warned him for. This [47] is the edit to Dumpling for which the invalid vandalism warning was issued. Not sure if this person is very young or what, but their editing indicates immaturity to me and isn't especially constructive. They also have some notes about copyvios on their talk page. I'm hoping someone can either provide him with some clue or prevent them from biting IP editors over content disputes. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 03:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had a look through their edit summary, and they seem to be a possibly younger Wikipedian, with a decent share of good faith edits that are not effective. I wouldn't take any sort of action right now, the warning you left on their talk page seems sufficient, I'll be interested to see if they respond, and if they do, what will follow. I will point out that they seem to have ignored other messages related to their problematic edits on their page in the past, which doesn't make me optimistic. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 05:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinitely blocked for an array of reasons. Maybe they will be able to edit constructively in a few years.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well that's WP:BITEy. Do you really think they'll ever come back? Gimmetrow 01:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This blocked user won't stop creating sockpuppet accounts

    Hello, I recently found out this blocked user once again made another obvious sockpuppet account in order to evade blocks and add unsourced information to Smiling Friends.

    Blocked accounts

    Thatgigglygamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Thatgigglygamer2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Request Block

    Thatgigglygamer4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Thatgigglygamer5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 12:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked and tagged, along with account 3 which has no edits. In future perhaps log at WP:AIV? GiantSnowman 12:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll make sure to report similar incidents there instead and Thank you. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 12:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible influence by Saudi Arabia on Administrators - Neutrality

    There is no evidence of anything untoward with any articles or administrators. Maintenance templates should not be added to any articles unless there is a real justification for adding them. Speculation is insufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello at all,

    I'm forced to enter this here because I think it makes more sense than simply marking or writing to admins at random and I think it's a very important matter. According to an NGO report, there was (possibly there is) influence from Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia or administrators. In my view, this is already a highly problematic circumstance. I think it would make absolute sense to mark relevant articles, such as those on Saudi Arabia or Mohammed bin Salman, etc., with the neutrality template and to apply a semi-protection until we have a safer or better overview of the situation after a longer period of time.

    Context:

    https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/01/06/saudi-arabia-government-infiltrates-wikipedia-and-jails-two-staff-to-control-narrative Bildersindtoll (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimedia denial Don't think this is the right place for this? Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I've responded to Bildersindtoll on two of their posts similar to the one above on two saudi related articles here and here. Bildersindtoll, this isn't the issue you think it is. DeCausa (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's exactly this issue and it's definitely the right place for this. Because a discussion about it and preventive measures would be very useful and necessary. It has something to do with transparency and credibility.--Bildersindtoll (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Wikimedia have denied it and the two articles where you've posted similar messages (which I know well: Saudi Arabia and Mohammed bin Salman) are hardly outposts of Saudi propaganda - albeit there are frequent attempts by random IPs and certain editors to "improve" the subject image. But that's business-as-usual for us and we have plenty of processes nd policies to handle that. I think you're in an unnecessary panic! DeCausa (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I can state that Saudi Arabia or its government does not influence me. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do we even know whether this concerns English-language Wikipedia? This is a very sad situation for the Saudi administrators who have been jailed, but I don't see what the actual problem is for our articles here. If the supposed problem is that there are rogue/corrupt administrators, I don't see how semi protection or neutrality tags would help. Girth Summit (blether) 15:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's all disputed by Wikimedia anyway. Authoritarian governments trying to get their image optimised on Wikipedia? Shock, horror...but nothing new. DeCausa (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think it's affecting multiple articles but you also know it's blanket-denied, it at most makes sense to have one central discussion and is not appropriate to fork that discussion into any specific article(s)'s talkpage, pending any change in the sitewide position on the matter. DMacks (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Article salting requested

    An article at Bakhtyar_Aziz has repeatedly been created and speedily deleted for various reasons, not least that it seems to be a promotional autobiography. The account that created it is now blocked as a sockpuppet, but given their repeated re-creation over the past couple years I think it's a good idea to salt it to prevent this in the future. If someone agrees, please have at. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, cheers. Salvio 19:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/Alifseen90

    Hello. Please could you revert every edit made by this user? Over about eight weeks in 2022, they added spam links for the same stock market business to about 50 pages. I have reversed some of them but it is difficult to do manually. Many thanks. Gedrose (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Working on it. Also involved:
    DMacks (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done and indef'ed just to be sure. DMacks (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No Great Shaker 3X-banned

    Per WP:3X, I am notifying the community that No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) has been automatically banned from the English Wikipedia for repeated block evasion ([48] [49][50][51]). --Blablubbs (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiano Ronaldo Jr.

