Here.

I know you mentioned WP:CRYSTAL in Battle of Toretsk. Do you think it's alright to add it now? The question's been raised twice more. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 15:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I made that comment, WP:RS were not saying Russia has captured Toretsk (or that they claimed so), in fact, they were saying Ukraine is contesting the town. I just looked at the news and it seems that today many WP:RS (Reuters, APnews stories syndicated to Yahoo!, MSN, Hindustan Times, and so on) are relating that Russia has claimed taking Toretsk and that Ukraine has not commented. I changed the infobox to reflect the new information.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 16:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm dissatisfied, [1] Looks like you didn't overview all of the comments, as there were also examples of some other cities where "formerly" is being readily used. The sources presented further attest the notion. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but like with WP:RS I didn't want the matter to become dependent on numerical advantage, because then the question is decided by those who have the best web search skills. I thought it was enough to show that there is a precedent. I can amend my closing statement to reflect that, if you wish.

In these kinds of debates, the bar to show that a name/term is still in use is quite low, as the use doesn't have to be more frequent or as frequent as the formal name. The formerly proponents have a tougher job if they want to show that a name is no longer used (how to prove a negative?) TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The formerly proponents have a tougher job, how? "formerly" was already long standing there before it was recently contested [2] claiming a non-existent "per talk" consensus. So by default the WP:ONUS was on the proponents of "synonyms" not on "formerly" side. Even so, the latter presented more academic & media sources. Therefore I'm displeased by your closure. You can overturn/revert your closure if you think this was done in haste or you overlooked the history of the proposal. – Garuda ^Talk! 10:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the latter presented more academic & media sources."

The RfC wasn't a move or rename discussion, having more sources isn't relevant when talking about whether the name "Allahabad" is still in use.

To that end, editors agreed that there are WP:RS that still use it and showed there's Wikipedia precedent for the change.

One discussion that was missing from the RfC (and therefore played no part in my close) is English Wikipedia's role when it comes to changes in foreign language and naming conventions. Should English Wikipedia follow English language WP:RS only and is the region that WP:RS comes from important?

Another missing discussion was whether a name being mentioned in an article as "formerly" is enough to say that the name is in use? WP:RS may use "formerly" not as a descriptor of the name's status but following official name status.

But a closer is not a judge (if I were I'd judge the discussion inadequate) and the decision has to be made based on arguments in the RfC.

Since this is about language, one should be aware that words and their meaning are decided by the users of the language, and it is not something prescribed "top-down". From the RfC discussion it became clear that "Allahabad" is still in use.

If you think the RfC should be re-opened and re-closed, you can start a topic on WP:ANI. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The RfC wasn't a move or rename discussion. Having more sources isn't relevant when determining whether the name 'Allahabad' is still in use." Pardon me? Then on what basis should the argument be made? Media outlets rarely use any synonym adjunct, as shown in the RfC, and I still haven't received your response to the ONUS part. The burden of proof was on the other side, but you seem to outrightly want the 'formerly' side to bear it. I'm sorry but I have to say that this closure was poorly executed. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"you seem to outrightly want the 'formerly' side to bear it."

No, I simply said that it is hard to prove that a name is no longer in use. How do you prove a negative? How do you show that something is not in use?

