in the User:Jimbo_Wales page there is a warning box that doesn't show up properly if the user is in dark mode, on account of the text being the same color as the background. since I wasn't Sure how to fix the problem and the talk page was semi protected, I came here. I am aware that the dark mode feature is in beta and that this might not be a problem for admins necessarily. if there is another place better suited for a problem like this, i would appreciate if I could be told where. 67.20.1.4 (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, 67.20.1.4,

For technical questions (and this sounds like one), WP:VPT is a good place to go. This isn't a really an issue that involves the admin community. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the help. thanks! 67.20.1.4 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I created Delta Air Lines Flight 4813 but I typoed it. The correct title, for Delta Airlines Flight 4819, currently exists already. I am asking the admins to perform a circular move to replace the existing one with the typo which has more information. guninvalid (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you just merge your content to the correctly titled article? Then you can submit the typo'd title for deletion using G7 (author request). Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Because that removes author attribution. Also Delta Airlines Flight 4819 exists now so probably both of them should be redirected. guninvalid (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Which is the correct title? We cannot have two parallel articles (they are currently at Delta Connection Flight 4819 and Delta Air Lines Flight 4819). GiantSnowman 20:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Sources I've seen just call it Delta Flight 4819 or just Delta Flight. I suspect there's going to be a lot of mess for a while, so it's probably ripe for an admin to step in and clean up the dangling pages and just pick one. guninvalid (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Let's go with the Delta Connection Flight 4819 article, if it needs to be RMed then so be it. (currently at AFD so might all be moot). GiantSnowman 21:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I may have done things incorrectly as I'm a new Wikipedia editor and am still learning, but I modified the title to what it should be "Delta Connection Flight 4819" using the move tool.

Someone at some point redirected this page to Delta Air Lines Flight 4819 and I tried to update that pages title to "Delta Connection Flight 4819" but it gave me an error because the original page with that title had already existed.

So my thought was to undo the redirect and instead do the opposite and redirect the Delta Air Lines Flight 4819 page to the newly titled Delta Connection Flight 4819 page. Then I also copied the existing content over that added additional information.

My apologies if this was done incorrectly, but given the ongoing incident and mass amounts of edits I thought this was the best course of action given my knowledge and trying to get everyone focusing on the same wiki page for the incident. I didn't know this would cause a big issue with others upset by their page being the redirect. MSWDEV (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, everything above was done prior to my knowledge on this conversation. I think around 20:35 UTC? MSWDEV (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman What is the proper way to apply for move protection on the Delta Connection Flight 4819? Some users are moving it to "Delta Flight 4819" or similar titles when this flight was not operated by Delta Airlines. It was operated by Endeavor Air dba as Delta Connection

I'm not sure if only move protection is possible? MSWDEV (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Delta Connection flights are very commonly misconstrued as Delta Air Lines flights which are not the same. Regionally operated flights via Delta are operated by a regional carrier such as SkyWest Airlines or Endeavor Air in this case while doing business as Delta Connection. These flights are not directly operated by Delta Air Lines MSWDEV (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

What do reliable sources call it? Preciseness is not the only, or the most important, criteria for choosing an article title. The article talk page is the proper place to discuss its title. If a consensus does not easily arise on the talk page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (which does not include bringing it here). Alt.Donald Albury (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: If someone has an objection to the unban as is and wants me to reopen the discussion I will do so. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• I just want to go on the record and say this discussion was closed too soon. Not open even for 24 hours. If you disagree, please read the original CBAN discussion. That's all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  Roxy has a topic ban imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2023#Individual sanctions (GENSEX) and here is the notice User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 12#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction. Is this still in force, voorts? I'd ask User:Courcelles but they haven't edited in a few months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'd say clearly yes. It doesn't seem like Courcelles ever revoked it or another admin with their permission. It was mentioned in the cban discussion as still being in effect. Neither of these discussions would seem to have revoked it, it wasn't even mentioned above AFAICT, so even putting aside it didn't use the CTOP template, I don't see how you can have consensus to revoked it when it wasn't mentioned. And the cban discussion seems to have resulted in a separate remedy distinct from CTOP I mean it was in ANI so not even the right place to deal amend a CTOP sanction. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  Actually since it's been over a year I don't think Courcelles permission would be needed for any adjin modify it. Still needs an admin to clearly say they're removing it though which would include modifying the log. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Liz. I have no problem with closing a discussion "too fast" when it's to a user's favor (in this case unbanning them). However, the idea that Consensus has not developed for a topic ban from GENSEX, nor is it likely that one will develop. after 16 hours is not an accurate reading of how the community works. It is not an accident that community bans must normally be open 72 hours - things can swing. I would ask Voorts to consider striking that part of his close. I'm happy that there is consensus to bring Roxy back to the community but I do think a fair chance - on a weekend no less - for people with concerns to have a chance to express them is important. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it's particularly problematic; it's just an exercise in paperwork. As with most of our discussions, consensus is formed by a (well argued) majority addressing and overturning a previous consensus. Since the extant topic bans were not raised in this discussion, they have not been overturned by consensus, and must stand. So all we need to do is adjust this close to reflect that not only was there no consensus to impose a new TB, there was, by default, no consensus to lift the previous one. Adjust the log to reflect this and inform RtD that, unfortunately, his voluntary promises will not be required at this time, as they are still under the same restrictions they were before the Cban.

