Several editors - including me - have expressed surprise and disagreement with S Marshall's recent closure of this RfC. There has been discussion on S Marshall's User Talk page and the WikiProject's Talk page. I am requesting a review of this closure. ElKevbo (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Closer: I welcome community scrutiny and if I closed that wrongly, then I'm happy to be overturned here. My close stands on three feet, and my close should only be allowed to stand if all three of them are correct.

1) I think that WP:SUBJECTIVE applies to creative works and it is overreaching to apply it to universities. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

2) I think that it's a discussion closer's role to apply policies, including policies that none of the debate participants brought up. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

3) I think that WP:NOT, which wasn't brought up by anyone in the debate, favours P1. If I am wrong about this, then my close is wrong and should be overturned.

In the light of the feedback I got last time, I've honestly done my best to defend the close on my talk page :-\.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's a very well-reasoned close. If you want it overturned, you're going to need another RfC with more participants I reckon. Guy (help!) 15:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this the place where we discuss how wrong the close was or is the discussion already linked above sufficient? ElKevbo (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it's the place where we look at the close and see if it's reasonable, which IMO it is. FWIW, I think almost all subjective rankings are UNDUE in leads, as the close notes - that applies to "List of 100 best X" lists, annual rankings and the rest. Objective facts are different: graduate employment rate, for example, or the percentage of graduates from a law school who get a job in the law, those are not subjective. My old school is objectively one of the oldest in the world, but any judgment of its academic ranking is likely to be highly subjective. Guy (help!) 15:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see what that has to with a RfC that had five of the fifteen participating editors in favor of omitting all mention of this kind of information in the lede of these articles no matter how well supported by exceptionally high quality sources and thoroughly discussed in the body of the article. If you genuinely believe that then you should have participated in the RfC. ElKevbo (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I would have participated if I had known it was going on. Guy (help!) 16:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It was widely advertised; I personally placed notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools, Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Lead section, Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch, and Wikipedia Talk:Neutral point of view. And of course it was also listed with all other RfCs in the places where they're listed e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. ElKevbo (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, didn't say it wasn't. I did not see it though. Guy (help!) 17:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• It really does feel like non-admin closures get far more scrutiny and pushback than admin closures no matter how reasoned or well-explained the closure is.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors or what they do but I would be doing the same thing if an administrator had closed this discussion using the same rationale that has been used. ElKevbo (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, of course, since you "lost", but it's a plainly well-reasoned close. Guy (help!) 17:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking that it be reviewed because it's poorly reasoned. Accusing me of a being a poor loser is a personal attack and you should retract it with an apology. ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't read that as a personal attack at all. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it's not an attack, it's completely normal for people to kvetch about a close that goes against them. Guy (help!) 14:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think that's a well-reasoned and reasonable close, based on the stated policies. Could it have been closed differently? Given the low turnout and the less-than-perfect clarity of some relevant policies, yes, someone else could have closed it differently - I'd probably be torn between closing it as option 1 and option 2 myself (though I'd need more time to finally decide). As the decision was so close, I don't think we should rule out a second RfC. If someone decides to start one, I'd suggest some wider (and obviously non-canvassing) publicity would help attract more contributors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Seems like a suitable close to me. Certainly not a clear one, and definitely not an easy close. It for sure is not wide enough off the mark for it to be reopened, but a second RfC isn't a problem either. Closer did a good job in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Lowly non-administrator here, just asking for advice: do you think it might be better to have a simpler "should they be included at all" RfC or "should they be restricted at all" RfC first, and then a secondary RfC second to decide what restrictions/inclusions should be the default consensus, or better to have a similar RfC again just with wider input? Shadowssettle _{Need a word?} 18:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I can't say the subject especially interests me, and i probably wouldn't have participated, even had i known about the RfC. That being said, i think S Marshall did a very good job with the close. The reasoning is solid, all three feet are firm and make the whole thing stable, and his defence/explanation here and on his talk page is clear, simple, and easy to follow. The close should be upheld; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• In order to get into the weeds here, I decided to do my own review of the RfC and see where I differed from S Marshall. I think S Marshall got this pretty much right on with one exception: I think there was weak support for P3 and not P1, but I also think that the rest of the reasoning was correct, and that the fact I think there was weak support for P3 actually doesn't change anything about what S Marshall's conclusion of the rule was. Concluding rankings and "prestigious" should not be used to describe schools in the ledes of articles, but describing a school as "Oxbridge" or "Russell Group" or "Ivy League" or by one of its associations reflects the discussion. In any case, a quick search of the word "prestigious" shows it's often used in articles about academics, or about groups of universities - IE Business School was the first one to come up, and that clearly needs editing. Good close overall. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Close is reasonable. I agree with Sporting Flyer about P3 though. From S Marshall's statement, it seems like this is borderline no consensus; essentially, we should be cautious in describing prestige and err on the side of saying too little. I think in practice that will be closer to P3 than P1. It's not worth overturning since it's an accurate close, but I would recommend a second RfC (probably advertised at WP:CENT) which is more open ended than a straw poll. The other two options only focused on citations but neglected a lot of other editorial considerations, and using Marshall's close as a starting point to discuss what is acceptable is probably a better use of time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I am also fine with overturning to no consensus. I don't think there will be much of a difference and would still recommend a second RfC, but others seem to think overturning to no consensus is better which is reasonable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• I would overturn. The NOT argument is made only by the closer. The reason this is bad is not just because it is an interpretation of just one editor, the closer, so can't be anything like a consensus application, but on the merits it is unsupported except by the closer's ipsa dixit (closers are not suppose to make arguments). The discussing editors, if they had discussed NOT, could point to Encyclopedia Britannica which for Harvard says 'prestigious' in its lead,[1] and its Oxford entry, says 'great' in its lead [2]. It's thus entirely dubious -- and should have been discussed in the discussion and not by the single closer -- that those words are NOT encyclopedic in a university encyclopedia article lead. This is especially so, in light of the discussion that did occur that a lead is suppose to orient the reader, distinguishing the subject per WP:LEAD (distinguishing does often call for an adjective or two), and editors in the discussion did rely on LEAD, contra the close. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As this is still open, and considering the additional comments below, including by the closer, I would note that overturning is still my position but even stronger. As shown below by, inter alia, Melanie, the closer improperly rejected the consensus of the experienced editors, who had explicitly rejected the closer's preferred choice. Moreover, the logic of the closer's NOT/Promo supervote falls apart on close inspection. If we were to follow the closer's logic, we would have to say alleged "promo" is not allowed in the lead, but it is fine in the body of the article. (More likely the closer has a skewed view of NOT/Promo, which is not consensus, but how could it be as only the closer made that argument.) The close just can't be right (including on NPOV) -- we follow RS in what they say good or bad, and just because the closer does not approve of certain words/concepts that RS use in discussing and distinguishing subjects, we don't ban those words and concepts from parts of whole classes of articles, as the closer would have it. In addition, on SUBJECTIVE, the close is very weak because even if you buy the closer's narrow interpretation of SUBJECTIVE, it does not follow that SUBJECTIVE is exclusive, so that it bans everything it does not explicitly cover -- SUBJECTIVE is not even remotely written so as to force a ban on words/concepts in the way the closer would construe it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. P2 and P3 are much more similar to each other than P1; I don't see supporters of either of them who listed P1 as their second choice. I see 4 !votes in favor of P1, and 11 against, or only 27% support. In order to find a consensus in favor of something with such a skewed percentage against, the opposing side has to be completely without merit, which is not the case here by any stretch of the imagination IMO. Now, the fact that the arguments presented by P1 supporters are on average stronger is, however, a reason to not declare consensus in favor of the side with 73% of the !vote. Therefore I think "no consensus" is the best outcome. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I weighted each vote (and discarded one P3 vote) since some users picked multiple options and weighted their preferences, and P3 came out slightly ahead. I wouldn't call it a 73-27% vote, especially with three options. SportingFlyer T·C 05:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• With the caveat that I participated in the RfC, my reading of the consensus is that we should overturn the close. It was (as is true of all of S Marshall's closes) thoroughly considered, but it had two significant issues. Copying my previous comment on them:

