Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:AN)
    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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
    CfD 0 0 0 0 0
    TfD 0 0 0 4 4
    MfD 0 0 5 1 6
    FfD 0 0 0 2 2
    RfD 0 0 0 36 36
    AfD 0 0 0 1 1


    A month later, Telegraph RfC hasn't been reclosed

    With immense gratitude to Sandstein for closing the RfC, I'm going to now close this thread like a horror-movie heroine slamming the door behind her before the monster catches up. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 09:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Just to mention, this is listed at closure requests, but CR has a backlog of 44 discussions currently. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised. With close challenges becoming de rigueur and people pushing for the broadest possible interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, closing complex discussions is becoming an even more thankless task. – Joe (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean putting aside the general problems with closing, that Telegraph RfC is very long (68k words from a simplistic counter) and an extremely fraught issue in recent times. The re-opening happened after it spawned a 50k+ word review. (For clarity I mention the review not because anyone closing has to read it, but because it indicates the mess anyone closing probably fear awaits.) So I'm not particularly surprised anyone looking at closing who's even vaguely aware of the background goes "no way!" perhaps with some swear words thrown in. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The irony of it is that it should be closed as generally reliable, which I suppose is the status quo, but it's such a sprawling swamp of a discussion—not counting the review referenced above!—that everyone will demand a panel* and/or a 5,000-word closing statement to feel justice has been done, and more importantly, seen to be done—writ large. And then there will be another massive discussion about the reclose of the reopening of the close. SerialNumber54129 14:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    * Present company excepted; I didn't spot that Tamzin had already mentioned a panel  :) SerialNumber54129 14:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey S Marshall, please reclose it. SerialNumber54129 18:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall's point is a good one, to clarify: we have a situation in which those who took part in an RfC appear to have decided (with some room for dispute, of course) that X is a reliable publication on Y issue, but the broader community, when presented with the same issue, appears not to. Does the broader community (here) take precedence over the attendees of an RfC? Not necessarily; but who's got the appetite for another RfC?! SerialNumber54129 19:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe your third crack at this will be funny. Believe in yourself! Parabolist (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A person should not believe in an "ism". He should believe in himself. John Lennon said it on his first solo album. "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." A good point there. After all, he was the Walrus...

    User:Parabolist, are you the walrus? SerialNumber54129 18:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we not have another discussion here on the issue please? Until and unless someone closes the RfC in an unchallenged way, editor are free to believe what they want about what the RfC found be that the Telegraph is generally reliable on trans issues or not or that there was no consensus or whatever else. But from the community point of view let's stick with 'we don't know' or just don't talk about. Of course if you think you have have read the discussion well enough that you can be certain what the consensus was, are sufficiently uninvolved that no one will be able to reasonably complain about you closing the discussion, and have sufficient experience that you can close the discussion in such a way that enough of the community will accept you properly closed the discussion; well then feel free to answer Tazmin's request. Otherwise your opinion of what the discussion found doesn't seem to be something we need to hear about at this time. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I very much agree. I actually don't have an opinion on what the consensus was, having only participated long enough to make a few comments. I'm just hoping someone will close it—for, against, no consensus, narrow consensus, whatever—and hope we can use this space to find some closers, and not to re(re(re))litigate the subject. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      +1. This debate has already spiraled badly out of control between the RfC and close review, the last thing we need is yet another discussion. The Kip (contribs) 19:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should've remained closed under the original closure. It's obvious the revert of the closure was done out of process. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LilianaUwU: For the love of G-d, could you please not? I'm here asking for a few brave volunteers to step up and close this mess, and I and two others have just begged everyone to not relitigate, and you want to, what, challenge the validity of the second close of the challenge of the close, a month after the fact, for being vaguely "out of process"? For heavens' sake. Please go write an article or something. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please go write an article or something. Challenge accepted. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe this one just doesn't need a formal close. It seems obvious that based on the arguments in the RFC and subsequent discussions, the community is not able to agree on any course of action right now. The safe course would be to pretend this drama never happened, and maybe start a fresh discussion (without all the baggage) to see if things have changed in 6 months or so. This just doesn't seem like a problem that can be solved right now. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On some topics, I'd like that solution. If there's, say, a heated and convoluted RfC about how to describe some aspect of the Hamas–Israel war, there's a good chance that scrapping the thing and waiting 6-12 months will yield better results. Here, though, I'm not convinced. This was a contentious issue in the first RfC in Jan. '23, it was contentious when this RfC started in June, and it's contentious now in September. I don't see a reason to think that that trend will have broken in six months. It's possible that there could be some deus ex machina in that time, The Telegraph fucking up on a gender matter to the degree of Dominion v. Fox; but if the facts are roughly the same in March, I think the consensus (or lack thereof) will be as well.
    What I do think might work would be for someone to do a fairly broad close finding no consensus or only rough consensus (I shan't presuppose which, but I think it's clear this is not a slam-dunk in either direction), but primarily concerned with highlighting the main points that should be discussed in any subsequent RfC. That way we could have some sort of incremental progress. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I largely agree with you, I just don't think we can even agree what goal we should have incremental progress towards (at least not without a ton more drama than we've already had). I think the Wikipedia equivalent of a mistrial due to a hung jury is the only way we'll move forward. That way, next time the opposing factions will hopefully have a better grip on what they need to prove and what arguments their opponents are likely to raise, so we can get past the blocker of "did X really refute point Y or not". I don't think there's much daylight between my suggestion and a fairly broad close finding no consensus; there's no chance we won't be back here in a few months so we might as well skip the intermediate steps of the close-review-review-review and the close-review-review-review-review. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Finding that there's no consensus is trivially easy, and any of our regular closers could tell you that there's no consensus about whether the Telegraph is reliable on trans issues. That's not even controversial. What's getting people so angry is the decision about what RSN should say in the absence of a consensus.—S Marshall T/C 07:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, while I know this sounds like a bad joke, perhaps we should have a separate RFC about that general rule (ie. what RSP should say when the most recent RFC on a source's general reliability reaches no consensus, especially if there were older RFCs.) The separate RFC would not mention the Telegraph at all; while of course the shadow of it would hang over proceedings, the hope is that separating it out and making it clear that we're making a long-term decision on how to handle that general situation would encourage users to participate based on how they genuinely think we should operate in that broad situation, rather than setting policy purely based on what it means for the Telegraph specifically. At the very least I suspect that such an RFC would, itself, be able to reach a clear consensus; and it is an aspect of procedure we should nail down if it's going to result in this level of discordance. --Aquillion (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good idea. In cases like this where a large part of the community doesn't understand how or why an important piece of "inside baseball" works the way it does, it's probably worth discussing whether the status quo actually reflects current consensus on how it should work. There should probably be an WP:RFCBEFORE though, to take the community's temperature on the issue and figure out a concrete proposal or two. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a bad idea. Closers should pay attention to the thread and relevant PAGs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it would remove the obstacle to solving this, wouldn't it?—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the Telegraph could soon be under new management[1], new owners may take it in a different direction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Resolved As mentioned in the sub-section below thanks to Sandstein. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved admins willing to assist in a panel close, please leave a comment below this header

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

    The topic on Amazigh, berber, wiki page.