  As far as the discussion not being open long enough, I can find nothing in WP:CBAN or WP:UNBAN that mandates a minimum opening period for ban appeals. Presumably it will require a well-publicized RfC to effect the necessary policy change. On the merits though, while it could have been held open longer, per WP:NOTBURO, it is common place for discussions to be closed when an overwhelming consensus appears. If it was sparsely attended, of course, it would have been very wrong to close it too soon. But it was not sparsely attended. The last 13 unban appeals of any vintage on this page attracted 12, 4/5, 5, 4, 13, 6, 25, 9, 16, 6, 5, 5, and 7 participants. Only the (very!) high profile Sander v. Ginkel case attracted more participation, and that failed. So in fact RtD's appeal is the most well attended successful appeal over the last month, at over double the average participation of 8/9 attendees. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• I've struck that part of the close about the TBAN because apparently one is still in place. I truly don't believe that the outcome of this discussion would have changed if we had left this open longer. Liz isn't proposing a topic ban, Barkeep isn't proposing a topic ban, and the few editors who mentioned that one might be needed didn't even condition their support for an unban on imposing one. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I want to note for the record that 1) I think it was closed too early and 2) I did not like being the only openly trans editor who voted. I stand by my vote, but don't speak for all trans editors. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  "I truly don't believe that the outcome of this discussion would have changed if we had left this open longer." is a moot point, for there to be clear community consensus there actually needs to be sufficient opportunity for the community to participate... A discussion less than that can not come to a clear community consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  As @Fortuna imperatrix mundi noted, 20 people responded in less than 24 hours, far more than all but one of the recent ban appeals here. If someone has a serious objection, I'd be happy to reopen the discussion. I understand that various editors think I jumped the gun here. I was applying SNOW in good faith in closing the discussion, but lesson learned for the future. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think its a question of how many people responded, for me its a question of how many people had the opportunity to respond. I don't doubt that you acted in good faith, I would just in the future prefer to see SNOW at 48 hours (which is still very fast) not less than 24. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I would just in the future prefer to see SNOW at 48 hours (which is still very fast) not less than 24. WP:CBAN states that "For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours." If we're going to set any limits, it should be at 24 hours, but I'm generally opposed to limiting the scope of IAR closes. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not saying that you violated policy and guideline, I'm saying that you did not meet intangible community expectations (which is why you have a whole bunch of editors complaining). You don't have to be so defensive about this, nobody is questioning your good faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I was just responding to your point about 48 vs. 24 hours, not trying to further defend myself. My point was that I think that if we're going to have any kind of limit going forward, it should be 24 to align with CBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back @Voorts @Fortuna imperatrix mundi should language be added, it should match the 72 unless 24 that exists currently unless consensus emerges on different numbers. Otherwise the disconnect is odd.

  Noting here as I did on voorts' Talk, I'm concerned about the perception created by the early close even though voorts' close is fine by current guidelines. I did support both the lifting and the initial C-Ban. Star Mississippi 19:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I understand your concern, but for that perception that I was trying to cut off discussion, I think editors would need to believe that I somehow want to give anti-trans editors a pass, which I think is belied at the very least by my recent close of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone here wants to accuse you of having anything but the best intentions. This is just a matter of folks in the community feeling that the conversation had not yet had time to fully ripen. Generalrelative (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I was responding to a point that SM made on my talk page that there could be a perception here that the discussion was closed early to avoid anyone adding opposes. SM expressly said they didn't believe that was the case. I'm merely saying here that I think that a reasonable editor who knows all of the relevant facts would not find that perception to be true. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I have no issue with the close as lifting, but a quick close (in real world terms - since as discussed policy doesn't preclude) can look like "OK, enough weighed in, let's close this before there's dissent" especially with Roxy's long history here. We as a community are not good at constructing timing as was the issue in the Admin Recalls.