Because that is what it boils down to: is "Allahabad" still in use to justify an "also known as" (like Mumbai) or has it passed completely from use so that it can be "formerly" (like Constantinople is for Istanbul). TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We prove a negative by presenting putative academic sources/outlets. If the other side has them too, even in a lesser amount, if not the same, then you should have closed it as no consensus. In this instance, you can see that the proponents of 'synonyms' haven't established why using the term 'formerly' is unjustified when sources tend to frequently use this notion. – Garuda ^Talk! 15:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TurboSuperA+ Please overturn/undo your closure in this and other RfCs. If you step back from your closures then you might not face a topic ban. Take it as a friendly advice. – Garuda ^Talk! 22:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my close. I hope that is the end of that. Good luck and happy editing! TurboSuperA+ (☏) 23:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for taking the time to close the discussion on VP about AI images in BLP/medical articles. It looks like you have forgotten to sign the closing message - it's standard practice and allows readers know when something closed and who it was closed by. Do you mind adding your signature and timestamp to it? BugGhost 🦗👻 15:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'm so used to wikipedia signing my comments for me, that I forget to add them myself when necessary. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, happens to everyone :) Thanks! BugGhost 🦗👻 15:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I went back and added the signature where it was missing. I need to be more careful in the future, because sometimes the signature is added automatically and sometimes it isn't. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was this an RfC? There was very low participation in this discussion for what is usually a heated topic here. I don't think a regular discussion can be closed to establish such a broad consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. I see that it was now. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, your close didn't really explain what the arguments were on both sides, which I would expect from a closure on such a major issue. Thank you for taking a crack at closing, but I'd ask that you reopen the discussion and let someone else close it. If you're interested in closing discussions, I recommend starting in less controversial areas and discussions with narrower scope (e.g., an RfC about what to include in an article lead). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I normally write the arguments out, but in this case the consensus was quite clear. Some people objected to a ban on images that were created with AI-assisted software, and the closing statement reflects that. Others voted on and discussed a site-wide ban on AI images, but that is beyond the scope of the RfC (and the closing statement reflects that).

If you had volounteered yourself to close the RfC, I'd self-revert my close and let you do it, but I don't want to just reopen it in hopes of someone coming along and doing it.

Which arguments do you think I have missed and why are they important? To me, it seems quite a few editors would like to discuss a blanket ban on AI-images site-wide (the closing statement reflects this too), and closing this RfC is the first step towards that. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that I don't know what arguments you missed or didn't because you didn't summarize them and evaluate which ones had consensus, as a closer is supposed to. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The issue is that I don't know what arguments you missed or didn't because you didn't summarize them"

That makes no sense. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you didn't explain what the arguments were (above you stated positions, not arguments), I can't possibly know how you evaluated the arguments. I'm not a mind reader. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, if you're not going to overturn your close, that's fine, but I'm probably going to bring a closure review. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you had mentioned one or two arguments that are important to mention and why, I would have reverted it.

The closing guidelines state that if consensus is clear, a formal close is not necessary. What's the point of writing out the arguments when it is unlikely the consensus will be overturned and in fact looks like it might turn into a site-wide ban? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Didn't see this thread earlier, so pasting my new section below):
Hi, thanks for your close, though I am rather perplexed by a few things. Can you clarify that the consensus is for banning AI-generated imagery in general, rather than just in medical and BLP articles (the latter of which was already addressed and closed in the sub-RfC earlier)? AFAICT there were 34 editors who weighed in on specifically the total ban, of which a supermajority of 23 were clear supports. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts, are you going to bring this to close review? I would support that if nothing comes of this discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be real with y'all -- given the number of controversial closes in such a short time period, and the stated intention from TurboSuperA+ not to reverse their closes and a seeming lack of awareness that they're causing a problem, I'd suspect that the appropriate venue is WP:AN for discussing whether a TBAN from conducting closures is appropriate. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be brought to close review first. I can do that this evening. My hope is that Turbo will take any feedback there into account and avoid controversial closes short of a TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I just saw the thread below on the Nazi salute RfC. Turbo's recent closes should go to AN/I. I can do that tonight as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in in that discussion as the person who started the original thread, I do agree that the close is puzzling. While my original proposal did talk about BLPs and medical articles (having things like WP:MEDRS in mind), relatively few comments actually discussed medical articles as a separate issue from blanket use of AI images. At least one of them stated that medical articles illustrations weren't all of the "anatomical diagram" kind where inaccuracies could be critical, but could be simpler concepts like molecular diagrams that an AI could reproduce more safely.