    This has run its course. The very first suggestions, to discuss this in an RfC and perhaps in connection with the MOS, are the best still. The personal issues have by now just become an irritation, but I propose that admins simply handle it as it comes. If there's edit warring, block for edit warring. If there are unexplained but important reverts, block for disruption. If there are personal attacks--or spurious AIV reports--block for personal attacks or harassment. As an aside, M.Bitton, you've been here long enough to know that the more you say in an ANI thread, the less likely you are to succeed. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It has come to my attention that there is a peculiar inclusion of Arabic in the Amazigh/berber wiki pages, for example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berbers) wiki page, particularly in the headline on the right. Additionally, the Tifinagh script—the written form of the Amazigh language—has been removed, while Arabic translations of Amazigh name are present. This is concerning, as both populations are distinct, and there has been ongoing conflict within Wikipedia regarding this issue. The Amazigh community has consistently opposed the inclusion of Arabic in a page dedicated to a completely different ethnic group with its own language and script. The question arises: why does Arabic appear on the main ethnic group page at all? This issue persists throughout the entire wiki page, where nearly spùe major terms includes its Arabic translation, yet Tamazight, their 'own' language that is widely spoken, does not receive the same treatment. This discrepancy is not present in the translations of wiki pages for other languages, suggesting a bias that warrants correction. I urge the admins to reconsider the approach taken in the English version of the Amazigh/berber wiki pages to accurately reflect the uniqueness of the Amazigh identity and language. Also, the reason I am coming here instead of discussing it directly is simple. As stated before, there is a form of passive aggression between 'both' sides, and certain individuals will revert any changes made regardless. Therefore, I wish to approach the administration to find a solution to the issue of the Amazigh wiki pages. This has been an ongoing problem that has led to many bans, brought up during a 'literal' university discussion event, and other complications. TahaKahi (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This might be a thing to discuss in an RFC. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems this would fall somewhere under WP:MOS. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, admins do not adjudicate on content disputes and second, your complaint is full of baseless assertions and misleading comments (that won't stand up to scrutiny in the right venue). M.Bitton (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to have a proper conversation to resolve the ongoing disputes across multiple pages. However, I’ve noticed that the same individuals, including yourself, M. Bitton, often approach this issue with a defensive tone, at times, such as now, passive-aggressive. I’ve seen you engaging in similar arguments before, even in the same page i spoke of. and it seems that each time there's resistance to any changes related to this matter. I want to focus on finding a solution based on mutual understanding. I’ll also follow up on the suggestions from Gråbergs and seek input from the administration to ensure a fair outcome. If you have a counterargument to my points, I’d be open to hearing it and reviewing where I might be mistaken. However, I believe that a more constructive approach from you would be helpful. TahaKahi (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TahaKahi, the only portion of this that is appropriate here, where we discuss behavior, not content, is there is a form of passive aggression between 'both' sides, and certain individuals will revert any changes made regardless, and for that we need evidence in the form of WP:diffs. Administrators don't deal with content. GGS was advising you to go to WT:MOS, the talk page for the manual of style, and discuss this with other editors. Editors make these decisions, not administrators. Valereee (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes i did open a WT:MOS discussion about the subject, though it seems it’s going to continue being diverted into a senseless argument without reaching a resolution. Currently, this person appears to be having the same issue not just with me but also with another person on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Algeria discussion for similar reasonings, There is significant passive aggression involved. This is certainly going beyond just a 'MOS' issue. I’m trying to understand the best course of action, so I apologize if I wasn't supposed to open this in the administrator's noticeboard. TahaKahi (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The best course of action when you disagree with another editor over content is to discuss -- at length, if necessary -- and if the two of you can't come to an agreement, follow the WP:dispute resolution process. Please don't make accusations, such as "passive aggression", without evidence. Valereee (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made one, but it was closed after he decided to request the deletion of the page instead. You can see the details here [Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Karima Gouit] After he requested the page to be deleted, which followed the entire discussion about whether to include her Tamazight name or not, you can see the details here [Talk:Karima Gouit], This was followed by him making a report claiming that I am a sockpuppet.[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YassinRi], all this while he had yet another dispute in [Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Algeria discussion] This was related to a matter concerning Amazigh content too with another editor, which he ignored, as seen in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skitash&oldid=1250286001] claiming he's not interested in Wikipedia:FORUMSHOPPING , Thus, he is avoiding two disputes with different editors over a similar subject. I don't see how opening anotherWikipedia:Dispute resolution would help if he’s going to set the page up for deletion nomination or ignore the dispute entirely.. TahaKahi (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee, I think there may well be a recurring behaviour problem here. There are now three different participants in this discussion who are saying that they have had difficulty engaging in normal, productive editing on this topic, despite a desire to do so. The dispute resolution process appears to be completely ineffective, since the named parties do not show up. But if editors try other venues when that occurs, they are told they are forumshopping (eg [2], provided elsewhere in this thread). You can see M.Bitton's refusal to engage in good-faith discussion below. (And, when you look at the thread below, it's worth observing that statements are often silently amended to look less strident than they were originally, eg [3].) -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I think you have good observations and points here, Asilvering. Andre🚐 01:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already said that the "admins do not adjudicate on content disputes" and the "OP is welcome to make a case on the article's talk page (whatever that may be)". I also started a section about the OP's behaviour (with a question that the OP completely ignored), so please tell me, what discussion am I supposed to be engaging in? Content issue or something else? Also, do you honestly think that changing "prime" to "an" is some attempt to deceive? Is that your idea of the good faith assumption that you've been lecturing me about? M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say that you engaged in an attempt to deceive. I said that you often silently amend your statements, which is a simple, neutral fact. If you think that observation is evidence of bad faith, I am concerned about your ability to distinguish bad faith from good faith. If you are concerned about the transparency of your edits, I would recommend using strikethrough when you make changes, so that both the original and the changed version are clear to readers. -- asilvering (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So why did you ask me to assume good faith when I stated neutral facts?
    If you are concerned about the transparency of your edits I'm most certainly not concerned in the slightest.
    I would recommend using strikethrough when you make changes, are you suggesting that I changed my comment after someone has replied to it?
    I'd appreciate it if you could answer the question about the discussion that I'm supposed to be engaging in (see previous comment). M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When you're saying that another person's edit is disruptive or that they are engaging in pov-pushing, that is not simply stating neutral facts. If you truly believe that those kinds of assertions are neutral facts and not a matter of subjective opinion, I am extremely concerned. Regarding are you suggesting that I changed my comment after someone has replied to it, no, I am not, and I did not say that. The discussion you should be engaged in is, quite frankly, not on this board. It is my belief (explained in my earlier comment below) that the best way to resolve this is through an RfC that settles the question at the heart of this dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you truly believe that those kinds of assertions are neutral fact they misrepresented the sources. That's the undisputed fact that I was referring to and the one that you ignored while asking me to "assume good faith".
    I said that you often silently amend your statements, which is a simple, neutral fact. you said more than that: to look less strident than they were originally is your opinion (it's not a fact).
    I am more concerned than you are by the fact that you keep evading simple questions about what you said (describing your opinion as a "neutral fact" (it's not) to justify your accusation and asking me to assume good faith when I'm describing simple neutral facts). There must be a reason behind this double standard and I want to know it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not my opinion that you have silently edited your statements. An opinion would be something like "M.Bitton is acting in bad faith, as one can see by how they edit their statements after posting them". I didn't say that, and I don't think that, either. I'm not sure what simple questions you think I'm evading by saying "I did not say that", so I'm afraid I can't address that part of your reply. What I do think (and this is my opinion here) that this conversation is unproductive and that the editors involved in the content dispute here should solve it through normal means, such as WP:DRN or WP:RFC. -- asilvering (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just your opinion, it's your baseless opinion (unless you're actually claiming to be in my head). This is the second time that you quote only part of what you said (while leaving out the relevant to look less strident than they were originally). Regardless, your reply doesn't address my concerns regarding the double standard.
    The discussion you should be engaged in is, quite frankly, not on this board. so why did you say You can see M.Bitton's refusal to engage in good-faith discussion? M.Bitton (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @M.Bitton, my goal here is to identify what course of action will most fruitfully improve the encyclopedia. As I have said, I believe that to be a good-faith conversation about the content, which could happen on an article talk page, at WP:DRN, at an RFC, or so on. Since this issue appears to be larger than any single page, it seems to me that an RFC will be the most useful. If it is also your goal to improve the encyclopedia as fruitfully as possible, I suggest you take part in that kind of discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you don't want to address the raised concerns, I will simply believe what is clear to me and guess the rest. M.Bitton (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with asilvering here, the conversation I see below is rapidly spiraling into a mess and something needs to be done about editor behavior, although I'm not sure what powers admins have in this specific case. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also had trouble communicating with the OP. I think they're trying to edit constructively, but they've repeatedly had troubles with the subtleties in WP:MOS topics and take everything extremely personally. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, the OP is abusing the process: their comment on WP:MOS and this one on DRN are nothing more than an attempt at vilifying an editor who's preventing them from pushing a POV (as exemplified by the OP's misrepresentation of two sources in order to replace Arabic with Neo-Tifinagh). They are doing the same thing here without notifying the editor that they are making this report about (in a very odd, if not disingenuous way). M.Bitton (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This report was regarding the matter of the Amazigh/Berber Wikipedia pages, not about the person himself. That’s why I refrained from mentioning his name in the report, as my dispute with him was ongoing elsewhere. It was later closed due to his request for the "reported" page to be deleted, thus ending the dispute resolution as it moved to converse on why it should or shouldnt be deleted. I’d refer to my response to Valereee in this administrator noticeboard. TahaKahi (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The provided diffs and the forum shopping tell a different story. M.Bitton (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My comment was expressing my point of view on the issue, which is directly related to my own dispute with him, as it's the same matter—his bias against Amazigh Wikipedia pages. Nevertheless, I will reword this. I notified him of the earlier disputes made and directed to him. This was a general report. Thirdly, you are also involved in the issue concerning the inclusion of Arabic, which makes it a violation of Wikipedia:FOREIGN and also the rule "Non-English names should be moved to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they would otherwise clutter the first sentence" in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1250265052] as you deleted the Wikipedia:LEADLANG and added the supposed cause as MOS:FULLNAME, while its also under Wikipedia:FORLANG the historical character is not an Arab, His full name is not 'ibn ...', which translates to 'son of'; it's not used as a full name. you are the only one, out of all the other more refined translations of the wiki page (spanish, french, etc) that include arabic, If you have an issue with this, initiate a dispute. Otherwise, you're violating the guidelines just as much as you think I am. TahaKahi (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have better things to do than entertain the nonsensical assertions of someone who misrepresents the sources to push a POV. M.Bitton (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for expressing your concerns very politely. In the future, I would appreciate it if you could address inquiries about your edits directly rather than dismissing them with indirect remarks, i will be coming back to them once my current dispute reach a concluding decision. TahaKahi (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your disingenuousness knows no bounds. M.Bitton (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Skitash's contributions are not as neutral as Mr. Bitton would have us believe.
      I will give you an example on the article qashabiya, Skitash deleted the Berber origin under the reason WP:OR (no sources) [4].
      • He defends a mention of "Arab" clothing which is also not based on any source. As luck would have it, we notice that he is less diligent in verifying the effectiveness of the Arab character than the Berber character in the sources. I therefore point out to him that the source is diverted [5].
      • He reintroduces the unsourced and contentious mention of an Arabic character [6] : with a diversion of sources in a second step [7]. This second phase was carried out under his knowledge that the source which gave a Berber origin existed [8].
      • When a work of History is quoted opposite that does not go in his direction, it is reverted [9] under criteria whose rigor is not required by him to include the Arabic origin (since he diverts press articles that make no mention of the Arabic character of the qashabiya).
      => Conclusion : Skitash's initial argument is invalidated: there is no WP:OR because a source gives the Berber origin of the clothing. But he chooses to reintroduce the Arab origin, the first time by not putting the same verification criteria, the second time by deliberately trying to mislead us with a source in Arabic. So how can we understand this behavior? Is it only editorial according to you? How can we accept that he combines a Rollback cap and editorial contributor on subjects of Arab or Berber identity where he is involved and where his opponents are not simple vandals? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have provided the diff that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the OP misrepresented two sources to push a POV. What do you have to say about that? M.Bitton (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This dispute is unlikely to be resolved on this board, because this board deals with behavioral, not content disputes. However, I would urge all the participants to be civil and assume good faith. Now, this isn't really in scope of this board, but is there any reason why the article can't include both the Arabic and Amazigh or Berber content? I noticed the parties seem to be editwarring about which one, but really, why not have both and say according to X Y, according to Z, A? Andre🚐 20:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's something that needs to be decided on a case by case basis. The OP is welcome to make a case on the article's talk page (whatever that may be). M.Bitton (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My request has consistently been to address the representation of Berber languages and topics related to Berber culture on Wikipedia. Specifically, I have been asking for pages related to Berber languages, Berbers as an ethnic group, and other topics such as Berber religion and traditions to prioritize Tamazight as the primary language, while considering Arabic as a secondary language under Wikipedia:FORLANGfor berber topics where Arabic is closely connected. If including Arabic results in clutter, I suggest it be moved to a footnote. I have tried to reach out through talk pages and dispute resolution processes, but my concerns have often been redirected or ignored. I seek to avoid repetitive edit wars, especially regarding the inclusion of Tamazight on pages that predominantly concern Berber topics. For example, revisions I have made on historically Berber figures or topics have been removed, or Arabic translations have been prioritized on pages like the Berbers page, It appears that despite the subject matter being primarily related to Berber culture, some editors, such as M. Bitton and Skitash, have consistently reverted or removed Tamazight translations in favor of unsourced Arabic translations for no reason. In order to move forward and avoid continuous disputes, it is important to reach a consensus on allowing the inclusion of Tamazight in content that is specifically about Amazigh topics, without the need for repetitive edit wars or the potential for deletion, this is the bare minimum, the Wikipedia:LEADLANG, the bare minimum in comparison to some of the concerns raised by Monsieur Patillo TahaKahi (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is this the same dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Algeria_discussion? If so, maybe the parties could all sign up for that? Andre🚐 21:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Despite what you keep claiming, your report is first and foremost, about an editor that you are yet to notify. Putting the content issue aside and getting back to what this board is for (editors' behaviour), do you have anything to say about your misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV? M.Bitton (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @M.Bitton I didn't understand your intervention, if she addresses me? what diff are you talking about? Are you involved yourself or are you an administrator?
      @Andrevan Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Algeria_discussion concerns another editorial problem than the names. Skitash is also involved because he introduces a one-sided vision of an 85% Arab ethnicity of Algeria, suggesting that it is due to medieval Arab migrations. While the academic consensus on the subject is that the population is composed mainly of indigenous Arabized Berbers. A first DRN concluded to include "both sources" in the body of the text, which Skitash refuses, and he does not formulate a proposal. I therefore request a second DRN to help formulate a WP:NPOV text.
      For the names in Tamazight the difference between WP:en and the other projects, even if it is not an absolute argument because the projects are independent, shows that something is wrong... It is a case of WP:CPP practiced by seasoned contributors. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The above question was meant for the OP (not you). M.Bitton (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think you have to agree with Skitash's or M.Bitton's initial statement to sign up for a DRN. Just getting all the parties writing statements with a moderator is the goal. The initial statement will be subject to change. Andre🚐 21:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Originally, I intended to raise this discussion in a general sense without naming specific editors, as my aim was to address the broader subject and seek a resolution that might carry on on all related subject to not have an edit war in each. However, as the discussion progressed, certain individuals involved in earlier disputes became part of the conversation, which led to specific references being made to those earlier matters. This was not my intention, and I did not want to cause any trouble for anyone, but rather to address the issue in a neutral and constructive way. Though I will notify Skitash about this page, though he has previously removed notices related to his own dispute and indicated that he will ignore the report. as i have mentioned earlier. I have also observed that my notices have been deleted on multiple occasions, which has made it difficult to address these matters in a productive way. While the subject of Monsieur Patillo's dispute is related to a different issue, it involves the same individuals and concerns similar themes of potential POV pushing. I would also recommend that the administration encourage M. Bitton to engage more respectfully and civilly with all parties involved. His behavior has been an ongoing concern during this entire process and seems to have been overlooked. TahaKahi (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan The DRN that I requested on Algeria has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, the example that I cite above on qashabiya is emblematic of Skitash's behavior (double standards, and misuse of sources). I would like my testimony on qashabiya to be taken into account by the administrators. Because the picture is not as idyllic as Mr. Bitton presents it about Skitash. Combined with the extensive rights that Skitash has, it is a real problem. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now the administrators are ignoring this thread because it's a big mess of mud slinging. If you want to level it up, start with some really specific and incisive and concrete diffs of your allegations. Otherwise, you may be headed for inaction or worse, a boomerang. Andre🚐 21:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan my message of 20:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC) contains detailed diffs and 10 lines of precise exposition on Skitash's action on qashabiya.Should I have opened another incident section for this? Mr. Bitton should also be told not to lead the debates because it weighs down the page while he is not personally involved. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't need to be a separate section, just detail the diffs that break Wikipedia policy or guideline and explain how. The diffs currently presented read to me about content disputes, not behavior so likely nobody is investigating them that thoroughly. Andre🚐 22:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will give you an example on the article qashabiya, Skitash deleted the Berber origin under the reason WP:OR (no sources) [10].
    • He defends a mention of "Arab" clothing which is also not based on any source. As luck would have it, we notice that he is less diligent in verifying the effectiveness of the Arab character than the Berber character in the sources. I therefore point out to him that the source is diverted [11].
    • He reintroduces the unsourced and contentious mention of an Arabic character [12] : with a diversion of sources in a second step [13]. This second phase was carried out under his knowledge that the source which gave a Berber origin existed [14].
    When he reintroduces an unsourced element (Arabic origin instead of Berber) the first time [15], and then a second time [16] he introduces it again by fleshing out the section with a diverted source (in Arabic) [17] to mislead the other contributors, for me this is not editorial but behavioral. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, just make this clear for me, if I open a dispute, say about Kahina, to include the Wikipedia:LEADLANG, should a decision be made to include it? And if a subject related to her, or an object connected to her, is reverted by the same two individuals again, should I initiate another dispute and continue this cycle over and over, or should I report the individuals? Because as I see it, I will have to dispute almost every Amazigh-specific page, as they seem to be heavily influenced by these individuals. TahaKahi (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your only concern right now should be to address the serious concerns regarding your misrepresentation of the sources. M.Bitton (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refer to my previous reply in this section where I engaged with you on this topic, and your response was a direct insult and dismissiveness. You are trying to divert the subject. I will ignore you until an administrator says otherwise. TahaKahi (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see #TahaKahi's_behaviour for more info. M.Bitton (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if I add myself to this discussion: I would like to say my piece on the general issue and then on a couple of users in particular.
    in particular on the Algeria page there are countless discussions on the talk page about this denigrating theme towards the Berbers for which even the use of the Berber language in the infobox is not allowed by users who continue to delete the changes and in some cases threaten you with edit warring.
    Since I am a novice I am not clear on how to proceed so not long ago I asked how to do it on the help page. I also opened a dispute but nothing helped. To date I have had the opportunity to have particular experience with a particular entity like Skitash who modifies my changes without paying attention to the changes made (I therefore imagined that he did it for WP:POV). Frankly I see that these users remain unpunished while if someone tries to correct an article that does not respect their pov is threatened with edit warring.
    I see some examples of this unprofessional behavior here on the kaftan page (evidence); about those he admitted that he didn't paid attention to what he cancels as you can see here. Another example is about the qashabiya page where here he made assumptions without even reading the sources of the text, nor those inserted by me, nor those inserted by him; also, not improving the discussion about those edits which i asked explanation about.
    P.S. Sorry if my english is not perfect or if I haven't explained myself better Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TahaKahi, can you explain what you mean by brought up during a 'literal' university discussion event? -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not seem like a big deal, but we had an event at my university (FPS UCA) about Amazigh inclusion in Morocco. Some students raised concerns, citing examples from the internet about how topics related to the ethnicity are not properly represented. Issues discussed ranged from the poor digitization of the Amazigh language, despite it being widely spoken, to cultural marginalization and the continued use of Arabic as the primary language in the internet when 'represented', which the English Wikipedia was used as an example, as its greatly differentiate from other versions when it comes to representing the ethnic group in their subject, at times, barely doing so. TahaKahi (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TahaKahi, do you mean by your last sentence that Amazigh culture is less marginalized on other-language Wikipedias? In particular I'd be interested to hear about how French Wikipedia has handled the topic. If there are academic articles on the topic that you can share (on Amazigh marginalization in favour of Arabic generally, or of Amazigh marginalization on Wikipedia specifically), that would be helpful context for uninvolved editors. We're well aware that systemic bias is a problem on Wikipedia. Of course, that doesn't make it much easier to fix. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, no other Wikipedia language uses Arabic as a LEADLANG for any Amazigh-related topics. There’s a great document written by Yamina that provides good background on the issue, tracing it back centuries, though much of what you’ll see now is more modern, which i believe she also delves into.
    El Kirat El Allame, Yamina. (2009). Issues in the representation of Amazigh language and identity in North Africa. Langues et Littératures, 19, 179-196. TahaKahi (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A few things come to mind re-reading this thread and the related SPI report. 1) It does strike me as odd, per Asilvering, that the article for the Berber language, Tamazight or Amazigh in English, doesn't actually include the Berber word for the Berber language using any of the Berber alphabets, which TIL is ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ in ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ, as added by this blocked user, whereas in fr:Langues_berbères, it is there in two different dialects plus a further Latin script all of which en is lacking. 2. In WP:OR it is clearly explained that a translation is not OR. Per WP:TRANSCRIPTION, specifically exempted. So at the very least, maybe we should have the Berber name of the language so that we can cut down on random driveby editors trying to do it, because what is really the argument for it not being there? "Unsourced" isn't one? 3. The SPI report accuses TahaKahi of being a DUCK of a banned user because he's adding Berber translations of Berber stuff, but I'm sure more than one user wants to do that. In fact, we have two different proposed socks from Skitash, While you may not be a sock of Yassine181, you are most certainly a sock of YassinRi and TahaKahi also points out that he was previously cleared of socking as shown here with comment by Yamla. Along with the other user Tikirwan mentioned earlier, we know of at least 3, presumably distinct, Berber people trying to fix this perceived discrepancy, along with the 3 in this thread, and there was a university lecture where someone was promoting or suggesting to do so; a similar thing has happened in the Jewish community recently leading to a big upsurge in interest in random editors coming to opine. So, the renewed SPI, in which TahaKahi has a detailed rebuttal, and points out that he actually learned a bit how to do Wikipedia stuff from the previous accusations by Skitash, seems overconfident at best or bad faith - of course, I'll look pretty stupid if one of the users above is a sockpuppet or they all are - but I'm AGF. So I wonder how this SPI is going to return a positive result this time if it was "inconclusive" last time, and doesn't currently appear to be a clear match per Izno (the cited "first thing" diffs don't look the same to me, did you select the wrong diff? Or am I blind?) Also, I do agree that Skitash and M. Bitton can be a bit brusque and businesslike. That's not always a bad thing to be no-nonsense, but something seems a bit awry here. Andre🚐 06:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you insist on discussing the content (here of all places):
    • It's "Berber languages" and not "Berber language".
    • In the article, some of the alphabets are included in a footnote with the word Tamazight.
    • Berber people trying to fix this perceived discrepancy "perceived" is the key word here. Is that a good reason to turn a blind eye to the disruption? As an example, I'll cite an edit of theirs that made me invite myself to this discussion (just like you did): how on earth can anyone justify such edit? M.Bitton (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @M.Bitton, the justification is obvious and has been stated several times in this thread: no other Wikipedia language uses Arabic as a LEADLANG for any Amazigh-related topics. You are free to disagree with the reasoning for this edit, and of course it may be a poor edit for other reasons, such as source-text integrity, that can be discussed on the talk page as normal. Edits aren't disruptive or unjustifiable just because you disagree with them or they are poorly done. -- asilvering (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering: the edit that I cited is disruptive (it's not the only one) and what you're quoting is a content issue, which begs the question: why are you entertaining it on this board? M.Bitton (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering Why should we have to follow what other Wikipedias do? Moreover, that claim is factually incorrect, as several other Wikipedias, including German and Turkish, do include Arabic in the leads of Berber-related articles. There is nothing wrong with this, especially given that the vast majority of Berbers speak Arabic (either as a first language or a second language), which serves as the lingua franca among different Berber groups and main official language across all countries in the Maghreb region.
    If TahaKahi is truly here to improve Wikipedia, why is it that nearly all of their 146 edits are centered around Arab-Berber disputes? This is a clear sign of a single-purpose account and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Skitash (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have to follow what they do. However, "I want to standardize how a topic is discussed over multiple wikipedia projects" is a clear justification for an edit. Again, you don't have to like or agree with that kind of edit. But acting like that isn't a justification, and that using that as a justification is prima facie evidence of bad faith and pov-pushing, is not warranted. @M.Bitton, that edit is not obviously disruptive. It has a clear edit summary. It provides a source. If you think it is a bad edit, for whatever reason at all, you are well within your rights and community norms to do so, and to revert the edit and discuss it on the talk page.
    As @Andrevan has pointed out, we're likely to get many editors bringing up this same issue, with varying levels of skill, reasoning, and intent. It looks like the best way to solve this would be to open some kind of RfC on the topic of WP:LEADLANG in Amazigh-related articles. My guess is that the RfC would result in consensus for multiple non-English languages in the lead sentence, which I assume would result in fewer problematic edits on these lead sentences. -- asilvering (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your keep assuming bad faith and justifying your accusation with opinions that you describe (in a self-serving style) as "neutral facts". How about you reply to the questions that I asked you previously and that you keep ignoring? M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    M.Bitton, my opinion on your questions are that that are just to pivot away from the problem. I had been trying to keep my mouth shut, but that has gotten too difficult now. All this discussion has done is constantly remind me of Talk:Shakshouka and the mess that exists there. My viewpoint of your actions to articles like Berbers and Kahina is the same as with Shakshouka months ago; that you know so much more than myself on the subject, but you primarily revert edits rather than make improvements. I honestly hope it is an incorrect assessment, as it bothers me on some level that I feel unable to make improvements to them while others can do so and don't. But it doesn't help that I can check the edit history and see "M.Bitton [...] (Reverted # edit(s) by..." throughout the history. In this case, I would agree that you are in the right about the other editor's actions. But I do want you to consider that you can simultaneously be both in the right and the wrong on something and I think it applies here.
    If you would rather not discuss this, then fine as I can force you to do so. If you want a different subject, then here is one I will offer via a question: asilvering did already answer your questions, so why are you claiming they didn't? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that there is a problem with the Kahina article, then you go ahead and highlight it on the article's talk page (that I suggest you read beforehand), as simply claiming that one can be right and wrong at the same time is meaningless. I didn't invite myself to this report to discuss the content, I said that it and repeated it more times than I care to remember (those who are mistaken about what this board is for are welcome to fill it will walls of text without me).
    I'm assuming that you're referring to the discussion that took place after the above question (while wondering why you're bringing up in this section). asilvering did not answer my questions about:
    • the double standard: a) they kept asking me to assume good faith when I was stating neutral facts (about the OP's source misrepresentation). b) They claimed that I often silently amend my statements to make then look less strident (as if they can read my mind), and when I asked them to assume good faith, they described their opinion as a "simple, neutral fact".
    • the so-called discussion: they said You can see M.Bitton's refusal to engage in good-faith discussion below.. When I asked them which discussion they're referring to, first they ignored the question and when I insisted (because this is a serious accusation), they said the discussion that I should be having is "not on this board".
    I have given up hope of seeing answers to these questions (I'm only mentioning them again because you brought up the subject). M.Bitton (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering: pinging to make sure you don't miss it. The questions that I referred to above start with So why did you ask me to assume good faith when I stated neutral facts?. M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also have you stopped beating your wife yet? @M.Bitton, that is not a question, it's an accusation. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's misleading, Skitash. The question wasn't whether they include Arabic but whether they omit Berber alphabets. In both links you gave, in de:Berber and tr:Berberiler, do include ⵉⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵏ in the lead and tr includes ⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖ also, although both appear to be about the Berber ethnicity and not the language group. In the corresponding language pages de:Berbersprachen and tr:Berberi dilleri, the former includes ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ, the latter has neither Berber alphabet nor Arabic, but tr:Tifinag lists ⵜⵉⴼⵉⵏⴰⵖ (using svg). In en articles on Berbers, Berber languages, neither include any Berber alphabets in the lead or infobox, though the page Tifinagh does. But can't you see why to a Berber person and really in general, this is an omission that should probably be corrected, and that more than one person might seek to correct? Andre🚐 23:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "In en articles on Berbers, Berber languages, neither include any Berber alphabets in the lead or infobox" Are you sure? Berbers does include Berber alphabet in both the infobox and footnotes in the lead. The footnote next to "Berber peoples" only includes Arabic because "Berber" is an Arabic term that doesn't exist in Berber languages. Berber languages does too; see Berber languages#cite note-2 and the "Tamaziɣt" (Berber Latin alphabet) in the infobox. Skitash (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nooo.... In the footnotes, but not in the lead text or infobox text that I can see. The Berber Latin alphabet and the Berber Arabic alphabet aren't what I'm referring to here. I'm referring to the traditional Berber alphabets, which are official in Morocco as far as I know. Andre🚐 23:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's likely because MOS:FORLANG recommends moving non-English names to footnotes to reduce clutter. Furthermore, if you're referring to Tifinagh, it's only official in Morocco. Berber languages are spoken in more countries than just Morocco. In Algeria, for example, the government has yet to decide whether to officialize Tifinagh, Berber Latin, or Berber Arabic. Skitash (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but look at a page like Hebrew language. We include the name of the language in both Hebrew, mostly used by Jewish people, and in the Samaritan script, which is related but distinct. That's because both groups have a claim to that language. I don't think FORLANG is too specific about what clutter constitutes. Nor does that apply to listing those alternative alphabet in the infobox text. Or Aramaic, which includes both Syriac and Jewish Babylonian. Andre🚐 23:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, I have no issue with moving text out of the footnotes in Berber languages if that's what you're suggesting. However, what TahaKahi is bizarrely trying to propose is that we delete Arabic text from articles that have anything to do with Berbers, such as Yennayer, despite the fact that the word exists in Arabic and the holiday is celebrated by both Arabs and Berbers. Skitash (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that exists in arabic doesn't mean that is an arabic holiday. Even the fact of the celebration it doesn't make sense. If an indian celebrates chinese year, it doesn't make the holiday indian. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the case first of all cause judge others languages inappropriate the arabic version would have been removed too but that did not happened. Also it does mean a thing that in algeria the tifinagh is not the only offical one cause it's used in a lot of cases; road signs, names of companies, websites, even newspapers so this argumentation is pointless. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what you just wrote. Skitash (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, that is not the case. If other languages were considered inappropriate, the Arabic version would have been removed as well, but that didn’t happen; for example Algeria page has arabic in it and that is not Forlang for you. Furthermore, the fact that Tifinagh isn’t the only official script in Algeria doesn’t diminish its significance, as it is widely used in many contexts, such as road signs, company names, websites, and even newspapers. Your argument that the use of Tifinagh is inappropriate because it is not officially recognized in Algeria is irrelevant, as it is largely used by the population. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't quite get what you're hinting at. Non-English names are contained within footnotes in Algeria. Since you brought up road signs, it is only signs in Berber cities that do have Berber text,[18] and even those arbitrarily use either Tifinagh, Berber Arabic or Berber Latin. What makes you think it's a good idea to choose Tifinagh over all the other scripts? Additionally, there was an RfC in Talk:Algeria, where the consensus was to not include Berber text for this very reason. No Berber script has been officially chosen yet. Skitash (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Skitash also removed the mention of the Berber language for the city of Béjaïa, even though it is in a Berber-speaking region. [19]. while the infobox settlement provides a native language parameter. He should therefore have applied FORLANG by removing Arabic and keeping the local name (and other official language) in Berber: Bgayet. For ideological reasons, he has always decided to remove the Berber name and not the one in Arabic. On the French article that was featured does not encounter these problems, there are both Arabic and Berber names in the language of the country, without the sky apparently falling on our heads. The alphabet questions are a pretext: on other Wikipedia projects there is no problem and many cities in Algeria like Algiers, Béjaïa opt for Tifinagh and Arabic plates. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really think this AIV report is going to help, Skitash? Andre🚐 02:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't have been needed, but a quick isolated look at Monsieur Patillo's contributions and dispute history led to a quick overdue block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't exactly my read. I thought it wasn't appropriate for AIV as a content dispute and not clear vandalism. But maybe I didn't look closely enough at the diffs. Andre🚐 02:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Such reports are indeed not appropriate for AIV, but I ended up reviewing such reports when they appear as they usually describe actual disruption that someone is frustrated about and needs help with, and sending them away to other venues just causes more frustration. When I see such a report, I normally either take action or decline it by removing the report with an edit summary pinging the reporter and explaining why. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, you might want to confer with Asilvering or review this thread though. Andre🚐 02:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree I don't really want to make much of an accusation here either. I'm trying not to say much more on this subject until I see a decision regarding it, but from what I can see, isn't it interesting how this is unfolding? [20] and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:CIR issue and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YassinRi.
    Read through the past comments in this discussion, and you'll see @Skitash and @M.Bitton, especially the latter, breaking this Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
    There is a clear issue here and no matter how many times i try to make it clear, nothing comes out of it, i try to engage but my comments get either ignored or the person im converting with move to a different subject instead, i urge to read through the entire discussion here and see how the behavior and arguments.
    Outside of this, can someone tell me, what form of report do i open for this subject? and as for what i feel like is targeting, personal and group-wise. where do i make a report of such. TahaKahi (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    #TahaKahi's_behaviour and the list of personal attacks against Skitash here and on other venues such as [1],[2],[3] and even AFD, where they had been reminded by CoffeeCrumbs not to cast aspersions (which they obviously ignored) speak for themselves. M.Bitton (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. I have read your message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TahaKahi's behaviour