  I personally (editor, not admin) would say as a supporter, I have no concerns in this being reopened to see if the community-which may not be represented by a Friday night discussion when people may not be online - does feel it's time to lift the c-ban. Roxy has been c-banned for going on a year and a half, a day and a half won't matter in the long term for discussion. Star Mississippi 19:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi: I understand your point, and I agree that the perception of a fair process where dissent is allowed to be heard is important. My point is that if those perceptions are unreasonable as applied to this particular case, I don't think that's a very good objection to the process. In this case, I don't think that a reasonable editor who knows me would think that I closed this discussion to avoid dissent. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  Makes sense all around. We'll see where this shakes out. Noting for clarity, I think this discussion is good and healthy. I think the discussion should be reopened but not strongly enough that I'm going to request it from someone who didn't !vote. Star Mississippi 19:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Voorts: I !voted "support" above, wholeheartedly. But I share the misgivings articulated by others that the close was premature. As Horse Eye's Back emphasized, it's important to give the community a chance to weigh this over before pronouncing the matter settled –– I will add: especially given the inflammatory and hurtful nature of the comments that led to Roxy's CBAN in the first place. And as Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist said, it's important that she not be the only openly trans editor to have a chance to comment. I will therefore formally ask you to reverse your close for now, and give this the standard 72 hours. Generalrelative (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I will do so if someone comes forward with an objection to the unban as is. I will not reopen a discussion purely out of formality. That said, I've already said on my talk page that anyone can revert my close, so if you really find that necessary, notwithstanding that nobody here is proposing a topic ban at this time, go ahead. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Generalrelative: Could you please point to the policy basis for your suggestion of a standard 72 hours? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not here to debate you. Generalrelative (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, but you made an assertation, and you were asked to explain it. I'm not here to debate you is not an appropriate response. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  The request was directed to me and I've responded. I don't think Generalrelative is obligated to reply further. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  No Voorts, Generalrelative has requested a 72 hour discussion. This is a general discussion for the community, and it is unhealthy to discussions to make assertions and not justify them. And where does 72 hours come from anyway? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 00:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Literally right below this you are failing to justify an assertion... I asked you to justify your assertion at 19:34, you asked Generalrelative to justify their assertion at 19:41... Do you not see the problem here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Horse Eye's Back, it was originally Barkeep who brought up the 72 hour guideline for considering open community bans and I've found that Barkeep knows policy as well as just about anyone else on the project. Maybe he can find the passage where this is mandated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49@Liz @Horse Eye's Back I think it's a disconnect in language between the UNBAN and C-BAN which notes the 72 hours. It's my opinion they should align, but they don't currently. Star Mississippi 02:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  The 72 hours is for closing a CBAN against someone. There is not - to my knowledge - any 72 hour requirement (or 24 hour snow requirement) for lifting a ban. Sorry for any confusion. My point there was to note that in community discussions for bans we've chosen to institute a time requirement to ensure that editors have a chance to weigh in because the initial grouping of editors to respond (especially in this case on a weekend night) may not be representative of all editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think an important point here is that most CBANs appeals are also discussing imposing sanctions. It's surely very rare that someone appeals a sanction without the community considering whether to impose a lesser one. Whenever this is the case, surely the 72 hours provision of WP:CBAN applies? No where does it say it doesn't apply when discussing imposing sanctions as a reduction of some stronger sanctions. This one clearly did involve imposing sanctions since Voorts themselves claimed there was no chance of consensus for a topic ban. Technically you could close the appeal of the site ban while keeping open the community topic ban discussion, but why would you? Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry it would be 24 hours not 72 since it won't involve a site ban. Frankly IMO an appeal naturally is also discussing keeping i.e. imposing the original sanction but I decided not to go there to avoid arguing the issue. The point is some minimum surely applies since ultimately you we're nearly always also discussing the possibility of imposing a new sanction even in an appeal. 13:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  ...for there to be clear community consensus there actually needs to be sufficient opportunity for the community to participate implies there's a number required. So for RtD's appeal more than double the average number of attendees was insufficient? In any case, we can argue the toss about 24 hours or 48 hours or even Another 48 Hours, but until one of these bunch of people complaining go and start the aforementioned policy-altering RfC, I don't see how this meta-discussion to an individual appeal can change anything now, and still less bind the hands of the next appeal at WP:AN, which will probably be attended by a handful of editors who will form a consensus to which no-one bats an eyelid. C'est la vie. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  How does it imply that? "sufficient opportunity" implies a prominent venue and decent length of time but I'm not seeing how it would imply that theres a number required (at least not a number of commenters, the only implied number is eyeballs). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I admit, I haven't read this entire discussion post-close, but I don't think anyone is suggesting a revert of the unbanning. To put it bluntly, how I see this, Roxy is a valued member of this editing community with lots of supporters but they have a complicated history on the project that involves appearances at ANI, an arbitration case and previous blocks. You can't review this unblock request as you would a discussion on an account that is a year old. You need to do some background checking and not rubber stamp the groundswell of support. That's the only point I have been trying to make.

  I think part of this, Voorts, is that you have been active here for a couple of years and so are not familiar with Roxy's history on the project. That's just an observation, not a criticism. I mean, longtimers refer to disputes from 15 years ago and I draw a blank on them so we all started somewhere over the last 23 years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• As should be obvious, I'm a big supporter of Roxy, but I also feel the need to say some things about how this was closed. Like others here, I feel that it was a mistake (however well intended) to close the discussion this early. Among other things, I think it may result in there being a sort of asterisk on the unban, and that's terribly unfair to Roxy. Wikipedia works on discussion and consensus, and we should trust in that enough to allow the conventional 48 hours. That said, I feel very, very strongly that we should not even consider reversing the decision. That would be unspeakably unfair, to have a decision to unban, only to have the rug pulled out from under it. So this should stay, with lessons learned for future closes.