First, [the closer] writes that NPOV's WP:SUBJECTIVE section "obviously refers to the works of Shakespeare, Monet, and Bach, rather than institutes of learning". However, the section is titled "Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations" (emphasis added), and although most of the examples are artworks, after providing one it states "More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers" (emphasis again added). The "more generally" clearly implies broader applicability.
Second, more numerically, we need to consider that the options are not equidistant from each other, but rather P2 and P3 both favor inclusion of some sort, whereas only P1 opposes it. Thus, the count of !voters who favored some sort of inclusion vs. those opposed was 10 to 5. I could see a possibility of finding no consensus given a count like that, but to find in favor of the 5-person minority would require an unusually strong justification, and I do not see such justification here, especially given the widespread potential ramifications of this discussion.

Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm rather concerned by point 2 of S Marshall's three legs - in an AfD that would raise serious eyebrows, where we prefer closers who see non-applicable arguments participate rather than super-closing on those grounds. I'd always assumed that that held true for RfC closes as well. Were some clear policy not subject to local exceptions violated by all the reasoning I could a NC being warranted, but that isn't the instance here. It's absolutely well considered, but I'd say it's valid, not sound. Weak overturn, pending possible change if individuals think my reasoning is the case with RfCs too Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is absolutely key. Nobody in the debate mentioned WP:NOT, and without that, we've got no prohibition on promotional or advocacy editing. I interpolated it. If I was wrong then my close must be overturned.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse close and thank S Marshall for their work. The reason they get attention here is that they are stepping up and closing difficult RfCs—thanks. Re the RfC issue, in six months another RfC with some realistic examples might be considered—it's all very well to imagine a perfect world where a very reliable source says X is the greatest and that gets copied to the lead, but the implications of that need to be considered in examples. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn I find two problems with this close and believe it should be overturned. First, he claims “no consensus on the numbers alone” and proceeds to ignore the numbers. But if you actually tally the comments, as I just now did: (correcting my tally since I missed one. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC))