    @TahaKahi: putting the content issue aside and getting back to what this board is for (editors' behaviour), do you have anything to say about your misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV (see diff)? M.Bitton (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would suggest that instead of continuing to make accusations, you take the opportunity to explain and provide references for your statements. Throughout this discussion, you have made numerous remarks and insinuations, but little constructive input to move the conversation forward. You have also avoided addressing a specific issue that was directed towards you regarding a potential violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and have continued to engage disrespectfully to me. TahaKahi (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please answer the question regarding your misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV. This behaviour issue is exactly what this board is meant to address. M.Bitton (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Refrain from creating separate sections in this report on a different subject. make your own dispute. Secondly, what you're doing is Wikipedia:PA making accusations without any basis, immediately after making hateful remarks throughout the subject. Be civil. This is the last time I ask you this. TahaKahi (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please answer the question regarding your misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV (the supporting diff has been provided). M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refer to my previous reply in this section where I engaged with you on this topic, and your response was a direct insult and dismissiveness. refer to your response "I have better things to do than entertain the nonsensical assertions of someone who misrepresents the sources to push a POV." You are trying to divert the subject. I will ignore you until an administrator says otherwise. TahaKahi (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot ignore an undisputed fact that is supported by a diff. Since you broke the community's trust by misrepresenting you misrepresented the sources to push a POV, you need to start by acknowledging what you did, explain why you did it and what you will do differently in the future. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    M.Bitton, I don't see any evidence anywhere that TahaKahi has "broken the community's trust". I strongly suggest that you do not talk to other editors in this way, especially when you appear to be on the other side of them in a content dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering: Is source misrepresentation something that the community finds acceptable? That's what they did (the evidence has been provided) and they refuse to even acknowledge it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @M.Bitton, you've been on wikipedia for a long time and know very well what it means when someone says an editor has broken or lost community trust. TahaKahi isn't blocked, and it's completely inappropriate to talk to them in this way. Settle your content dispute by having an earnest, good-faith discussion on the article talk page. Don't dismiss or insult the other editor, which, as you can see even from this brief thread, has been completely unproductive. -- asilvering (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering: If that's the only bit that's concerning you, then I will strike it so that we can concentrate of the primary issue (their misrepresentation of the sources). M.Bitton (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Settle your content dispute by having an earnest, good-faith discussion on the article talk page. Both of you. (Or: all of you.) Stop accusing each other of pov-pushing. Assume good faith and have a serious discussion about the sources and what they say. -- asilvering (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Their misrepresentation of the sources is not a hollow accusation, it's a fact, unlike their report and the aspersions that they keep casting on another editor across multiple boards. M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say it was a hollow accusation. I said you needed to assume good faith and have a serious discussion about the sources and what they say. If you need to pretend to have good faith, then pretend. Go talk it out. -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an example (one of many) of their bad faith accusations. M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering M.Bitton is not wrong. TahaKahi is clearly only on Wikipedia for a single purpose: using it as an ethnic WP:BATTLEGROUND as exemplified by this unjustified edit. Looking at their contributions, it's evident that all of their edits have something to do with pushing a pro-Berber POV in various articles, even if it means blatantly misrepresenting sources (which they failed to address above) and throwing around baseless bad faith accusations everywhere/WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Not to mention, the editor in question is currently under investigation for sockpuppetry, as their initial edits clearly seem to continue the work of a blocked editor.[21][22] Skitash (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will make a few adjustments to this conversation. First, the 'pro-Berber POV' you mention is quite strange. You see me adding Wikipedia:LEADLANG to Berber-specific Wikipedia articles, such as the one you mentioned, and your first thought is that I'm pushing a pro-Berber POV? I have not made any major contributions to Amazigh content that would support the claim you're making during my time on Wikipedia.
    Secondly, I have already discussed your report in this conversation, and I will refer to it again. You made a report based on an incident from last June, for which I was unbanned, and your accusation of sockpuppetry was proven false. Yet, here you are, making the same accusations after we had a disagreement about including the main language on an Amazigh page. You didn’t want to engage in a proper discussion as per Wikipedia rules. Again, I'll refer to earlier replies where I cited these events and how you moved from ignoring the talk page, locking the dispute resolution by requesting deletion of one of the pages, then making a second report. Anyone can visit the second sockpuppetry report and see for themselves. So far, everything you’ve considered unjust for removal falls under Wikipedia:FORLANG and you have yet, to have a proper conversation with me about it instead of making it a pro-berber or pro-arab discussion. You have yet to explain how they don't fall under this guideline and have instead avoided a constructive conversation. I will again refer to my previous replies. TahaKahi (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To add, here is his report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YassinRi TahaKahi (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not justify removing the Arabic name, especially when the same term exists in Arabic (where it translates to January). If you were truly following MOS:FORLANG, the right thing to do would have been to include both names in a footnote, as M.Bitton did here. Furthermore, you've once again avoided addressing the fact that you've misrepresented sources, and this says a lot.
    While you may not be a sock of Yassine181, you are most certainly a sock of YassinRi. As I mentioned in the sockpuppet investigation, it's highly improbable that it's a mere coincidence both of you added the exact same dynasties and names (Barghawata, Almoravids, Almohads, Abu Mohammed Salih) to the article, especially when the article rarely gets edited. You started restoring YassinRi's edits to Safi, Morocco just over a month after they were blocked indefinitely.
    As for Karima Gouit, deletion was rightly requested as the article fails WP:GNG. There are hardly any RS (non-social media sources) available about her. Skitash (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yennayer wiki page is only about the topic of the first month in the berber calendar. your description does not fall under the reasoning for including Wikipedia:FORLANG. Let me remind you, just because two words come from the same language or have the same origin does not mean they should be included. Additionally, the names in question are not Arabic, nor did they originate from the Arabic word itself. You can verify this by checking the etymology. If you have proof that they did originate from Arabic, that information should be placed in the etymology section, not in the introduction under FORLANG. Applying FORLANG in this case is inappropriate for a topic that is exclusively Berber, such as the first month of their calendar, its not a hard thing to grasp on.
    As for your accusation of me being a sockpuppet, keep that in your report as it seems you're trying to start yet another argument in a section of a different topic. There's no need to bring it up here when there’s already a separate discussion on the matter. Also, do not make misleading claims like 'You started restoring YassinRi’s edits.' That did not happen, nor have you provided any evidence showing that exact behavior. Again, keep that in your report.
    Regarding Karima, you should have initiated a discussion on her talk page, but instead, you chose to act independently, even after a dispute had been raised. You decided to file a second report after your first was proven based on false reasoning, my ban, as ban seen in my talk page, is not as a cause of your initial report reasoning. It's worth noting that your deletion occurred when the inclusion of the Tamazight word was under discussion, and it’s unlikely you would have requested the deletion otherwise, considering you hadn’t made any prior edits to her page. This clearly indicates targeting. However, the issue here is Amazigh inclusion in their own specific-topic articles. Your personal grievances with me should be kept in your sockpuppet report. Let’s not make this notice any longer by repeating the same points over and over. TahaKahi (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note: the OP's source misinterpretation aside, I noticed that they are still harassing Skitash by vilifying them with accusations that they plastered all over the place[1][2] (see their recent comment about them). M.Bitton (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has become a two or three person discussion, maybe it would be better placed on ANI or elsewhere. It would be nice if y'all didn't keep taking potshots at each other as it seems very BATTLEGROUNDy. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, you are trying to claim harassment, even though you clearly mention a dispute resolution and the MOS notice while we cleared out how this admin notice even came to be. which includes trying to resolve the issue before taking this step. After so many disrespectful remarks throughout this notice, please be more civil. I am not the only person who has asked you to do this. TahaKahi (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying, I am saying it and backing it with diffs. Commenting on Skitash across multiple boards is not acceptable (read WP:PA and WP:AGF). M.Bitton (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree: after persistently harassing Skitash and getting away with it, TahaKahi has now turned their attention to me: after falsely describing the facts that I reported as "personal attacks", they decided to template me. M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree TahaKahi is still WP:FORUMSHOPPING by repeatedly filing reports against me, including a new one on this very noticeboard regarding my reverting of these edits of theirs.[23][24][25] They seem to think it's perfectly fine to add anachronistic WP:OR and misrepresent sources (which they failed to address above). Given their persistent baseless personal attacks and aspersions (targeting not just me but M.Bitton as well),[26][27][28][29][30] don't you think this SPA's harassment has crossed a line? Skitash (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen both the creation and the removal of the thread as well as the pings. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree We still have an issue. Despite being told by an admin to avoid interacting with editors they're in dispute with, TahaKahi continues to harass @M.Bitton by WP:FORUMSHOPPING on DRN, AIV, and edit warring on their own talk page.[31][32][33] Skitash (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring on someone else's talk page would already justify a harassment block to me, but I've given up attempting to deal with the issues discussed in this section here administratively. Rough consensus amoung uninvolved administrators appears to be that noone needs to be blocked if everyone is nice to each other from now on. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    End this notice