    Has this AfD been closed correctly? Looks a bit broken and no footer. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The closer missed adding {{afd bottom}}. Mackensen (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    K, I was wondering if there was some missed hidden template or something like that. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration motion regarding an amendment to arbitration procedures

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

    A section titled "Closing" will be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures under "Requests for amendment" with the following text:

    A request for clarification or amendment is eligible to be closed by an arbitrator if:

    1. A rough consensus has been reached among arbitrators participating in the request; and
    2. The rough consensus does not require a vote to implement (e.g. modifying the remedy to a case).

    The closing arbitrator should include a summary of the rough consensus when closing the request for clarification or amendment.

    For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding an amendment to arbitration procedures

    Strange Behavior by Sabine7272 and Unregistered Editors

    Editor User:Sabine7272u is mostly creating blank pages with the names of American football players. The blank pages are then being completed by unregistered editors. The timing implies either teamwork between Sabine and the IP editors, or that Sabine is the IP editors, and is either logging out or moving to a different device. I asked Sabine why they are doing this, and did not get an answer. It just seems like a strange pattern of editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, it's an odd pattern. While the edits themselves seem fairly harmless - the articles are all being created in draft space and the subsequent IP edits are constructive - it does look like an example of gaming the system to effectively enable non-registered editors to create articles. WaggersTALK 12:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also a case of unnecessary gaming, considering anonymous editors can create draft articles by themselves, or so I seem to remember. Salvio 12:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    that is correct, that was the point of afc. lettherebedarklight晚安 12:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also not disruptive per se. Sock/logged out editing of accounts is only against the rules when it is disruptive, and this kind of use (using an account to do things logged out editors can't do, and then coming back later to edit) is certainly less-than-ideal, but not strictly disruptive. --Jayron32 15:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Caste vandal at Caste system in Kerala.

    Hello Admins,

    A user is utilizing various IPs to repeatedly vandalize the page at Caste system in Kerala. The current version is the combined effort of multiple users who have provided sourced content, but certain IPs such as 42.107.192.152, 78.152.240.10 and 151.200.244.189 are mass reverting to their preferred version. Given the fact that all 3 IPs use very similar language in their reasons for reverting, it is very likely they belong to the same individual.

    Please grant protection to the page, thank you. 109.78.93.30 (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears to have been protected by Materialscientist some time shortly after this report. In the future, WP:RFPP is the correct page to report protection requests. --Jayron32 15:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Burmese people in China

    User:Onel5969 has been redirecting the page Burmese people in China to Chinese people in Myanmar even though the two topics are barely related (aside from just being inverses of each other, which is hardly a reason to make this redirect), on the grounds that the page is unsourced. Personally I don't really care myself to add sources to the article but I think it is a stupid decision to make this choice of a redirect as the topics are not the same at all. I think the page should either be deleted or left with the unsourced notice at the top of the page, but the idea of redirecting the page to something barely related does not make sense. (Also yes, I did edit the page beforehand, but the IP has changed.) 129.97.124.19 (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    So why don't you try speaking to them about it on their talk page? That's typically what's expected before somebody goes to AN. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've notified One5969 of this AN thread via their talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I think it would be more productive to have an administrator make a decision on the fate of the page? 129.97.124.19 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You should always attempt to resolve a dispute with a user before running to the AN. For dispute resolution, which it sounds like is what you wanted, see WP:DRN. Admins have a lot on their plate, and asking them to get involved in every disagreement on the site would end up with them wasting a lot of time. That's why it's best to try to resolve a dispute yourself first. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you're right but now that it has been brought up to both the other user and posted on AN, if need be I'll move it to DRN. 129.97.124.19 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins don't make decisions regarding content disputes. They have a few extra tools to stop disruptive behavior. --Jayron32 18:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A user removed the redirect and restored the unsourced article. I've since sent it to AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sending the article to AfD, where either sources will be shown or it will be deleted, is a much better way to deal with this than edit-warring back an obviously inappropriate redirect. What on Earth were you thinking of, User:Onel5969? If you don't care enough about an article to spot that then just leave it to someone else. You don't have to hold back the unwashed hordes all by yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking of policy, Phil Bridger. Specifically WP:VERIFY, WP:BURDEN, and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Onel5969 TT me 20:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So policy dictates that we should redirect to an obviously inappropriate target, does it? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger, no need to be so pointy, we should always assume good faith. One5969 regularly CSD, PROD, and XfD tags articles and they also try to incorporate alternatives to deletion when they can. In this instance, I feel it important to point out that they restored the previous redirect that stood for 18 months unopposed. That doesn't make it the right target necessarily, and it's fine to disagree with that as a target, but there was no malice involved in their actions. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Adventure Time Talk Page Archive