While I don't necessarily think the close should be overturned, it could be good to see a more in-depth evaluation of the arguments to explain how you found a consensus for a ban from both BLPs and medical articles, but not for a blanket ban. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted my close and the discussion has been closed by an admin. I think that concludes this matter. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 23:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TurboSuperA+ Hello! Thanks for giving your opinion in the RfC on the Gaza bombardment. We will soon reach a point in which we will seek to find consensus. If you have time it would be helpful if you could clarify exactly where you wound up, most especially on the topic of if this comparison should be in the lead, or if it should simply remain unchanged (Option 1). When I read the present edit, I am not entirely sure. Or of course just leave it as is. In any case, thanks for joining the conversation. Johnadams11 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did make my position clear. I am against the inclusion of the WP:OR calculation of the death toll, because I think it is an arbitrary comparison. Why compare it to bombings of London, Dresden and Hamburg and not Pyongyang, Baghdad and Belgrade for example? I like VR's suggestion in the thread, that if we're going to add a comparison it should compare the amount of explosives dropped rather than the death toll.

I am against option 2 as formulated, but would support option 2 if it were reformulated to include amount of explosives in addition to/instead of the death toll. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TurboSuperA+ Good morning. I'm thankful I asked, because you now make me think option 2 is unclear. The point of option 2 is that this metric (casualties) would be ADDED to the tonnage and destruction metrics, so that the comparison is complete. I tried to use the word "addition" in the title, but I suppose the option should have been more clear. As you might read in my own comment, it is the cherry-picked nature of the comparisons (on many levels) that drives my interest. Many thanks. Johnadams11 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could change the info box to stop say ukraine admits loss of the city. For one every ukraine source say they position in the city and have even done a counterattack. Finally why do you guys keep getting your info on this from Sebastian sas and not better sorceress? Chasiv 25 (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) I am not the only EC editor that can make the change.

2) I don't know who "Sebastian sas" is.

3) We do go by "better sources". I changed the status of the battle because WP:RS reported on the Russian claim and Ukraine did not deny it at the time.

4) After I had said I won't change the status again, you accused me of pushing Russian propaganda and listening to "sebastain sas".

5) According to WP:RS, Russia does control most of Toretsk and Ukraine is fighting on the outskirts.

"every ukraine source say they position in the city"

Ukrainian sources aren't very reliable when it comes to battles, because they are both an involved party in the war and the Ukrainian media is under strict government control, meaning they are not an independent source of information. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No one should proxy for an editor who can't edit an article themselves. "editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages." Doug Weller talk 12:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be used for russia as they are a dictatorship also I am not denying Russia controlls most of the city I am denying the where it says Ukraine admits the loss of urban area as no Ukraine source has said. Finally you might not watch Sebastian sas but still probably watch like history legends or weeb union for info instead of more credible sources like denys davydov. Chasiv 25 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing your close[3], I'm curious how your looked at the survey of comments and got no consensus when the survey is is around 3 to 1 against inclusion. For you to close this as no consensus you need to dismiss a lot of votes opposed to inclusion on some basis. You haven't done that, so I'm curious if you just misworded the close, because it seems like a pretty clear consensus to not include. Nemov (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because closing an RFC is not about counting votes, WP:NHC, it is about arguments, WP:!VOTE. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While consensus is not determined by a simple vote count, proper weight should be given to the strength of arguments per WP:CONSENSUS. Could the closer clarify how the arguments were assessed and why the majority position was not considered a consensus? Nemov (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an overview of the arguments, did I miss any? A "no consensus" in this case means no inclusion. If you're afraid that it might be brought up again in the future, you should know that no RFC is the final say on any issue. Even if it were a "consensus not to include" the issue can still be discussed and reconsidered later. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like for you to answer my question. You haven't clarified how the arguments were assessed and why the majority position was not considered a consensus? I don't really care about this topic, the issue is more procedural. It's a poor close as currently worded. Nemov (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments were assessed by their strengths in light of Wikipedia policy. The "majority position" was not considered a consensus because it is not about counting votes. For example, WP:RECENTISM is not actual Wikipedia policy, but it was given its due consideration since so many people mentioned it.