    It’s clear that nothing will come of this, especially as both sides are no longer acting civil and the issue continues to drag on. I request that this be locked and hope that through dispute resolution, all parties can reach an understanding. TahaKahi (talk) 6:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    Like in the story of Pandora's box, something easily opened can be difficult to close. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not your call. You're the only editor who has been persistently attacking Skitash (here and on various other boards) and the only one who misrepresented the sources. M.Bitton (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The walls of text here are ridiculous. No one is going to read through all of this, and honestly in cases like this it starts to feel as if that's the motivation. If you can just make sure the discussion is at least 10K words, no one will bother to read it and maybe it'll get archived without action.
    Any party who actually wants this to ever be looked at, please stop talking now. Those parties who are simply trying to run the word count up, also please stop talking. Valereee (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting that I've responded to this parallel, spurious AIV report filed by TahaKahi, and reviewed this discussion in the process. As I noted in that discussion, I don't see sufficient cause for blocking anyone at this time--there's been a lot of terseness and unproductive accusations, but none of it has resulted in clearly-disruptive edits (M.Bitton's allegations of misrepresenting sources, if true, are disruptive editing, but the leading fashion in which the allegations have been raised here is not conducive to a clear assessment). The combination of combativity and SPA behavior would be enough that if this were a CTOP, I would likely be implementing a topic-ban for TahaKahi at this time due to the spurious AIV report after the various prior AN reports. As it is, frivolous reports will cross the line into tendentiousness if continued, but if editors are willing to have patience and take recourse to talk page discussion and RfCs this can be resolved without anyone getting blocked. signed, Rosguill talk 18:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I will gladly stop editing any topics related to the subject for the time being, but is it fair to ask that the WP:HOUNDING of my edits stop as well? I've tried to leave the topic and move to completely different areas, such as Assyrian gods [34], but my edits were reverted again by the same individuals, who seemingly have never worked in anything related to that topic before. I understand the concerns, but even when I try to set aside past interactions and engage in discussion on the talk page, as seen on the Barb horse talk page [35], I receive responses like 'I've had it with your aspersions.' All I'm asking is to be able to work on unrelated subjects without interference from the same individuals. It's a difficult position to be in, where more experienced editors are closely watching all my edits, reverting them for controversial reasons, and barely engaging in discussion. I can't build a positive contribution record when my edits are reverted within less than an hour. TahaKahi (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you please try fixing 10 typos and reverting 10 instances of obvious vandalism from Special:RecentChanges? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is certainly fair to ask that the hounding stop. That revert on Ashur (god) (summary: "not an improvement + badly written") is extremely out of line, and the topic is unrelated to the dispute on WP:LEADLANG. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's an unattributed translation from the French Wikipedia,[36] vs. [37] including the sources used there and even the punctuation after them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, this is the translation. Baldpotat0 advised me on how to fix it, and I’m gradually working on it in my sandbox. However, I don't think you're fully understanding our point. There are clear signs of WP:HOUNDING. While I can’t report it, as you've mentioned, why should it continue? You can see my edits being reverted by the same two people each time, which directly fits the definition of hounding, even if they have their reasons (the revert of Ashur wasn’t based on what you mentioned regardless). I’m certain other editors could help correct my mistakes and guide me or revert clear issues, as I’ve said before, especially now that I’m learning how to use the sandbox. If possible can we kindly move this to my talk page if you still want to clear it out? To stop increasing the word count here. TahaKahi (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In my personal unchanged opinion, you should fix 10 typos and revert 10 instances of vandalism instead of complaining about a perceived inability to build a positive contribution record. If these get reverted, we can talk. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mentorship of TheNuggeteer re: their topic ban