• 14 15 people commented.
• P1 was preferred by 3 4 (one unclear), opposed by 8 (several strongly), 3 did not state
• P2 was preferred by 6 (several qualified with a hedge about sources/wording), second choice for 2, opposed by 2 3 (one weak, one unclear), 4 did not state
• P3 was preferred by 6, second choice for 4, 1 2 (one strong), 3 did not state

It is impossible to see how this discussion could be closed in favor of P1. I would have interpreted it as a choice between P2 and P3, exact wording to be determined by discussion - with P1 having been soundly rejected by a majority of commenters.

Second, he notes that people mentioned NPOV and did not bring up NOT - but then raises NOT and PEA himself as arguments. In effect he was casting a supervote.

He comments on the paucity of contributions. That should not surprise anyone given that WikiProject:Higher Education is not a high profile site or on many people’s watchlist. Reopening it now after the rest of Wikipedia has been made aware of it should give a more reliable result. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Could you please explain more clearly how you reached the conclusion that there was a "weak consensus in favor of P1", when a majority of the commenters (8 out of 14) specifically opposed P1? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly, with pleasure.
  I began by looking at the debate at a superficial level and totting up the number of editors in favour of each position, so as to give myself a benchmark. I found that on the numbers, there was no consensus.
  I then proceeded to read the history and background of the debate, so as to understand what was going on. The conclusions I reached were:
  1) The history is remarkably complex and detailed, but I needed to understand all the contributing editors as suitably responsible and experienced Wikipedians; and
  2) A key triggering incident was when editors decided it would be appropriate to allow Harvard University to describe itself as "prestigious" in the lead of its Wikipedia article (a decision apparently based on the Encyclopaedia Britannica's wording); and
  3) Although the debate was certainly begun in good faith and on the basis of what the drafters believed was in Wikipedia's best interests, it nevertheless represented an attempt by a WikiProject to establish a separate ruleset for articles within its own purview. Specifically, it was an attempt to exempt institutions of higher learning from Wikipedia's normal rules about promotional language and advertising.
  I then found myself in an unusual position because none of the editors involved had invoked WP:NOT. Nobody at all had bluelinked it, and I initially wavered about whether it would be right to apply a policy that nobody bluelinked in the debate. I then consulted WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to see if it contained any guidance about what to do. I found: Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. I raised an eyebrow, and then moved on to the final paragraph which states: Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests.
  Now, I've got a longstanding view on IAR from spending so many years reviewing consensus-related decisions at DRV, and it's this: I think that a local consensus to ignore the rules can't be implied. I think that it's OK to IAR if the rule in question has been brought up in the debate, considered by the participants, and explicitly rejected as inapplicable or inappropriate; but it's not OK to IAR silently.
  Then I reflected on Wikipedia's attitude to promotional language in articles. I noted that Wikipedia is very attractive to those who want to use our encyclopaedia to market their products or promote their business, and Wikipedians have had to become highly sensitive to promotion. We tend to take a very hard line on it. I decided that the consensus against any form of promotional language is very old and very strong indeed. Taking those factors into consideration, I decided (rightly or wrongly) that even if the debate participants were oblivious to WP:NOT, it still applied to them. I recognized that this was a potentially controversial thing for me to decide, and therefore I needed to say explicitly in the close that I had made that decision.
  I have reflected on it long and hard since, and I still feel it was the right choice.
  Once I had given myself those directions I re-weighted the votes, and here is where I depart hard from the thought process that you and King of Hearts have displayed here. I understand from what you and King of Hearts have posted that you feel that I as a closer can weigh the votes, but the acceptable range of weights I can give is constrained: in other words, as closer, I'm not allowed to give a vote from a good faith Wikipedian a weight of 0, or 0.001. The acceptable range might be, for example, from 0.5 to 1.5.
  On this point, I simply disagree with you. I think it's possible for a contribution to a debate to be not just diminished, but totally blown out of the water, by subsequent contribution. So for example, in a deletion debate, if Editor A says: "Delete. No evidence of coverage in reliable sources", and then Editor B links a long string of reliable sources that cover the subject, then the weight I would give to Editor A is not 0.5, or 0.3, but zero.
  In the light of this, I gave DGG's contribution to that debate a very high weighting indeed, because it introduced a lot of considerations that previous editors had not reflected on and which were not refuted by anyone else. I think that you and King of Hearts would view the weighting I gave to that contribution as inappropriately high and not within my reach as closer, but on the matter of how much weight is permissible, I respectfully disagree with you.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