Unless you can tell me what arguments I missed, I am afraid we will keep going in circles. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer here doesn't make sense and I'm not sure you should be closing RFCs if the best answer you can come up with is the "majority position" was not considered a consensus because it is not about counting votes. Citing WP:RECENTISM doesn't violate policy and based on your reasoning here it doesn't seem you like even understand it clearly. You still haven't properly addressed why the majority opinion was dismissed. We're not going in circles, you're not making a logical argument for your close. Nemov (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Citing WP:RECENTISM doesn't violate policy"

Did I say it does?

"you're not making a logical argument for your close."

And you're not making a logical argument why it is lacking. Your only complaint is that I didn't count the votes. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Nemov that the closure was not ideal: WP:RECENTISM, while not a policy itself, is an explanatory essay on policies and should have been given due weight as an argument (even if I don't necessarily agree with the argument itself in this case).

Your statement of While it does seem pertinent in this case, I don't think it can be used to categorically deny inclusion of this information. was clearly adding your own personal opinion rather than evaluating whether the argument was in line with P&G, and would come closer to a WP:SUPERVOTE. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the vote was not on removal of something, does a "consensus for no inclusion" make a material difference here? A "no consensus" is for the status quo, i.e. no inclusion.

Regarding SUPERVOTE, it says "Supervote is a term used on Wikipedia, often in a deletion review or move review". I don't see how it is useful in this case. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no material difference regarding the content itself – both "no consensus" and "consensus against inclusion" mean that the content wouldn't be added – but the difference matters if the discussion comes up again in the future, which is especially possible given how recentism was one of the main concerns.

Supervotes are more often a concern in deletion or move reviews, as deletions/moves are the most common kind of closures and have formal channels dedicated to reviewing them, but the matter also applies to other type of closure reviews. While WP:NACPIT is also an essay, it does mention supervotes as a pitfall to avoid in closing discussions in general. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the difference matters if the discussion comes up again in the future,"

I don't see how.

"which is especially possible given how recentism was one of the main concerns."

Recentism doesn't mean you can't add recent information, it says to be careful when creating articles on something that has recently happened because WP:RS may discuss the topic differently than historians or someone looking back at the event. It isn't a blanket ban on adding information about recent events to articles.

I don't think I am going to revert my close in this case, because reopening/reclosing it isn't going to change the outcome. In my closing statement I mentioned the recentism argument, so it's not like whomever reads it won't know about it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 17:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing your TALK it appears you're closing a few RFCs that have puzzling logic. I strongly encourage you to refrain from closing more RFCs until you have a better understanding of policy. Your questions about “why does it matter” indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of why properly closing an RFC is important. I appreciate your willingness to volunteer your time, but your feedback here does not inspire confidence that you are open to learning. Please don't let this escalate to a behavioral problem that has to be addressed. Nemov (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your close, though I am rather perplexed by a few things. Can you clarify that the consensus is for banning AI-generated imagery in general, rather than just in medical and BLP articles (the latter of which was already addressed and closed in the sub-RfC earlier)? AFAICT there were 34 editors who weighed in on specifically the total ban, of which a supermajority of 23 were clear supports.
Best, JoelleJay (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Can you clarify that the consensus is for banning AI-generated imagery in general"