    TheNuggeteer was recently topic banned from content review processes, broadly construed, for six months. I've reached out to them on their talk page, offering a bit of a mentorship in which they leave pseudo–DYK reviews and errors reports on my talk page and I give them feedback. They won't be editing any live content-review pages or processes under this – only my talk page. I don't think that's a significant topic ban violation, but out of an abundance of caution, I did want to leave a note that this is something we'll be doing. Hopefully that's all right, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for doing this, leeky. -- asilvering (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good example of where mentorship could be beneficial for en.wiki. CMD (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any vio from that. Useful idea. Valereee (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I love this, thank you for being willing to do this @Theleekycauldron. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting my comment here, which is implicitly support for doing this. Daniel (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While there is the potential that TheNuggeteer may be in technical violation of the ban, I think that if the mentorship is successful then Wikipedia may benefit more than by enforcing the ban strictly. That having been said, outside of the mentorship (your talkpage, and possibly his), the user should be required to abide by the ban completely until/unless it is removed, in full or in part. Animal lover |666| 22:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just stumbled across this. I was in the unfortunate position of having to propose the sanctions against TheNuggeteer, but I have no desire to see him locked out of content venues for any longer than he needs to be. Thank you for volunteering to do this, leeky — it's very kind of you — and good luck to you as well, TheNuggeteer! I hope this mentorship during your time off will serve you well and help you come back a strong contributor in April. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KabirDH