totting up the number of editors in favour of each position So in other words, in your initial evaluation of the discussion you looked only at supports - and ignored opposes? I suggest that is an approach you should change from now on. Oppose !votes are every bit as significant as support !votes, sometimes more so. In the future please try to get a sense of what each person is actually SAYING with their comment. As you can see, I tally several types of !vote: "support", "second choice" or "acceptable", "oppose", and “did not state a clear position". That approach clearly shows that very few people supported P1 and a majority opposed it. By tallying only supports, then embarking on your own analysis of policy, you completely missed the clear consensus AGAINST P1. For that matter, even the bare “support” tally of 3 for P1, 6 for P2, and 6 for P3 should have indicated that this was not an inconclusive discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As a participant in the RFC, I have refrained from commenting here, however, I have to object to your statement that the RFC was an attempt to exempt institutions of higher learning from Wikipedia's normal rules about promotional language and advertising. Per WP:SUBJECTIVE (a policy you yourself have referenced many times in this discussion) "it is sometimes permissible to note an article subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers." Thus, discussing a school's reputation -- positive or negative -- cannot violate WP's rules concerning advertisement and promotion provided the information is verifiable and backed by reliable sources. Calidum 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't find this consensus against P1 that you find in the debate. I start from the point of view that there's no consensus on the numbers and proceed to analysis of the arguments.

Calidum, it is my position that WP:SUBJECTIVE does not apply to universities or institutes of higher learning. When I read it, I can see a rule that with all due respect is clearly meant to apply to creative and artistic works. Although I admire the ingenious arguments and skilful phrasing that you use to contend that it stretches to universities, I see that as quite mistaken.—S Marshall T/C 16:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If your interpretation were correct that the portion of SUBJECTIVE I quoted applies only to creative works (despite the sentence beginning "more generally"), countless articles across Wikipedia would need to be scrubbed to adhere to it. Antonin Scalia, for instance, is clearly not a work of art, yet we note "he has been described as one of the most influential jurists of the twentieth century, and one of the most important justices in the Supreme Court's history." Nor could we say Sandy Koufax has been called "one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history" and "one of the outstanding Jewish athletes in American sports." And forget about saying Charles Darwin has been called "one of the most influential figures in human history." Calidum 16:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: RE  I don't find this consensus against P1 that you find in the debate. You don’t see it? I grant you, only two commenters put the word “oppose” in bold, so it was necessary to actually read the comments to see what they are saying - but don’t you read all the way through the comments before starting to draw a conclusion? If you don’t, how can you be a closer of discussions? If you had read the comments, here is what you would have found: Both User:WhatamIdoing and User:RedHotPear put “oppose P1” in bold. User:EEng said ~P1, using the ~ symbol for “not” to show opposition, and providing a link to explain it. User:ElKevbo said “P1 is unacceptable”. User:Sdkb said “oppose P1”. User:Dhtwiki said “P1 is too severe and, I would guess, difficult to enforce.” User:Jonathan A Jones described P1 as “a counsel of despair too far”. User:Calidum said “P1 is a non-starter.” That’s eight opposes, a majority of the commenters. You "start from the point of view that there's no consensus on the numbers," but there is. A very clear consensus "in the numbers" against P1. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said: What I see in the numbers is no clear winner; therefore I start the weighing process; and when I start weighing I get to the outcome I did. I don't see it as helpful, or appropriate, to subtract P1 from the range of possible outcomes "on the numbers" before the weighing process starts. I'm afraid that I don't intend to offer any further replies on this point, although I'd welcome you raising anything else that you feel unclear about.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• With regret, I have to agree with overturn to no consensus here. That was a masterpiece of a closing statement and a genuinely noble attempt to wring a consensus out of a discussion; but I just don't think that discussion reached a consensus. While I really get the reasoning used, there is a limit to how one can weight votes, and P1 was explicitly objected to by quite a lot of participants. While I probably agree with P1 personally, if I was going to try and pull a consensus out of that discussion I probably would have leant towards P2 as the explicit compromise position, but I think I might have felt slightly off doing even that. I'm also on record previously as generally objecting to closers pulling out new arguments and policies in closes; as reasonable as S Marshall's genuinely were here, it almost always ends up smelling a bit like a supervote. Really great points were made in the close, but this feels like a discussion that needs more participation. ~ mazca ^talk 20:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments: I think it was a damn fine closing giving a clear rationale, better than most, that actually had policy grounds, and hope S Marshall keeps up the good work. However, one of the "legs" is in dispute. We are to close discussions (when it is needed) by "careful analysis of the discussion". At issue is if an editor (or Admin) can "interpolate". If this is allowed can it be done in such a way to not give the appearance of a super vote. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus states: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy and the closer should not personally select which is the better policy. In between these two there can be some confusion: those that flatly contradict established policy but this becomes more clear with: The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument. This indicates that if it is not brought up it cannot be used even if clear policies and guidelines appear to be justifiable for use. King of Hearts brought up a good point but "IF" comments in a minority of "consensus" are stronger, 'using policy backing', then consensus on a local or project level cannot trump policy or the more broad community consensus. In other words it can't change policy as that would be the wrong place. Even WP:IGNORE (that was not brought up) cannot be assumed and must have clear consensus if contested. Again, there is confusion as noted in the next section (Policy) that states: As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted. There are three named instances that are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus., so apparently some "interpolating" is allowed but narrowly defined. It is my opinion that these two sections need some work. Until then we have to go with what we have until it is changed. -- Otr500 (talk)