And I feel the need to say something more, as a matter of admin accountability. Voorts, you've kind of made yourself into the person who does a very large number of discussion closes, and I've noticed that you make closes that are sometimes found to be controversial, with this one really standing out in that regard. I don't want to escalate this, but I hope that you will voluntarily decide to step back from making closes for a while, and focus on other administrative tasks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of your view on some of my closes. Someone who does a lot of closes, particularly when discussions are well attended or are in controversial areas, is inevitably going to face disagreement with their assessments. That said, I am always willing to take on feedback, as I've done in this discussion by committing not to closing a community unban discussion this early again. I happen to disagree that, in this case, an early close was inappropriate, but I don't have to agree with community consensus to implement it. (I also don't think this close puts an asterisk on Roxy—20 editors unanimously supported this unblock!) If you're still planning to escalate this, you'll have to tell me what recent closes I've done have been improper, because I believe that I have only had one person challenge a close on my talk page since December. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The point is surely, that it was unanimous after barely 16 hours, but closing it meant we would never had known if there were editors planning to oppose but who didn't get a chance to express their opinion. That is what the asterisk would have been. Thankfully another admin has made the right decision to re-open. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Reading through the above, and the follow-up comments, I think that the closer might want to consider reverting their closure to let the discussion run longer. This comment is in no way a "support/oppose/whatever else" comment about the topic under discussion - I'm staying neutral on that - but merely as a reader of this page and thinking that perhaps this close was done too soon. In this case, I decided that, rather than revert the close outright myself, that I would prefer to politely ask to the closer to re-consider - and so I have. - jc37 00:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I have already said that I would revert the closure if someone has an objection that they want to be added to the discussion. Otherwise, I have also said that anyone can feel free to revert my closure here. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I understand. And sometimes, that's a way forward, to see in anyone else is sure enough of their read of consensus (or lack thereof) and would thus be willing to take ownership of the close. But in this case, I thought it might be worth suggesting that you take the opportunity to take ownership of your action and self-revert. I agree that that is not always appropriate - I have indeed said that to others myself about closes in the past - but in this case, I thought it appropriate to offer the suggestion to give you that opportunity, and so I did. What you do is of course up to you. - jc37 00:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I won't revert your close because I voted in favor of the original CBAN, but I do think it was premature. My view at the time, which hasn't changed, is that it's important for our transgender editors to feel safe. I note Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist's comment above about being the only openly transgender editor who participated. I'd feel better about the unban if more of them had the opportunity to do so. There's no hard-and-fast rule on how long a discussion stays open, but 24 hours probably isn't long enough for a community ban, especially when thoughtful comments keep coming in. Your close is good, just reverse yourself and wait a few days. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• To reiterate some of what I've said above: If anyone feels that it would be productive to reopen this discussion, they should feel free to do so. Consistent with my closing philosophy, I am declining to do so because, at this point, both discussions have been open for 40 hours and nobody has expressed a desire to oppose the unban or propse a topic ban. Going forward, I will not be closing unban discussions prior to the expiration of at least 72 hours, except ... where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious, consistent with the parallel provision for ban discussions in WP:CBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think you (and others above) have a good point in that an UnBan discussion should mirror a Ban discussion in its minimum length requirements prior to closing. - jc37 01:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  The discussion has been reopened by asilvering. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I support this discussion reopening and running for at least 24 more hours from the time of reopening. Does that sound fair? That's not 72 hours but it's a decent amount of time. At this point, I think a lot more editors have heard about this discussion and are aware that it's occurring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe you shouldn't make closes until you can interact with mild but widespread critiscism in a manner other than stonewalling. If this is your philosophy then rewrite it... It isn't consistent with community expectations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  It's not stonewalling to decline to reopen a discussion, particularly when I said about half a dozen times that anyone could undo my close. My closing philosophy is consistent with WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, which says we generally shouldn't reopen discussions when nobody is asking to present further comments in the discussion. As for the criticism, I've literally capitulated to what you and other editors want from these kinds of discussions going forward (i.e., no more early closes)—notwithstanding my personal disagreement with that view. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  For context, I presume this is the aspect of my closing philosophy that you find objectionable:

  Finally, if an editor believes that my close is incorrect, I am always open to discussing it. I will clarify my close or re-open a discussion if I am persuaded that I misinterpreted consensus or if the challenging editor supplies compelling new arguments. If I am not persuaded that I was wrong or by the new arguments, I will encourage the challenging editor to open a closure review at AN.