    An aside firstly – total havoc on the Ratan Tata page with his recent death. There has been a request unanswered at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase, which has gone unanswered for over an hour now whilst the page has repeatedly been destroyed with tributes, test edits and vandalism.

    Here though because I have warned User:KabirDH about edit warring and they continue to revert all my edits to the Ratan Tata page, despite the fact I have given reasons on the subject's respective talk page and invited him/her to discuss the matter first and wait for a consensus. User does not wish to comply with this request, and when I suggested I would take it here he/she has continued to repeatedly restore their edits. Thanks Jkaharper (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Another administrator has put three days of semi-protection on Ratan Tata. I've notified User:KabirDH that he is mentioned here. It would be normal to await a resolution at Talk:Ratan Tata where discussion is already in progress. Editing of the article has been extremely heavy and if admins have to intervene, the only thing that would work is a period of full protection. Before this happens the editors should make a bigger effort to explain the issues on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    may I have a ruling on SYNTH?

    Moved to WP:ORN § Is this SYNTH
     – Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Important edit request

    Hello, can someone remove background-color:transparent; from Template:POTD protected/2024-10-10 asap? This is causing major dark mode issues on the Main Page and is not recommended. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Extraordinary Writ: tysm! —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 21:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gentle Request

    Dear Administrator, I am writing to request a reconsideration of the restrictions placed on the Shehzad Poonawalla page, which was protected for administrators only following multiple recreations in 2018. At the time, the subject may not have met the notability guidelines. However, Shehzad Poonawalla has since gained significant recognition, and his notability is now well-established. Poonawalla has become a prominent spokesperson for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and has appeared in numerous reputable media outlets such as the BBC, among others, discussing important political topics. These reliable sources underscore his relevance in the public and political domain, making his biography notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I would like to kindly request that the page be reviewed and possibly recreated, even if only as a stub. If any additional notability checks are needed or further action is required, I would be happy to assist in providing more references or content. AstuteFlicker (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The best way for you to provide references and content would be for you to create a draft article at Draft:Shehzad Poonawalla and submit it for review at AFC. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger Can't I just create a stub article and submit it for AFC once the article is created slowly and gradually we will add more details to the article is it possible??AstuteFlicker (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what PB is telling you to do, @AstuteFlicker. Create the draft -- with at least three instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject -- and submit. You will not be able to create a stub in article space directly, and no administrator will remove that protection before they see a draft with the necessary sources. Valereee (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can create a stub of high enough quality that an administrator thinks is good enough (the general indication of good enough being stated above), the page will be moved to the article title, along with its history (and, as a result, your status as author). However, the recreation history of this article, after it was deleted, is such that no admin is likely to allow recreation directly ever. Animal lover |666| 17:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I previously escalated an issue regarding the creation of a Wikipedia article on a topic that is restricted to administrators. I was advised to create a draft (which I have done Draft:Shehzad Poonawalla) and submit it through the Articles for Creation (AFC) process. However, I am unable to see the "Submit for review" option on my draft.
    Since the topic is restricted, I believe this may be the reason for the submission issue. Could you please guide me on how to proceed with submitting this draft for review, or if any administrative assistance is needed to facilitate the AFC process?
    Additionally, I am encountering an issue with the short description in my draft. The short description is displaying below the infobox in mobile view, but I would like it to appear at the top of the page. I was informed by my mentor that this issue only occurs in mobile view, while it appears correctly on the desktop version. Could you please advise on how to resolve this and ensure the short description appears properly on all devices? AstuteFlicker (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry about the short description. The reviewer who accepts the draft can add it themselves. -- asilvering (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see if the topic is currently notable enough. Still fails WP:SIGCOV. Orientls (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hello @Orientls,
      The article is currently a stub, which is why I haven't added much content yet. However, there are many reliable sources available, and I plan to expand the article further soon. I feel that the topic meets the significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) requirements, and I believe that with time, the article will grow into a more comprehensive one.
      Thank you for your understanding. AstuteFlicker (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If left alone for too long (currently 6 months) it may be deleted, but as long as you keep editing it you have all the time you need. This is actually an advantage of using the Draft: namespace, as in the article namespace it would be deleted quickly if not improved. Animal lover |666| 16:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Emily Armstrong (musician)