• Procedural Overturn by reason of vague instructions leading to confusion, and because contention is high enough to warrant Admin closing. The discussion should be continued for more clarity now and for future discussions. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, sure. In this like in everything else, Wikipedian guidelines are vague. They're like scripture, in that somewhere in the labyrinthine maze of mutually contradictory rules and guidelines, you can find support for any position. It's true that you can view Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus as directly contradicting WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS if you like, but I think that's the wrong way to understand it. You follow Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus to see if a consensus emerges, and if one doesn't, then thats when you move to WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. That's the only way I can reconcile the two, anyway. I think it would be a serious mistake to clarify them any further, because when you codify the consensus-reaching process in too much detail, you're also handing an instruction manual to bad faith actors about how to game the system.
  When you say "contention is high enough to warrant Admin closing", I'm afraid I differ from you very strongly. I think that while the discussion here hasn't yet reached a conclusion on whether I was right on this particular matter, it does demonstrate a clear consensus that I may appropriately close difficult discussions: in other words, the community rejects your credentialism on this point.
  To my eyes, the other consensus that clearly emerges is that the outcome should be neither an overturn nor an endorsement but a relisting for a more widely-advertised discussion.—S Marshall T/C 11:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I greatly respect S Marshall, and in particular his willingness to make hard closes and for his detailed explanation of those closes. But in this case I think I have to agree with MelanieN. The close was a bit too much of his own thoughts and not enough of the discussion that was had. It would have been much better as a comment/!vote rather than a close. As far as admin status goes, I trust S Marshall to make closes like this more than just about any admin. I just think he got this one wrong. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • And I think a relist with much broader advertising would be the best way forward. Second best is to go with NC. Hobit (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree with User:Hobit that holding a second RFC might be helpful. I encourage anyone who would like to do that to stop by WP:RFC and discuss ways of making it clear. For example, "P1", which S Marshall endorsed, could usefully be followed with examples:
      • N Do not say "Founded in 1636, Harvard College is the original school of Harvard University, the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States and among the most prestigious in the world" (which was added to the lead of Harvard College almost nine years ago by EEng, who supported banning statements about reputation and prestige during the RFC)
      • N Do not say "It is highly selective, with fewer than five percent of applicants being offered admission in recent years" (same article, added by RedHotPear last year; "highly selective" is an widely used and objective ranking system)
      • N Do not say "For-Profit U has the weakest entrance requirements, the lowest graduation rates in Country, and the highest debt load among departing students. It was described by Paul Politician, in a lawsuit to strip its accreditation, as 'an exploitative diploma mill created for no obvious purpose beyond enriching its founder'." (that's "ranking" and "reputation", so would be banned even if it's true, and even if the article has little to say about the organization except that its rankings are poor and its reputation is worse)
    • I think that giving specific examples in terms of effects would help people decide whether their votes matched the outcomes they actually wanted to see. I suspect that a rule that says "Do not include USN&WR rankings" would gather more support than "Don't admit that Harvard is prestigious". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

      • First of all, the text I inserted back in 2011 [3] was, in fact, that Harvard College is one of the most presigious in the world, so I really don't know why I'm being dragged into this "prestige" business.
      • That was in the article Harvard College – at the time a complete mess I was taking a machete to (so that today it's no longer a complete mess but merely mostly a mess). At that time Harvard University had said that it was "one of the most prestigious in the world" since at least sometime in 2010, and I'm pretty sure that I simply plagiarized that.
      • I don't know where you get the idea that I supported banning statements about reputation and prestige during the RFC. I flatly opposed P1, and preferred P2 over P3.
      • You're just calling me out because you went to Yale.

      EEng 23:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• OK I'm happy this needs relisting. Please could a previously uninvolved person kindly close this discussion as "consensus to relist for a more widely-advertised discussion", vacate my previous close, and replace it with a pointer to WT:RFC for the drafting discussion that WhatamIdoing suggests?—S Marshall T/C 23:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with relisting, but oppose a "new RfC". The consensus here is to overturn the close and reopen the discussion - not to abandon it and start a new one. And we should not add interpretation or examples, like the (deliberately ridiculous?) ones proposed by WhatamIdoing. The question should be the same as the one already answered by 15 people, and should not be changed or modified in a way which might oblige previous discussants to reconsider their comments. We should respect all the thought which has already gone into this. So, no pointer to a drafting discussion, no changes in the questions posed. Any discussion can be done in the Discussion section of the RfC. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, that's not the consensus here.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From user talk:Catflap08:

It has been more than three years that I have been banned from editing the English language version of Wikipedia. Ever since I was still able to edit the German language version of Wikipedia without any major incidents – including rather contentious issues. What I learned from the events leading up to my ban here is that it is a good idea to rethink issues overnight (or maybe even two, three … nights) when engaging in discussions on controversial issues. If this appeal is successful I do not intend to edit Wikipedia proper right away. I am perfectly aware of the fact that I would probably be under close watch and therefore use the time to make use of my sandbox instead. There are a number of stubs that I would like to work on by translating already existing German or Czech articles – only when approved by a majority of fellow editors I would ask for them to be moved into mainspace. Due to circumstances (Corona/Covid-19) I have even less time to focus on Wikipedia so my first steps in editing en.wikipedia will probably be rather small. It is not my intention to comment on past incidents without being specifically asked to do so.

