User talk:Extorc/Archive 5

Biased editing of 2023 Manipur Violence page

It looks like you have a Hindutva agenda, to each his own, but you need to learn to dethatch your personal beliefs when the news is not what you like. When people provide reliable sources such as NYtimes, you cannot just dismiss them as "incoherent". You need to be grounded in reality. Songangte (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ExtorcDev?

Apparently ExtorcDev is your "development/programming account"? Is this legit, or is this an impersonation case? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwU This is legit. I recently got into some wikipedia js dev related to my RM works. But working on it even for a day on my main account messes my edit history and edit stats. I wish for those things to be organized. Hence a new account. >>> Extorc.talk 05:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, makes sense. Wasn't sure if this was the case, considering I've seen users be impersonated with the "alt account" excuse multiple times. Good to know it's a legit account. Cheers! LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, really? Wow. Is there a way for me to have a look at these instances? >>> Extorc.talk 06:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwU >>> Extorc.talk 06:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been so long, I can't remember all of them. But there was quite a few, mostly consisting of this sockpupeteer. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting >>> Extorc.talk 06:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Smith non-admin closure

Hi, while respecting your closure of the recent move discussion, I would like clarification on how the stats here [1] (as listed in the original RM request) can be denied? There is clearly no WP:PRIMARY on page views, so the argument came down to historical significance where I see no strong argument from opposers and a significant majority in favour of the move. Did you maybe think that this was a case of wanting the football manager to be the primary when in fact it was a case of a request for WP:NOPRIMARY?

The votes were 11 (plus proposer) to 7, you dismissed some of the support votes as 'football supporters' while not seemingly taking into account the fact that the oppose votes were all 'basketball supporters', who on a basketball-related page would usually have a big advantage, but still lost the vote by 5. I'm also confused as to how you came to the conclusion that it seems that some of the arguments proposed in favor of the move were readily rebutted and opposed with statistics when the main statistic proposed in the RM was never addressed, Dean Smith simply does not have the majority of page views for that name over the past 8 years. I have very rarely seen an RM closed so much against consensus, especially by a non-admin. Mountaincirque^talk 12:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, no I dont dismiss any votes for being football supporters. I added that part to note that allegations of being fans were thrown around which I now realize is a common trend on that talk page.
Now I see you note the quantity of votes. I am not supposed to decide upon the vote count per WP:NOTAVOTE. I can have it as a factor but not THE factor.
You bring up stats but one stat that the supporters failed to address that the opposers did was the fact that "Wikinav shows that Dean Smith was not among the top 10 incoming sources for Dean Smith (footballer, born 1971)" meaning people werent being directed to the wrong page because of the current primary topic treatment of the basketball coach.

" I have very rarely seen an RM closed so much against consensus, especially by a non-admin.", The consensus you talk about simply doesn't exist and that's why I didn't say there is consensus to not move, I said there is no consensus to move. >>> Extorc.talk 14:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure no closer will say that this discussion has wide consensus and they will most definitely. note that "When article title discussions end without consensus, the applicable policy preserves the most recent prior stable title." per WP:NOCON. >>> Extorc.talk 14:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relists

Hey Extorc, I appreciate your work at WP:RM but I just wanted to remind you that discussions like Talk:Blue bonnet#Requested move 13 May 2023 and Talk:Indian red#Requested move 13 May 2023 don't need to be relisted, and can be simply closed as moved. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions says that No minimum participation is required for requested moves. If no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy. Thanks. – Material Works 18:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll keep this in mind. >>> Extorc.talk 18:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Yesterday (Beatles song) non-admin closure

I'm sorry but an RM contrary to en.wp titling guidelines and with several editors opposing would be better closed by an admin. So I have reverted. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi Hi, I would like to point that "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure" ~ WP:RMNAC. It would have been much better if you approached me and asked me to consider relisting based on your reasoning. Engaging in reversing closures is not your call to take because you are involved here. I will not revert this but most definitely bring this to the attention of an administrator. I seriously suggest that you refrain from acting this way in the future. >>> Extorc.talk 13:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. However I would hope all non-admin closers to prefer a first relisting as an option when a no-consensus RM goes against basic WP:TITLE policy. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Hi Extorc, Hope you are well. While I have blocked the IP for disruptive editing in the article related to the Manipur violence, I would like to get your eyes to the bright line rule of WP:3RR which you crossed on the article. I have assumed that you made a mistake and missed the fact that you cannot revert 4 times in a period of 24 hours, and therefore did not block you. I want your confirmation that you understand 3RR, that this was something you missed noticing, and that you will not cross this line again. I will await your urgent confirmation. Warmly, Lourdes 09:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC) (p.s: Please note that while I could have posted this message at ANI, I chose to do so here to ensure avoidance of further drama).[reply]

Yes @Lourdes I understand 3RR and this was my mistake. I interpreted IPs actions as blatant and qualified for WP:NOT3RR but it seems that is not the case. But I still wish to get clarity here. Openly refusing to discuss wont make it blatant disruption? >>> Extorc.talk 09:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind response. To answer your question, no. Let me know anytime you need assistance. Warmly, Lourdes 12:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

>>> Extorc.talk 14:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proton AG to Proton_(Swiss company) rather than Proton_(company)

Hi Extorc, thanks for your input on the Proton AG page move. Here are my thoughts:

It would be more clear if Proton the car company was known as Proton_(Automaker), or even Proton Holdings, since locally in Malaysia it is known by its initials PHB. Proton Holdings is only known in Malaysia, whereas Proton is global. Although it probably makes sense for Proton_(company) to redirect to PHB on Malaysian Wikipedia, Proton is the better known brand globally, so Proton_(company) should point to Proton for English-speaking audiences.

The confusion we are trying to fix on Wikipedia is that the Proton Mail page is being accessed and interacted with as the Proton company page, which has led to confusing or duplicated information. Looking at the Pageview analysis for Proton Mail, you can see that Proton Mail (Proton’s flagship product) is more actively searched than Proton Holdings and has the greater user interest. It may be the case that many users landing on the Proton Mail page should instead be landing on Proton’s company page, and moving Proton (now "Swiss company") to Proton_(company) would clear that up.

Proton_(Swiss company) doesn't work because though it is true that Proton is headquartered in Switzerland, 99% of people who use Proton services are not based in Switzerland and probably are not even aware that Proton is a Swiss company. Octazooka (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and acknowledge what you say and all I can respond with in my capacity as the closer of that move is that the community believes that (swiss company) is the right way to address this page. Your points might hold merit but I am not present here to evaluate arguments, I am here to evaluate consensus. >>> Extorc.talk 15:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy (BBC TV series)

Hi, thank you for being the closer on this RM. I'll note that I, and other editors, had indicated a preference for Jeopardy (2002 TV series) as it better follows the guideline at WP:NCTV. That guideline states that "disambiguation using television network identification is deprecated." I don't see any particular reason to disregard the guideline here, and perhaps you may want to reconsider the move. 162 etc. (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that a better alternative exists, you can most definitely create a new discussion. I cannot close a request against the consensus. You must demonstrate consensus for the title you propose.
You can start the discussion, I will participate in the discussion. >>> Extorc.talk 15:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@162 etc. >>> Extorc.talk 15:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the comments, I see:

3 votes supporting a move, though not necessarily to "BBC TV series"
2 votes supporting a move, without commenting on the possibility of a different disambiguation tag
1 vote strongly opposing the proposed "BBC TV series", based on WP:NCTV.

Perhaps undoing the close and relisting would be a better solution. I don't see this as a ringing endorsement of the title, especially considering that it directly contradicts a guideline. 162 etc. (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can create another discussion, Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 09:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]