    Not a conduct issue, so AN is not the right place. Discuss with the mover, and if necessary, request the move be reverted at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requests to revert undiscussed moves. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There's some weird page move fuckery going on at Emily Armstrong (musician). Could someone please move it back to Emily Armstrong, which currently redirects to Emily Armstrong (musician)? The singer is clearly the primary topic, and I think something got borked in a page move. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any article move warring recently, just a series of moves by long-standing editor User:Jax 0677 a few weeks ago. I'm not sure why this was escalated to AN. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Move it yourself. If you can't, go to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial technical requests and request it there. On the outside chance your request there is declined (I doubt it will be), follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. Animal lover |666| 06:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See User talk:Jax 0677#EMily Armstrong. I've no idea why this has to be at WP:AN. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The base page should be a dab, given there is Emily Armstrong (musician), Murder of Emily Armstrong, and Emily Armstrong (artistic swimmer) that could all be listed, and none appear to be a PRIMARYTOPIC. I also completely am baffled by this being at AN. GiantSnowman 08:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A disambiguation page already exists. If there is no clearly obvious answer as to which page should have the title, perhaps an RM discussion is needed. However, there is probably no reason to report a single move on this page--just about every administrator intervention reason has an other venue. Animal lover |666| 09:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This looks very odd

    A report at TB2 for Suraj Avhad Real (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) lead me to the talk page of Sungodtemple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is filled with seemingly random questions from new users. Anyone have an idea what the bleep is going on here? I have refrained for the moment from notifying either of these editors on the off chance that this might be some kind of sock farm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Are they part of a mentor program? Joyous! Noise! 18:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Their answers to the questions seem reasonable. I think they are being asked questions because their name is posted at Wikipedia:Growth Team features/Mentor list. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh. That explains everything. It's nice to run into something odd that actually isn't malicious now and then. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RFPP backlog

    Hi. There's currently a backlog at WP:RFPP. You may also want to investigate the recent articles I've rolled back today, as several users seem to be reverting each other. The articles in concern are Linus Media Group, Linus Sebastian and Bob Swan. A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 08:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll take a poke at those articles and check in on them. Sirocco745 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ltbdl

    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections. Other editors may comment below. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    Appealing user
    ltbdl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ltbdl☃ (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sanction being appealed
    topic ban from post-1992 american politics and gender related disputes, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive334 § Ltbdl
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    [38]

    Statement by ltbdl

    i wish for my topic bans to be lifted. the ban stems from comments i made during the telegraph rfc, disparaging springee. these were made in the heat of the moment, and i do apologize. i will not make those kinds of comments again. i want to continue to copyedit articles under these topics.

    Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

    With the scant appeal and the recent violations it's a hard no from me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Springee

    I find the explanation for the original behavior insufficient. As I noted in the original ARE discussion, I have no prior interaction with this editor. If I their original statement were the result of something, what was the offending comment? I think most of us can understand wanting to snipe at another editor if that other editor, for example, grossly insults and dismisses a logical argument you make. This, however, was out of the blue and non-specific. When other editor asked about the comment the response was to double down. Given they had time to think about their response, other editors asked them to retract the comment and finally they refused to explain the comment in the ARE, it's hard to accept "heat of the moment". What triggered that heated moment? What assurance do we have that such heat of the moment statements won't repeat? Why no explanation at the original ARE filing? Minor note: I was not notified about this filing. It does appear an attempt to ping me was part of the original request but probably failed due to the lack of a signature. Springee (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ltbdl has already violated their TBAN. On 9 Oct they made a series of edits to Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election (exp [39]) as well as an earlier edit to 2024_United_States_presidential_debates (11 Sept [40]). Springee (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by ltbdl

    I'm going to first suggest say this is too soon from the topic ban being enforced to be lifted. This was less than 4 months ago. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is for sure my first impression as well. ltbdl declined to even participate in the discussion. If they want to do copyedits there are literally millions of articles not under the scope of the tban that could use it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ltbdl, it's hard to even start saying anything about this. You made no statement when the sanctions were imposed, and now, 54 words. Give us something to work with. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    what do you want me to say? ltbdl☃ (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the violation of the topic ban as recently as 2 days ago: [41], can you tell me why I shouldn't block you immediately for this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose, no clear case made for lifting coupled with the recent violation. Copyediting is welcome elsewhere and is not so needed that it merits lifting sanctions. Star Mississippi 21:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Recently violated the topic ban. C F A 💬 02:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The UCC (2.2) suggests we lend editors "a hand when they need support". Providing ltbdl incentives to explore adjacent interests beyond a specific topic area, when participation in said topic area puts their account at likely risk of restrictive protective actions, is consistent with that mandate. "Indefinite" should never be a synonym for "eternal," but four months may — perhaps — not provide sufficient time for an editor to complete their journey of reflection and exploration that a ban should, at least in part, help inspire. It would be unfair to ltbdl for us to lift the ban this year, and maybe even next year, and to do so would be a forfeiture of our aforementioned obligation to maximize opportunities for their success. I look forward to ltbdl returning to this topic at some undetermined point in the future and I can't wait to see what great contributions they'll make in other areas in the meantime. Chetsford (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and block [42] is very clearly a violation of your topic ban. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but I cannot fathom how you would think a reduction of restrictions would be appropriate at this time when you aren't abiding by it in the first place. Buffs (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose lifting a topic ban on any editor who violated their topic ban in recent days. Cullen328 (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose given that they violated the topic ban just six days ago. The Kip (contribs) 19:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge close Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal

    It's clear that no consensus will emerge to overturn the close. While any admin is free to revert if they disagree my closure of this thread, I urge the OP to just let the matter drop. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    Coming here from ANI. This appears to be a controversial merge and the close of discussion was possibly a WP:BADNAC. The close was controversial because of off-wiki involvement, and an arb complaint against one of the voters, and then a close-call numerically. A discussion started immediately after the close, and the closer did not seem receptive to self-reverting. I would like to ask for an experienced administrator to close or reopen. The Merge closer was notified (Licks-rocks) and they only have just over 2000 edits. Merge discussion, article. Lightburst (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved editors

    • Endorse, Licks-rocks close was well articulated. The claim that it is problematic merely because Licks-rocks only has 2,000 edits (it's actually 2,381 as of this comment, but that's irrelevant) is an argument completely lacking in policy. TarnishedPathtalk 00:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No comment on the close, but would encourage action (here or ArbComm) to put this situation to rest as there have been many many bytes spilled over a camp/lake of very little significance (in real world speak, not notability) and old issues re-hashed at the various admin boards as well as potentially off site, apparently. Weighing in here as AfD closer, but neutral as to subject matter. It's clearly an issue that needs resolution Star Mississippi 01:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. As observed by @HighKing, many editors opposing the merge did not address how the sourcing -- including any new links -- actually satisfied NCORP to the extent that they should alleviate PAGEDECIDE concerns; in fact, many of them didn't even argue that the sources were IRS SIGCOV and instead just noted the article had "reliable sources". The claim that the current content was too detailed to be DUE in the target but also too encyclopedic to be deleted needed evidence those details were actually sufficiently well-supported in NCORP-level sourcing to belong anywhere, but this wasn't established. This was adequately reflected in the closer's statement there's just barely too little significant coverage for this company to have its own article, and the current Bent's Camp Resort article covers a lot of material about non-notable individuals and events as a result. This material would not survive a merge, and the remainder would not create too much of an issue being merged here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse a detailed rationale was given for the close, and a close-call numerically doesn't matter when the strength of the arguments is taken into consideration, as it was here. The AfD close stated "recommend discussing a merger on the Talk", which is exactly what happened, so allegations of off-wiki involvement are unfounded as the merge proposal was simply following the recommendation, and WP:BADNAC doesn't apply here either. Licks-rocks, please don't be discouraged from closing further discussions based on the OP's comments, you did nothing wrong here. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse - Not a WP:BADNAC under any of the criteria. There was no breach of process for this 258 word article about a campsite by a lake. Not a contentious topic and no concerns were raised in the discussion that this was contentious. Indeed, Lightburst's revert of the completed merge and close discussion was done on the justification that it needs uninvolved close [43], which is exactly what it had. The close was entirely within closer discretion, and no argument has been made by Lightburst that the policy arguments were misjudged. Additionally, gidonb was uninvolved in the discussion but made the point in the post close discussion that Even IF true that the camp is notable on its own, merging was still a good idea. If and when a long and well-referenced article on the resort is developed, this can become a SPINOFF. Given the length of the lake and camp articles, and the camp being part of the lake, its shores and beaches, there is no justification to SPINOUT. Which ultimately is what this is all about. Appropriate presentation of limited material for the benefit of a reader. Because that is the first and most important role of an editor. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • EndorseSigh. It is clearly not a controversial topic: it is one non-notable camping site article being merged into an almost-as-non-notable lake article. And Lightburst reiterating how 'controverial' it is does not make it so. Thus BADNAC does not apply, either because of who made the close nor because of the nature of it. And per the close itself, it was reasoned, thought-through and accurate. If one thing comes out of this latest sojourn of Lightburst's to AN, it's that Licks-rocks should not stop closing discussions. SerialNumber54129 14:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. None of the criteria under WP:BADNAC have been met. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn WP:BADNAC 2 discussion is contentious... (multiple ways this is true) and 3 The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally... (2300 edits). All I ask is that an experienced closer - preferably an admin, assess and open or close this. This is also not a WP:SPINOUT issue as Sirfurboy has suggested, and I am also concerned that they are hanging on the "uninvolved" close words, because I later explained that I meant experience. Finally, merging a notable 100+ year old logging camp into a lake article does not help our readers and that is what this is really about. Lightburst (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I later explained that I meant experience. Yes, and you also edited that word in to the answered talk page discussion here today,[44] which is a bit cheeky! BADNAC 3 is not meant to be applied to editors with five years on Wikipedia, and thousands of edits who have closed multiple discussions. It is for people who come in and don't understand what they are doing. It does not apply to Licks-rocks. BADNAC 2 is about recognising actual contentious closes, such as the telegraph RFC, for which Licks-rocks recognised that it was contentious and was attempting to form a panel close.[45] A 258 word article about a campsite on a lake is not contentious. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This article has been discussed at ANI, WPO, AN, on several WP talk pages, in an AfD, in a Merge discussion, in this Merge review... but you say not contentious? Not-contentious per your examples but contentious causing or likely to cause an argument... - this is true of the article and having an inexperienced closer was likely to be controversial - this was shown by the immediate questioning of the close. I am wondering why this is so important to you. You have been pressing to diminish the visibility of this article - petitioning for a close, active in all discussion to diminish. Is it to protect the integrity of the project? I imagine someone who wants to learn about this historic place but they are directed to a lake? This helps our readers? And you say an editor with 2300 edits should close contentious discussions. What other contested merge discussions or other numerically divided discussions have they closed? I started in 2013 but made few edits until 2018, so if I started closing discussions in 2018 I would have five years on my account and not enough experience. Licks-Rocks had 19 edits in 2019, 256 in 2020, 285 in 2021, 192 in 2022, 1105 in 2023... 524 for 2024. They have started one article. They have only been involved in 20 AfDs. So I am not saying they are a bad editor, just that they do not have the experience and clout to close this discussion. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A lack of clout also makes it a BADNAC now? TarnishedPathtalk 23:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      TP I would like to ask you to stop trolling me. You have trolled my talk page and nearly every comment I make here - please stop jabbing me. You have been very uncollegial for quite a long time. Lightburst (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I note further mistruths, aspersions and incivility from you. I'd suggest you strike but I've come to expect that you have no intention of adhering to Wikipedia's behavioural guidelines. The irony here is that you started an ANI thread against ATG, largely on the basis of their incivility. TarnishedPathtalk 01:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved editors