I would note:

• Email and talk page access was withdrawn in June 2019 due to allegations of abuse.
• Most of the complaints were probably by Hijiri88, now indeffed for violation of an IBAN.
• I think the last appeal; was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306 § Site ban appeal from Catflap08
• I lost the will; to live about halfway though this lot.

Catflap08 posted an unblock request which I declined procedurally because I think that, given the extensive past history, it's a heavy lift for a single admin. Guy (help!) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Link for the SiteBan
• Okay, I've read the modern stuff and the key bits of the original causes. I have not read every dispute. If we have someone active on de-wiki who could take a look there, that would be appreciated. Post-ban abuse is always concerning. However, I'm interested if there's an indication of major issues with any other editors in the past 2 years or so? If Catflap's primary difficulties were not being able to play nice with Hijiri88 that's concerning, but perhaps makes me more inclined to extend a chance with a risk factor now absent. TBAN should probably remain, with at least 6 months before it can be appealed to ARBCOM (I suppose it could be viewed as community 6 month TBAN that then lapses, leaving just the ARBCOM one). I'm not sure why catflap says "approved by a majority of fellow editors", but if we want a "create only be AfC" that seems reasonable. Willing to consider, but pending various bits of information. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• I have always felt that the ArbCom restriction from way back when was a bit unfair to Catflap, but there was little to be done about it, and the behavior that led to the block (linked above by Nosebagbear) was very unfortunate. But that was three years ago. I support letting Catflap back in. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Back when he was active, most of the problems were related to Hijiri88, I was involved with more of those issues than I care to recall. I want to be clear in stating that I believe everyone deserves a 2nd chance, including Catflap, but it comes with a great deal of hesitation. Blocks are cheap but drama is expensive. While I don't remember all the details (and not willing to drag up the old discussions to refresh my memory), what sticks out most was how Catflap could be a parasite with administrative time. Do I think Catflap is a net positive? Barely, and sometimes, no. Still, if I apply the same principles here that I apply with other editors, then I'm 51% for lifting the community ban that is in place. And obviously this would be a last chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I've always thought interaction bans shouldn't become unappealable just because the other person has left Wikipedia. On the other hand, the admin actions leading to Hijiri88's indef block while individually defensible collectively amount to a rather cruel persecution and so I think a UTRS request in six months or so is both likely and has a good chance of success. And if these two editors then start screaming at each other again it'll be yet more needless drama. I'm with Dennis Brown on this one. 51% support. Reyk _YO! 13:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'd like some comment from Catflap08 on their use of email Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive304#Use of ticket system by site-banned user to get warning about abuse of email removed? to try and communicate with Hijiri88. While I believe they stopped when asked [4], I question the first email in 2017 and then even more so the one in 2018 which was after the one in 2017 had been responded to and as I understand it concerned edits to the English Wikipedia when they were long site banned at that point. While I understand that Catflap08 may not have been happy with Hijiri88 mentioning them, and IMO Hijiri88 did have a tendency to mention long blocked or banned editors a bit too much, ultimately when your site banned you've mostly lost the right to complain about it. Except perhaps if you feel those editors clearly violate some policy and guideline in which case it would be better to approach an admin or arbcom about that. Complaining to the person who made the comments who you had a long contentious history with when you weren't banned doesn't seem to be a good idea. BTW, in case there's some confusion, I believe the last email was in November 2018. Hijiri88 suggested that Catflap08 may have been using other accounts to email them, but there didn't seem to be good evidence for this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive310#Remove email access from a sitebanned editor?. Also was Catflap08 really still following Hijiri88's activities here in June 2019, when Catflap08 had been long banned? These sequence of edits do seem a little weird [5] [6], and Catflap08's previous response was shall we say, less than ideal [7]. (The fact that Catflap08 was aware Hijiri88 mentioned them less so since they may have simply not turned off pings for en Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#I'm being stalked (maybe trolled) -- anyone know if there's anything that can be done?.) I'm not really sure why Hijiri88 noticed what Catflap08 was up to on the German Wikipedia, but that's a discussion for another place and time. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Catflap08's problems stem, as others have said, from longstanding conflict with one other editor. The ban might have been necessary, but I can't help feeling it was a bit tough - based on people getting sick and tired of seeing the two of them constantly at each other's throats. That conflict is not going to continue now, at least not in the short term, for obvious reasons. With these things in mind, and having read Catflap08's comments (which I think show proper understanding and committment), I support lifting the ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Lifting ban per response below. NHS2008 (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Nosebagbear: Do you have anything to add (since you said you'll consider)? Or else I'll close this up. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: - I think I could be posited as a "weak support of unban". The level of concerns would usually be associated with stringent unblock restrictions but I'm not sure any are coming to mind. Please do take this as support for any ERs that the unblocking admin feels are beneficial, otherwise Catflap should just take it as further clarity for care in minimising drama. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Catflap08 response[edit]