  If refusing to reopen a discussion or overturn one's close is [in]consistent with community expectations, then you'll have to rewrite CLOSECHALLENGE and WP:VOLUNTEER: "You are never required to take any action or post any edit that you personally disagree with. Even if there is a clear consensus against your view, the most you can be required to do is to let others take the actions that they support" (emphasis added). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  "I will clarify my close or re-open a discussion if I am persuaded that I misinterpreted consensus or if the challenging editor supplies compelling new arguments." seems overly narrow when "Closures will often be changed by the closing editor without a closure review: ... if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion." is part of Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  That bolded part needs to be read alongside the following clause, which makes clear that it's referring to multiple editors who have something new to say.Otherwise, if a dozen people came to my talk page and said "you closed this RfC that I didn't participate in and have no intention of participating in, but I'd like you to reopen it", then I'd have to reopen that RfC. That is absurd. This situation isn't exactly analogous, but nobody in the post-close discussion asked to present additional views in the original discussion, and nobody new came to this post-close discussion—despite it being immediately below the old one—to ask to "bring forth a compelling new perspective". voorts (talk/contributions) 18:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  There is the word "or" in between it and the following clause... That means that the following clause has no impact on it. Is it a normal experience for you to a dozen people came to your talk page to make such a complaint? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think we should read PAGs in pari materia. And no, I was using that as a hypothetical. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  We are, it says "or" not "and" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  People were asking to present further comments in the discussion, that is a different standard than those comments changing the outcome of the discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  No, editors were asking that others be allowed to comment in the discussion. None of those other editors showed up to ask to comment in the discussion, nor has anyone commented in the discussion since it's been reopened for 16+ hours. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Its weird to comment now because of this whole thing but for example I turned up here to comment a qualified support. Commenting now would feel weirdly gravedancy, gratuitous, disrespectful to you, like I wanted to rub it in or something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  This got pretty messy, so it obviously wasn't 100% optimal in hindsight, but I just want to "go on record" (whatever that means) that I think the original close was slightly rushed, but not unreasonable, and I certainly don't think you're stonewalling. Others obviously disagree, but I don't want you to think it's unanimous. The main takeaway here is: Never interfere with the opportunity for Wikipedians to argue with each other. That is what we love the most about this place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  The second takeaway is Never expect Wikipedia to do things the easy way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  When this many people, here and on your talk page, are like hey your close wasn't great, please consider reopening. Just do that instead of arguing that you are right. That is half the trouble here, its kind of a WP:1AM and a Laws of holes issue. PackMecEng (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• I think Voorts has gotten the strong message to take more care with discussion closures, even when they seem unanimous, and to consider all possible aspects of a case when closing a discussion on serious issues like a community unban and to have a very good reason for closing one early. Is this discussion serving any more purpose by staying open at this point? And I say this as a person who kind of started it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. Could someone please close this? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia text contains highly controversial and likely false claims about Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, such as:

1. False allegations about his imprisonment by Shivaji Maharaj due to "sensual pleasures" or "violating a Brahmin woman."

2. Fake claim that Sambhaji defected to the Mughal Empire and fought against his father.

3. Unverified accusations regarding Maratha soldiers raping and selling people during the Goa invasion in 1683.

These statements appear historically inaccurate and misleading. Now Shivkanya chaitu (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Shivkanya chaitu and welcome to Wikipedia! These claims have been discussed before on the talk page of Sambhaji, which you can access by clicking here. You can also find a variety of sources here that support the first statement. For the second and third statement, you can easily verify their authenticity by accessing the references cited on the page. If you have reliable sources that are contradictory to the article, you are most welcome to discuss them at the talk page and explain how they support your claims. Thanks The AP (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@TheAstorPastor Although the talkpage is currently semi-protected and this account was made today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Admins,