    Hello, I need to create a talk page archive for the threads removed in this diff of Talk:Adventure Time: Hey Ice King! Why'd You Steal Our Garbage?!!. I can't do this myself because of special characters. Please help. Thanks. — Paper Luigi T • C 18:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do we need to archive that talk page at all? It's tiny. Canterbury Tail talk 18:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:TALKCOND, "As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB in wikitext or has numerous resolved or stale discussions" (bold added for context). All of these discussions in my opinion could be marked as resolved or stale. If the talk page doesn't exist now, it likely need to be created in the future. — Paper Luigi T • C 19:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paper Luigi:  Done. Seems reasonable enough. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. — Paper Luigi T • C 19:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case under discussion

    The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a motion to open "Armenia-Azerbaijan 3". Interested editors are invited to submit evidence about this topic area and feedback to the committee about this motion at the request. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Simple-engineer unblocked

    Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Simple-engineer (talk · contribs) is unblocked. Simple-engineer is indefinitely topic banned from the Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months have elapsed.

    For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Simple-engineer unblocked

    Qamar Javed Bajwa Article

    I direct your attention to this article: Qamar Javed Bajwa. As you can see, the user M.Ashraf333 has continuously removed my posts on the page, despite me including a variety of sources to back up each post.

    Rather than add anything of substance to the article, such as extra sources or explain other views, he has continuously accused me of being bias and following a political agenda.

    But as you can see, rather than add any extra sources to the page, the user simply keeps removing my edits in the accusation of bias. As it takes me quite a long time to gather these sources, condense the information and post it on Wikipedia; the user's accusations towards me are quite hurtful.

    Please action this as soon as possible, Thank You! Umer23459 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Umer23459
    Every time I gave a reason why I reverted your changes. Although you have worked hard to get these sources but they are all daily routine news stories and Wikipedia is not a news source. And you can't put such one-sided daily routine controversial news stories in biographies of living persons unless the source is authentic and conforms to a court of law.
    On the other hand, if we look at your contribution timeline, you've only come to fix this page on Wikipedia that shows your biased and political agenda views. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a content dispute that should be discussed on the article's TALK and not here. I would urge both editors to avoid an edit war. The status quo should remain until there's a consensus to move forward. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Complaint from HistoryofIran User

    The article has been semi-protected by DMacks. This is a content dispute being made more difficult by the OP. Nonetheless, as a content dispute, it should be resolved at the article Talk page, not here. I strongly urge the OP to calm down, or they risk being blocked for battleground mentality.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello. This user (@HistoryofIran) is not willing to Aziz khan Mukri talk page. He imposes his content on others by force. I brought him an old book (as a source) written by a historian and consul, but he rejects it and finds a research paper on a site (Iranica) more acceptable!

    Sir Basil himself lived among Aziz Khan's family in Savojbolagh and was a member of the Russian consul stationed there. How is it that Basile's words (of 1925) are incorrect, but a research that is itself written from other sources is correct?

    The Kurd: Basile Niktin

    This user is not familiar with the history of Mukri region and imposes his content by force. I have a complaint against him. Sardarmukri (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can tell, you have made no attempt to contact him on his talk page. You should do that before coming here. Additionally, once you do come here, you should notify him of that on his talk page. Animal lover |666| 09:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically I am the one who created a section in the talk page for discussion [52], which I did 9 hours before this report. I'm not sure what they mean by "research paper", anyhow they are free to explain themselves in the talk page, which they haven't done yet. Instead, they have resorted to ranting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, now that we're here, let's see some of the WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS Sardarmukri has already made towards me;
    I revert unhelpful edits, such as disruption, which your edit was. Ironically, you're the one rejecting Iranica and now another source I mentioned in the talk page. You still haven't explained why we should use a outdated 1926 source (WP:AGE MATTERS) by Nikitin, a minor historian. Also, I told you to read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWARRING [53] [54], which you clearly still haven't, instead going on a rampage to force your edit through.
    No they can't, otherwise you would already have attempted to add your nonsense there as well. The articles of Iranica are published by academic historians, take a moment to actually read what it is [55]. I am not distorting anything, I simply follow what WP:RS says, and I don't consider this my personal article either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1133039634"