Transcluded from User talk:Catflap08:

• Cat, you might want to address one question at WP:AN, which is reasonable to ask. You can reply here, someone will copy and paste your response. Your request has stalled until you do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there any particular question you have in mind? I will study the comments already made and hopefully will be able to address some issues by the weekend.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• • If you read the discussion, you will find that Nil Einne has raised some issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I will to my best to address questions and issues here. I am aware of the fact that you have to make a serious decision. Please also be aware of the fact that I did not leave the project completely even though there was a period that I was extremely peeved at Wikipedia (some of you even at me). I did continue my work on the German Wikipedia, which operates on a similar set of rules (similar, but not entirely the same). Lately I focused on translating articles (that’s before that virus kicked in). I still have a small stack of articles I’d like to translate into German (mostly Scotland related issue). That’s where I felt how the current ban affects me most – I cannot ask any questions on en.wikipedia. We are all facing a pandemic, so I am not in any rush with editing at all – at the moment I hardly even do any major edits on de.wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a purpose in life to me, it’s a hobby. Now and again I sit here to check pending edits only – that’s where the German and English Wikipedia run slightly different.

@ Nosebagbear I have no intention to see the TBAN being lifted any time soon. As far as I know that would need an extra appeal. Your idea with AfC is actually what I had in mind. There are a few stubs on the English Wikipedia that I could expand by translating existing articles. My sandbox is probably the best place for that.

@ Nil Einne I hope that I won’t come across as rude, but you are putting me in an awkward position. Your questions deal with a certain individual and as I already stated, I do not intend to continue that conflict … and as surprisingly this may come across … I do consider it bad practice to discuss an absent editor. This comment [8] reflects the advice given to me when I previously raised some of the incidents you mentioned to admins … I would summarise it as: let it go, don’t mention them. You are referring to my use of the Unreferenced Template on de.wikipedia. I do at times use that template. I use it when articles provide no references and sources whatsoever. If no references are being added (after a few weeks or months) I do at times nominate articles for deletion – usually its only then that somebody will come along and place a reference or two, which to me is fair enough then – problem solved. And you are right, on my German user page I list a number of keywords that make life on Wikipedia difficult, but also what may inspires one stay and continue. This is also why I created the article about a German organisation called HateAid [9]. I did bump into some, let’s say, right-wing motivated editors on de.wikipedia. It’s important not to fall in the same trap as they do. If ones actions are guided by anger nothing good is going to come out of that – I learned that the hard way on different occasions here on en.wikipedia. What another editor may have had on their mind or not I cannot answer. On de.wikipedia I tend to correspond in German, not in English. The editor you are referring to do have a talk page history over there too. Some edit summaries are in English. On de.wikipedia there is a button called “E-Mail an diesen Benutzer senden” (Email this user) and I made use of it.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

User @Skllagyook: tends to edit war in his editions on proto-indo-European homeland topic. Please deal with this matter properly. Respectfully سیمون دانکرک (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@سیمون دانکرک: I am not sure what you are referring to (when you state that I tend to edit war), but I explained repeatedly in the notes why your addition to the page (Proto-Indo-European homeland) was somewhat problematic. You seem to have continued to ignore/not engaged with the explanations I made (in notes) nor discuss in Talk, but continue to reinstated your addition. I have attempted to contact three other editors who have edited on this topic including one administrator (User:Puduḫepa, User:Joshua Jonathan, and User:Doug Weller) - here at 1. Hopefully thereby they/we can resolve the issue. Skllagyook (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: You've been repeatedly ignored the content and references that I've presented even after I edited the so-called blog you mentioned and explicitly participating in editing war. It's an ongoing subject in the related page addressing administrators to deal with your case duly. From your actions and résumé I gather that you don't avoid Wikipedia:Canvassing. I think your attitudes is necessary to be encountered with and highly discouraged. Respectfully سیمون دانکرک (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone is WP: stalking stalking me on Wilipedia and this should be worrisome to all. My IP address is been followed around by unknown editor(s). I leave it at that. Swiss romulus (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