The page Rumel Ahmed is currently protected due to old logs, and I am unable to move it. However, the new page I created is valid and should replace the previous one. Please review the situation and allow the move.

~~~~ Jabiyan (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I do hope that the new page you're talking about isn't User:Jabiyan/sandbox, because that would just get deleted again. —Cryptic 11:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cryptic the draft in User:Jabiyan/sandbox is still being improved, and I am confident it will meet Wikipedia's guidelines once it's ready. However, the page "Rumel Ahmed" is still locked due to old logs. Could you please advise how to proceed with moving the page once it’s finalized?

Thank you! Jabiyan (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Fix it first, then ask the protecting admin, Discospinster. —Cryptic 11:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cryptic thank you Jabiyan (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe user:guninvalid is a sockpuppetry account of user:MSWDEV, so basically from my view of whats going on is that user:gunisinvalid was upset that his article wasn't correct and that i had created the correct article, later used his alt user:MSWDEV which mysteriously makes dozens of edits today which his last edit was on October 2024, he has then moved and redirected the page tons of times and has since got it back to his article. While i don't really mind having article authority being snatched i find it as really weird behaviour by him. Thanks! RobertOwens01 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea who guninvalid is. I am an aviation geek who likes to write on Wikipedia occasionally and I do not appreciate the accusations.

I began editing on the first article I found regarding the ongoing incident, updated it to the correct title via the move tool. Someone then redirected the page to an incorrect titled page that has slightly more information. I was unable to rename the newly redirected page as the correct title already existed. So instead I undid the redirect, then redirected the incorrectly titled page to the correctly titled one and moved the content over MSWDEV (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

If you aren't lying then fair enough, from the discussion above this user:guninvalid clearly wanted the article authorization which is clearly fine, I hope it made his day better that his hard work payed off doing that. have a great day. RobertOwens01 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

It's all good man, let's just focus on helping provide good information to the ongoing incident. MSWDEV (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

for sure! RobertOwens01 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, you haven't notified either editor about this discussion as is mandatory. Secondly, use WP:SPI for this. GiantSnowman 21:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Also Gunisinvalid (talk · contribs) does not exist. GiantSnowman 21:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Clearly a typo, no need to be toxic. have a great day. RobertOwens01 (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

No, not 'clearly' a typo. You've accused another editor of being a sock puppet, with no evidence, without notifying them, and you can't even get their name wrong. WP:BOOMERANG might apply soon. GiantSnowman 21:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes i am supposed to be a wikipedia master as if i didn't create my account less then a month ago. If it makes you feel really better to attack another editor then feel free to ban me for "accidentally misspelling his name" RobertOwens01 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, @RobertOwens01, I must ask that you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines on assuming good faith. guninvalid (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Closer: Dustfreeworld (talk · contribs)
• Archived AN/I discussion , followup discussion with closer

In the context of a sprawling discussion (which is mostly not relevant to the topic ban proposal so feel free to skim over it) I proposed a topic ban for EMsmile on January 19. The topic ban discussion started in this section and continued in this one.

The discussion was closed on February 9, 12.5 hours after Femke requested closure. By this time, 910 editors supported a topic ban and 2 opposed. The closer, without mentioning either the numbers or the quality of arguments as things he had considered, incorrectly claimed that the topic ban proposer (me) prefers voluntary restrictions. In both my comments and my bolded !vote, I supported a topic ban.

I do like the tone of the closure, just not the supervoting in it. I respectfully submit that this closure should be overturned to a clear consensus for a topic ban. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Overturn BADNAC -- (Involved) The closing statement simply mentioned the voluntary aspect, while completely leaving the TBAN unacknowledged, even though their was significant support for it. Furthermore, there were some people who were specifically against the voluntary option. The cited quotations seemed to be very supportive of EMsmiles, which was odd, given that was not the overall tone of the entire discussion -- and several quotes were misleading. And the rationale for closing was particularly bizarre, but it appears they have never closed a ANI discussion before. Add to this an closing editor who actively has a TBAN against them, and edits in the same subject areas -- makes further questionable. To me this seems like a clear cut BADNAC at minimum. While I agree with Clayoquot that it should be overturned, I'm not suggesting it needs to be overturned to TBAN, but rather simply overturned and reopened for an admin to properly evaluate and close. TiggerJay (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC) (Clarifying with !vote formatting, and parenthetical note about involved in ANI, but not in article itself 15:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC))

Reclose, possibly overturn. BADNAC - the closer is not an admin. Had there been clear consensus against a TBAN or a similar remedy, maybe this closure would have been acceptable, but this outcome is definitely not obvious from this discussion. On the other hand, finding consensus in favour of a TBAN (and there at least is a plausible case for this outcome in this discussion) would have required the user to apply admin-level tools, which the guy doesn't have access to. In effect, this restricts the non-admin user to the "no block" outcome.

IMHO as a general rule closers should only approach discussions they know they have no constraint, other than the discussion's content and direction of consensus, in imposing a certain outcome, because the closer should approach the discussion with an open mind and not by thinking "well, I'm not an admin but I do want to close a block discussion so I must close as no consensus/consensus against (so as to not trigger BADNAC). Hmmmm, I'll try to engineer a reason for either outcome". IMHO the technical constraint the user has must have impacted the closure rationale, but that's not a valid reason to get a different outcome. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Whether the closer is an admin or not is not a reason for challenging a close. For the record, the topic ban was proposed by a user (Clayoquot, the OP) with a conflict of interest, which they had never disclosed during or even after the ANI dispute. It is an obvious deviation from our COI policy. Clayoquot is mentioned here as one of the editors who help in the Wikipedian in residence project of the Global Systems institute, which has a clear association with the Solar radiation modification (SRM) article [4](the focus of the ANI discussion),

Our policy requires that COI editors disclose their COI in related discussion.