But that is beyond the scope of the RfC. While I agree with you that a lot of people wanted a general ban, I am unsure if that RfC's discussion can do it. I also wonder about WP:CONLEVEL, shouldn't such a ban involve and get input from editors in other Wikiprojects and sections of Wikipedia? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of an RfC can change if enough participants address that scope. In this case, the original RfC opened on Dec 30, and then by Dec 31 the narrower RfC on BLPs was opened, after which the comments in the original RfC largely switched to addressing the broader ban. I think if 34+ editors decided to weigh in on that topic, that's a large enough consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, as more personal advice, I will say that I was extremely surprised an account that was only three months old was closing anything—even for easy keep closures at AfD, we typically expect closers to have already participated in hundreds of AfDs. For larger RfCs, especially those in central locations like VP and in contentious topics, the norm is for an admin or an "admin-without-the-tools" (extremely experienced editor involved in many major discussions) to close. I know this is not super obvious to new editors, so I don't doubt you're acting in good faith, but I think the best course of action here would be to revert your contested closes and let someone more experienced assess the consensus, rather than going through the headache of close reviews and potential sanctions as suggested above by @Voorts et al. JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my close and the discussion was re-closed by an admin. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 23:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TurboSuperA+ closes. Thank you. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also started a closure review for the VPP discussion, here voorts (talk/contributions) 01:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you change the info box where it says Russia captures most of the city as Ukraine holds the southern part of the town as well as parts in central and northern Chasiv Yar. Chasiv 25 (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is more of the City than Russia controlls Chasiv 25 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the whole ANI thing that has vaguely stemmed from my post on your talk page. I think its fair that people have questioned your closes, but I don't think the thread at ANI is a proportionate reaction to it. I hope this horrible part of wikipedia doesn't stop you from continuing from being an editor here. If I were you, I'd just mute the notifications there and continue editing as normal and not respond further. I hope disproportionate sanctions do not come from this, and again sorry that you've been put through this as a newish editor. A similar thing happened to me a couple of months after I joined and I know first hand that it sucks - I hope you'll come out the other side relatively unscathed and keep editing. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, you have been topic-banned from closing discussions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the consensus was clear cut, as I showed why four of the participants didn't vote in good faith.

I also complied with @Voorts request from the OP: both reverted the close in question and said I wasn't going to close any more discussions.

My good faith efforts and admitting I was wrong was not recognised and I wasn't even given the benefit of having all my comments read.

I ask kindly that you read my comments in the ANI thread and re-evaluate the close. I have done everything that was asked of me, I endured insults and false accusations, yet I wasn't given the courtesy of having my comments considered. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments were read and there is nothing to re-evaulate; the consensus was very clear. And if you aren't going to close any more discussions, then there's no need to worry about the tban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about the TBAN, my concerns are with the way the ANI was carried out and evaluated. At the very least you could have written that despite all my good faith efforts to rectify the situation, admitting my mistakes and complying with the OP of the ANI, I was still given a TBAN.

You also seem to have missed that 5 of the votes came from editors from the same topic area, 3 of whom participated in one of the RfCs. That is at least 5 questionable votes, and signs of potential brigading, so I don't know if you can claim "consensus" without looking deeper into those editors.

I think it is important to mention those things. You can keep the TBAN, but I'd like you to amend the closing statement to reflect the discussion, rather than relying on a simple WP:NHC to judge consensus. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors who are familiar with the subject opine on it" is not evidence of a cabal. There is no cabal, and continuing to imply there somehow is one reflects poorly on you. Your good faith efforts to rectify the situation are a large part of why you are topic-banned instead of being blocked or site-banned. You're in a hole right now. I'd strongly suggest you stop digging by dropping the stick (or shovel, as it were), and moving on with improving the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never accused anyone of being in a "cabal". Tag-teaming and coordination are frowned upon on wikipedia, WP:TAGTEAM.

"why you are topic-banned instead of being blocked or site-banned."