    • Weak overturn: The WP:BADNAC argument obviously doesn't work here, because WP:BADNAC explicitly says that closes shouldn't be challenged solely because the closer was not an admin. But I also don't like this close, because it was extremely close numerically and because more of the support arguments had no policy content than oppose arguments. I don't think it was completely unreasonable, but I do think this is a case of a closer trying to find any shred of consensus where no consensus actually exists. Loki (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn to no consensus. I do not think finding consensus to merge was within the closer's discretion. I do not think the supporters sufficiently rebutted the notability arguments, and while I persoanlly agree that the merge would be good here, I didn't see a compelling argument under NOPAGE in this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For what it's worth, most of the supporters' arguments were backed up further during the AfD, here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn pretty much per voorts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse The sourcing was insignificant and routine and did not justify a standalone article. Campgrounds and cabins are common on these lakes, and they should be covered in the context of the lake rather than as generic local businesses, if at all, and the close addresses the comments to this point appropriately. Reywas92Talk 16:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. WP:BADNAC is just one big ad hominem. The merge discussion must be seen in the context of the AfD that preceded it and spurred its opening. In that discussion, the closer found the merge !votes to give a "slight edge" to retaining the information, either at the original article or in a merged form. Equally, the merge and delete !votes together suggest a clear majority at the AfD did not consider the topic notable enough for its own article. Therefore, I do not find the oppose !votes in the merge discussion, essentially seeking to rehash the notability question, solid enough, and support the close in favour of merging. It's hair-thin, and I'm not sure what I would have done, had I been forced at gunpoint to close this discussion, but I think that even if one does not find the above line of reasoning persuasive, one should apply some WP:IAR to let everyone move on from this historically unimportant quarrel. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse BADNAC's definition of experience is The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia. This seems to me like it's talking about brand new editors with edit counts in the low hundreds, especially those who are not extended confirmed. Applying that to an editor with 2300+ edits, 5 years experience, and long history of discussion participation is a stretch. I do agree that the discussion is controversial, but the controversy seems to be about longstanding grudges and not anything to do with Bent's Camp Resort or Marnie Lake. Pinguinn 🐧 23:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close seems fine to me. I agree with everything Pinguinn writes, especially the last sentence. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse - and I have to say that I'm really unimpressed with the conduct by Lightburst here. The seeming hyperfixation on Lick-rocks' edit count is a classic case of editcountitis, and it almost comes off as condescending. It almost comes across as "this editor must have X amount of edits before they can close merge discussions". How many? 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 20000? Also the appealing to administrators below is almost like asking the other parent. An often repeated axiom at RFA is that administrators are just editors with extra buttons, and their opinion doesn't hold any more special weight than a "normal" editor. Administrators don't need to "counsel" Lick-rocks on anything, seeing as many editors here agree with what he did. LB, you're fellow editors *can* have a different opinion from you without you "feeling bad" for them, whatever the hell that means. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. Really couldn't care less for any BADNAC complaints—small lake resorts aren't a contentious topic, that the discussion got a bit heated does not mean a NAC is ill-advised. I think no consensus results should be avoided when feasible, and this was feasible; a lot of "Oppose" arguments were rehash of the AfD notability debate, which is irrelevant per WP:NOPAGE. There were some bad votes on the "merge" side too, but the core argument that the amount of information that WP ought to have on the resort based on coverage is short enough for a merge to be desirable checks out. Mach61 01:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    Not relevant to the merge close. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Clearly an issue that requires extensive admin attention, if not an ArbCom resolution to make sure this level of off-site WPO harassment never happens again to another user. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you're implying that I'm part of a conspiracy of WPO harassment, such outlandish claims require correspondingly strong evidence to justify making them. Otherwise you're just straight up peddling mistruths. TarnishedPathtalk 00:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with TarnishedPath, I don't appreciate the implication that I was involved in some alleged "off-site WPO harassment". If you have evidence against specific users, then be specific, and stop casting aspersions. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Where did I say either of you – or any of the pinged editors – were involved in off-site harassment? All I said was such harassment exists. Links to WPO discussions cannot be provided on-site because of an RfC that determined posting those links would constitute "outing", even in situations when WPO users themselves dox, harass, threaten and abuse on-site editors. That's the aspect to all this that requires @ArbCom: attention, unless admins here finally take a stand to address these issues beforehand. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, here's the deal. If you think there is grounds for an ArbCom case, start one. Because making repeated accusations of wrongdoing while failing to provide the slightest bit of evidence is an abuse of WP:AN [46] and WP:ANI [47] noticeboards, and clearly also off-topic for any merge [48] discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      An aside: Homeostasis07, if you can't post to WPO content, then please don't make allusions to that website when talking about other editors on Wikipedia. This is casting aspersions, whether or not you see it that way. Additionally, I am curious how you think admins or ArbCom can have any influence over the content posted there, whether it is idle gossip or harassment. I'm not sure of exactly what "stand" you want admins or arbitrators to take as many of the people who post there are already blocked on this project. I know that I'm not going to spend my time on WPO reading posts there when I could be doing productive work here. And if the content there upsets you, I suggest you steer clear of visiting that site. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Liz: Please see the RfC that determined posting any links to WPO are prohibited. I certainly agree with you about the overall state of WPO. It's a cesspool that isn't worth any productive editor's time or effort. I'd love to post 50 different links to random WPO comments I have saved, but I can't. I've been going through those links, and have seen that several Wikipedia users have been deleting their uncivil comments on WPO. Thankfully, I saved most of them on webcite. This will certainly make one of the more interesting Arb cases, should they accept. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought WebCite had stopped accepting archiving requests over a year ago? Anyway, if you are going to start an ArbCom case, I suggest you stop muddying the waters further by making allegations here, when you can't post the evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not if you have access via an academic membership. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This thread is supposed to be a review of the closure of a merge discussion. This off-topic stuff should be hatted or something. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 04:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lightburst, there is absolutely nothing contentious about this subject. It is a boring location on a lake. Claiming that it is contentious does not make it so. Further your claim that Licks-rocks 2,388 edits (not 2,000 like you claim) entails has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally is without merit. Licks-rocks has been editing for at least 5 years. BADNAC does not apply and absolutely zero of your arguments address any inadequacies in the close itself. TarnishedPathtalk 14:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hoped for an experienced closer because this discussion looked like a classic no-consensus. In coming to AN, I hoped that one of the administrators on the project would look at the merge discussion and assess. I feel bad that some of my colleagues have come here saying they believe this was a fair reading. I believe as Loki said above, it seems like

    a case of a closer trying to find any shred of consensus where no consensus actually exists

    . I also feel bad that two of my colleagues have encouraged Licks-rocks to continue to make more of these types of closes. I hope that an administrator will counsel Licks-rocks about that for the good of the project. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Question about Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan and RfC in Turkey

    Can someone confirm this RfC (Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides) would fall under WP:GS/AA, due to mention of Armenian genocide?

    Participation in this RfC would require Extended Confirmed status, right? I'm asking because of this [49]. I haven't notified the editor since there is no issue with their behavior, but their edit in the talk page would need to be reverted if there is an extended confirmed restriction. Bogazicili (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I believe it would. I'm tempted to suggest moving the discussion to a subpage so we can put EC protection on it, to prevent further misunderstandings. WaggersTALK 14:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    do it. Buffs (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the comment [50] Bogazicili (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The situation on the List of Nobel Laureates page

    There are numerous disruptive edits going on, anonymous IP accounts en masse revert changes and promote nationalist agenda, the page is unsorted and the users refuse to discuss this issue on the Talk page. I've requested protection, but was refused, yet this keeps going on and on. What should I do? Athoremmes (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Athoremmes: I'm not seeing any problems at List of Nobel laureates (only 24 edits this calendar year...none seem especially controversial or inaccurate). I assume you mean List of Nobel laureates by country? Buffs (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sorry, I have meant List of Nobel Laureates by country Athoremmes (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RFPP request posted for you. Expect it will be handled within about 3-6 hours (if not sooner). Don't fret :-) Buffs (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Athoremmes (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Burst of Joy.jpg

    Hi, Please undelete the first version, so that it can be moved to Commons. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Yann  Done – robertsky (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1251428980"