... you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic

Basically it’s a case filed by editors from one party in an attempt to shut up an editor from another party. If I were to redo my close, I probably won’t just say “Any further content disputes belong to article talk page”. I would close it again with no voluntary restrictions of EMsmile, and suggest a boomerang to the undisclosed COI editors in that thread.

What’s more, I am surprised and upset that my efforts to close it as a neutral editor has been misinterpreted with untrue claims that bordering on personal attacks as seen on my talk page. I knew nothing about SRM before I came across that discussion. I just hope that people can resolve their conflicts peacefully through civil discussion. The “fighting mentality” from long-term editors really disappointed me.

PS. I don’t think the closure should be challenged “solely on the grounds that the closer is not an admin” WP:NAC. BTW, as others said in the ANI thread [5], lots of volunteer hours have been thrown in”One of the arguments against paid editors is that they take up too much volunteer time”, I’m reluntant to throw in more, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m reluctant to reply to the many untrue claims on my talk (WP:PAYTALK). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you clarify the exactly who "the others" you are referring to above, with a exact quote you are referring to both in the above and in the closing statement, as the only place I see "volunteer hours" in this discussion is in the following statement by EMsmiles, not in context of the ANI discussion itself but rather their overall time they've spent editing WP itself I have worked on them in a Wikipedia-in-Residence type capacity with lots and lots of volunteer hours thrown in, too. Because I enjoy the work.[6], nor do I see "reluntant"(sic) nor "reluctant", nor "throw" anywhere else in the ANI discussion -- can you clarify where you're reading this and your interpretation thereof? TiggerJay (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for asking @Tiggerjay, my apologies, the quote should be ”One of the arguments against paid editors is that they take up too much volunteer time”; and “I’m reluntant to throw in more, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m reluctant to reply to the many untrue claims on my talk (WP:PAYTALK)” is my own comment/ opinion. I’ve corrected my comment above. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have not been involved in this discussion but I just want to provide some clarity with regards to your last comment. I am the Wikimedian in Residence at the GSI. Clayoquot has provided support to the Residency in an advisory role, and not on the content in the SRM article. SRM is listed as an article edited under this project in the reference above because User:Mhenryclimate chose to edit it at an editathon held in Feb 2023 as part of the residency program.^[1] Association with the GSI residency does not represent a COI for Clayoquot with regards to this current discussion on SRM. TatjanaClimate (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@TatjanaClimate, thank you for weighing in with your personal opinion. IMHO, you are also an editor with a conflict of interest WRT the current discussion.

Further, re Clayoquot has provided support to the Residency in an advisory role, and not on the content in the SRM article. SRM is listed as an article edited under this project in the reference above

You may want to read more about the community’s view on COI,

If you have a close association with the subject of a Wikipedia article, and you wish to edit the article, you are bound by some restrictions. WP:COIE

Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn, BADNAC. My own words were also twisted in the closing statement, implying I supported voluntary restrictions. Did I miscount: I thought it was 10 vs 2 in favour of a TBAN? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Femke, I did not imply that you support voluntary restrictions. It’s your misinterpretation of my closing statement. I appreciate that you have disclosed in the ANI thread that you are involved as you have disagreement with EMsmile before. However, I’m really surprised that you didn’t recuse from that discussion after you stating your stance in your initial comment. It’s appropriate for an editor to recuse in that situation, *not to mention that* you are an administrator.

  Not only that you did not recuse, you push very hard on a topic ban proposal that was proposed in violation of our COI policy. Another point I want other editors to note is that, you are also mentioned in TatjanaClimate’s userpage as someone who has an association with the WIR Global Systems Institute project. You never mentioned this in the ANI thread, and you *didn’t* mention it here, too.

  PS. Re 10 vs 2, FYI, there were 26 editors in that discussion. Further, per WP:CLOSE: “Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes”. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  You're implying I have a COI because I support Tatjana to organise edit-a-thons, where once, one participant decided to edit on the topic? That's tenuous, to say the least. But let uninvolved people discuss this further. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Femke, you're right it was 10 to 1. I corrected my statement above. W.r.t. the COI accusation what Femke said applies to me as well, i.e. it's absurd. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  10??? Including those involved/COI editors like you and Femke?

  And again, FYI, there were 26 editors in that discussion (not including me). Please stop trying to mislead people with irrelevant headcount/ consensus. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  I stand by my statement that 10 editors supported a topic ban and 2 opposed. Did any of the remaining 14 editors comment on a topic ban? If yes, feel free to summarize what they said. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  You are free to stand by you own personal opinion. BTW, have you notified User:EMsmile about this discussion on their talk page? That’s what you, as the OP, should have done. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't notify her because this discussion is not about her actions. It's about your closure. But since you asked I will do so now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• BADNAC and was uninvolved in discussion/proposal - should be re-closed by an admin with a formal topic ban, which there is an obvious and clear consensus for. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Re clear consensus, you may want to read,

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:False_consensus
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Procedurally_flawed_consensus
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wrongful_consensus
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sham_consensus

  --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  You may want to read WP:BLUDGEON. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn, BADNAC (involved), cf. my comments here as to how the quotes used in the closure were misleading. Even if consensus isn't strictly determined by a headcount (especially in close situations), overwhelming numbers like this are certainly evidence of consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn This looks an awful lot like a supervote and one that did take a lot of editors' statements out of context. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Good close This was an ANI, not a RFC. As far as I am aware, judgement of the closer is OK to be exercised whereas that would be considered to be a supervote in an RFC. Particularly with limited participation and which was starting to look like a "stick" pursuit. It had gone stale and so didn't get new participation by others. It had also gotten complicated/ messy (and IMO somewhat moot) while going stale because the editor imposed voluntary restrictions on themselves midstream during the process. It had gone stale and archived and was unarchived by the same person who initiated this closure review. Also, with relation to the SRM article, they indicated that their PE arrangement (which they had declared) ended on Feb 17th. If reopened, would probably need a whole new restart with fresh eyes and a clear statement of what is being proposed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