Site banned for what? And if that is the case, why didn't you write it in the closing statement? In fact, you gave a temporary TBAN, but then Voorts convinced you to change it to an indefinite one. So I am not convinced by your statement and don't appreciate the veiled threat. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voorts convinced me of nothing. They pointed out, rightly, that I had - in the utter mess that thread became, largely because of your constant lengthy replies to nearly everything - misread that part of the consensus. And there was no veiled threat, it was an observation that multiple users suggested a site ban, and your efforts mitigated that for others - the fact you chose to interpret that as a threat and are not convinced by your statement is indicitive of the fact, apparent throughout that thread and continuing here, that you have a battleground mentality which is not how Wikipedia works. The fact you still don't seem to understand the situation after it has been explained to you multiple times and are still beating the dead horse is only proving the fact that the tban is absolutely correct.

A wise person, upon seeing that everybody else holds the opposite viewpoint to themselves on what they have done, considers that maybe it's them, not everybody else, who is in the wrong. Drop the stick, stop digging yourself deeper in the hole, and move on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While your links to Wikipedia policies are certainly impressive, merely mentioning them does not prove that I am in violation of them.

"it was an observation that multiple users suggested a site ban,"

Yes, and Voorts replied that that is probably inappropriate saying that my edits in main space could be fine since they haven't looked. This leads me to believe that you may not have read the thread in full. Furthermore, my actions do not justify a site ban or threats of it, I kindly ask you to drop that line of argumentation.

You also participated in the discussion of the ANI before closing it, which makes me wonder how "uninvolved" you are. This point is further driven home by your hostile attitude on display right here on my Talk page. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made one reply to answer one concern of yours. I did in fact read the thread in full. As I have this thread where you refuse to listen, maintain a combatitve attitude, and continue to assume bad faith; any hostile attitude on display right here is 100% a result of your actions on this page and your actions alone. I came into this neutral. I'm now fairly certain that you are not compatible with a collaborative project. Good day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you threatening me with a block? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo: Wikipedia is a collaborative project built on consensus. The consensus is that you are not equipped to close discussions. You are allowed to disagree with that consensus, but continuing to argue about it and casting aspersions on the editors who participated in the discussion is disruptive. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the consensus is as clear-cut as you present it. That's my personal observation (supported by diffs) I have not accused anyone of violating a policy.

Here's another observation: You wrote in the OP of the ANI: "I am hoping that Turbo will voluntarily stop closing discussions, but if a TBAN is needed, so be it."

Two days later I said: "TBAN or not, I don't think I am closing another discussion ever again."

Then the next day I wrote: "As I said, I'm not going to be doing any more closes,"

Then the day after I wrote: "I have agreed not to close any more discussions" and left a message on your talk page saying: "I have agreed not to close any more discussions, so that is a self-imposed TBAN from closing, as you have asked for in the ANI and you can hold me to that."

Yet despite showing willingness to listen to the community, despite agreeing with you, you still went out of your way to petition that I be indefinitely banned, when the closer originally gave a time-limited TBAN.

I think you can stop beating the dead horse now. You got what you wanted and I have moved on and resumed my efforts of improving Wikipedia. All the best and happy editing! TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just letting you know that the "addendum" you wrote is not supported by consensus. Also, it will add unnecessary bureaucratic work over non-controversial closes, it is going to be a waste of editor's time that can be better used elsewhere.

But you do you, champ! TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you acting like I am harassing you all I did was ask you to was edit 2 Wikipedia articles. Also your point of not knowing Sebastian sas are false as you know he spreads Russian propaganda and just claim not to know him. You obviously know him and probably watch his vedios for factual information. Chasiv 25 (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Also your point of not knowing Sebastian sas are false"

"You obviously know him"

Now you're telling me what I know...

You're wasting time, time you could be spending making good faith edits to Wikipeda to reach extended-confirmed status and then edit the two articles in question yourself. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 03:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the war has been paused for 30 days according to a cease fire, that America accepted, the war will resume on April 10th, after the temporary cease fire that lasts for 30 days ends. Djdjfjfjfnfn012 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"pending Moscow's acceptance"^[1]

WP:CRYSTALBALL TurboSuperA+ (☏) 23:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. link Special:PermanentLink/1280093358#Whitewashing of Nazi crimes . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]