It's supposed to be an attempt at community consensus. I think that it was not possible to not do so in either direction. It became a stale, confused, limited participation walled garden and somewhat of a stick situation. Also there was a significant change in the situation mid-stream during the ANI. I think that the close was a pragmatic acknowledgement of this, and the wording in the close alluded to this. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your comment on the timeline. Almost all the participants in the tban discussion came after the voluntary restrictions were proposed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn, obvious BADNAC. Their comments here (Basically it’s a case filed by editors from one party in an attempt to shut up an editor from another party) make it obvious that it was an attempt at a WP:SUPERVOTE, which, obviously, applies to all closures - the idea that anyone can just close any discussion at any time, with whatever outcome they like based on their personal opinions and with no regard for actual discussion, and then expect to have that outcome stick, is plainly absurd. This is sufficiently severe (and Dustfreeworld's doubling-down, above, sufficiently shocking, especially their fairly bizarre assertion that they are a neutral editor in the same breath that they make sweeping accusations that they tried to ram through with their supervote) that I would suggest opening a separate ANI thread to seek some sorts of sanctions against Dustfreeworld - at the bare minimum barring them from closing discussions going forwards. --Aquillion (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Aquillion, I disagree with you untrue claim that “an attempt at a WP:SUPERVOTE, which, obviously, applies to all closures - the idea that anyone can just close any discussion at any time, with whatever outcome they like based on their personal opinions” which is bordering on personal attacks, while you completely ignore the fact that there are at least two involved/COI editors in this (and the ANI) discussion and supporting them based on your own opinions. I ask that you strike your untrue claims. Respectfully, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Your personal belief that other editors in the dispute violated COI and WP:INVOLVED, and your personal opinion that this means that EMsmile was somehow protected from sanctions by this, does not relate to the consensus reached in the discussion at all; the fact that you continue to cite those things underlines the fact that your attempt at a closure was a deliberate WP:SUPERVOTE, which in turn underlines the fact that you have no business closing anything. Surely you can see the direction this discussion is going in? My strenuous advice to you would be to admit to your (glaring and serious) mistakes, acknowledge that it was a SUPERVOTE, apologize to the people involved, and commit to not closing discussions going forwards until you have a better grasp of policy; but if you continue to double-down instead I will, once this discussion is closed, obviously do what I said in my comment and seek a consensus on WP:AN to bar you from closing discussions in the future so this doesn't happen again. Closures are meant to be about assessing consensus, which you made no serious effort to do here and are making no effort to even pretend to have attempted in your responses; instead, you repeatedly recite arguments that, if you felt so strongly about, you ought to have made as a participant in the discussion the same as everyone else. --Aquillion (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Aquillion, I was closing the ANI discussion based on Wikipedia policy. Please review Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Policy:

  Many closures are also based upon Wikipedia policy. As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted. Wikipedia core policies, which requires that articles and information … be written from a neutral point of view, as well as legal policies that require articles not violate copyright or be defamatory, are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closer must determine the cases in which policy must override the opinions of individual editors.

  Please drop your stick and stop defending those COI editors and strike your untrue claims, better yet, with an apology. I don’t want to see others being sanctioned for WP:PA just because they post a comment here. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• It's supposed to be an attempt at community consensus. I think that it was not possible to not do so in either direction because as I detailed in my post it became a stale, confused, limited participation walled garden and somewhat of a stick situation. Also there was a significant change in the situation mid-stream during the ANI. I think that the close was a pragmatic acknowledgement of this, and the wording in the close alluded to this. I think that the only alternative to that (if desired to pursue this further) would probably need a whole new restart with fresh eyes and a clear statement of what is being proposed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn. The closing summary is not representative of the discussion, as it does not explicitly acknowledge any of the support for the topic ban found within the "Proposal: Topic ban for EMsmile" subsection of the discussion, while the closing summary heavily quotes elements of the discussion that are perceived to be in opposition to the topic ban. Regarding Special:Diff/1276595267, if the closer felt that the consensus within the discussion was "False", "Procedurally flawed", "Wrongful", or a "Sham", the closer is still obligated to express this in the closing summary and explain why the consensus was discarded; not doing so makes the closure a supervote. — Newslinger talk 06:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't want to re-open this after the incredible length of the previous thread, but since we're here:

There is another issue here. Not so recent, but for years EM smile was blatantly canvassing people to make specific Wikipedai edits.

• Let's discuss which definition of "sanitation" we think is the most useful one? (and edit the Wikipedia article accordingly) is pretty blatant. So are these others:
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

Just in case anyone is concerned about outing, it isn't. As I said above, none of this is particularly recent, but if it had been noted at the time, all of the other recent drama might have been prevented. This is absolutely blatant canvassing. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The first link is suspicious -- saying, effectively, "let's all go make this article useful to us". As I clicked the next couple links, I don't see canvassing, though. I see someone consulting external experts to encourage them to edit or to suggest edits to improve an article. That's something many of us have done when editing articles that benefit from expertise (like many science topics). In this post, I see someone trying to convince an expert to contribute, using standard wiki-evangelist language you'd hear at an edit-a-thon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I have undone my close. Please feel free to continue the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reopened. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, can you delete all this revisions (copyviol)? Thanks, regards. Smatteo499 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)