We need a lot more information than just this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't know about their edits as an IP, bt their talk page shows problems with edit warring and copying within Wikipedia w/o attribution. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a boomerang might be due here this link sheds some light on the IP address he's talking about (look specifically at the section labeled "Banking") Necromonger...ALL Lives matter 20:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• If you aren't going to name names, provide diffs, and put a notice on their talk page, you are asking for sanction yourself. You've already wasted enough time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi there, my take is that he's referring to me, as mentioned in this edit, where he also calls me an "(Israeli) Stalker". That's after I reverted a couple of his changes and warned him for edit warring. The anti-Israeli/Jewish theme also spans other edits, such as this. Apologies for the wording, but this user seems delusional. UCaetano (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I think we need an administrator to help @Doomer1557: on how to properly sign his posts. As I understand it, english isn't his first language & so his posts aren't in UTC. This isn't a big emergency, but it does get confusing for others. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

And as they're now signing their posts, there's nothing to be done here, though it's really fucking tempting to get a boomerang out. I'm seeing GoodDay in far too many places making an utter bloody nuisance of themselves. I suggest they devote more time to content and less time (as in, no time at all) to their pseudo-administrator oar-sticking-in shit which is not their strong point. Nick (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Can any admin see this. This user has been moved by some autoconfirmed user with some 600+ edits. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 03:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Aaqib bhai, Dr-Taher is a global renamer. Presumably the user whose page was moved had requested a username change. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That's what the edit summary says, "Dr-Taher moved page User:Nasreen Zahid to User:Fatima Al Khalidi: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Nasreen Zahid" to "Fatima Al Khalidi")" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin Harrison V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Harrison_V#

Inflammatory notes made today on page and corrections made but this editor is heavily guarding this page and will not allow correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanmemescorrecting (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The disruptive edits you've made have warranted warnings from JBW and myself. Please stop. Acroterion (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

And I've notified JBW of this post, which was a required action on your part. Acroterion (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

OP placed ani notice on article page. At least they tried. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

So this is a content dispute over "inflammatory content". I don't know if it is sourced. To wit-- {

This was a stark contrast to Harrison's personal acceptance and practice of slaveholding, though he joined a 1772 petition to the King that he abolish the slave trade.

At least it isn't a WP:BLP --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

¡Ay, caramba! Meanmemescorrecting edit warred to restore the ANI notice in the article. If anything, OP is being a little too intense over a content dispute. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• You have less than a dozen edits but you found yourself at ANI already. Is this a request for boomerang or what? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• I did not see a missing sock anywhere, though coming here was fast work. Meanmemescorrecting, this is a content dispute, and you have been very rude. You need to discuss your concerns on the talk page of the article and seek WP:CONSENSUS. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• At 15:43 once again edit warred and added the AN notice to the article. I will partial block for the article. Feel free to undo if you think me oerly high-handed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Not at all, go ahead. Harrison may have held plenty ideas we would vehemently disagree with today, but still, repeatedly dragging him to ANI...?!  ;) ——Serial ^# 16:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

🤦 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. This whole section is about the fact that I am "heavily guarding this page and will not allow correction". I have never edited the article. In fact my only involvement has been to post a note to Meanmemescorrecting's talk page explaining that when one removes content from an article one should explain why, after another editor had reverted Meanmemescorrecting's editing. So that is what "heavily guarding this page" and "not allow[ing] correction" looks like? I wonder what it would have looked like if I had seen a new editor being reverted by someone else, not me, and in an attempt to help the new editor I had explained to him how he might be able to make such reverts less likely in future. JBW (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@JBW: You are one of the most helpful and patient admins I know. @Meanmemescorrecting: I find it frustrating when someone starts a thread like this and then absents themselves. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I just reverted another addition of commentary to the article Benjamin Harrison V, this time by 99.203.22.169. Can someone with more patience than I have please explain that such comments go on talk pages, if anywhere, rather than in articles? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I explained it to them, though I cannot claim exercising patience in doing so. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Noe Meanmemescorrecting is indef'ed for block evasion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Is that suppose to popup on new page feed? I don't know what's going on there. Govvy (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleted that and block creator for a day. Weirdness. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Weirdness explained. User unblocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It is in session as I type this

I wish to question about the way administrators have handled the above report. Their comments made it pretty clear that any semblance of fairness or even-handedness was completely absent from the off. The blunt outcome was that within less than an hour of reporting a personal attack I was told, alongside several other unsubstantiated accusations, I was under imminent threat of being blocked if I didn't withdraw the report immediately. This lack of neutrality has been compounded by a failure to take proper account of the examples I cited and also by making further completely spurious accusations.

My report was made after an accusation of dishonesty was not withdrawn and then was picked up by another user with a grudge who has been trying to get me blocked since day one. I made the ANI report as a last resort but the conduct of some of the admin team is simply shocking for people who are supposed to be the guardians of Wikipedia's objectives.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see this ANI thread where OP refused to provide dif's and whose own conduct is under review.]] --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There is also extensive related discussion at User talk:Sirjohnperrot. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• What Okra said. There is a debate whether Sirjohnperrot needs a tban or an indef, and he has yet to substantiate his claims there. But by all means, everyone go and jump in the discussion. Wouldn't be ANI without a crowd. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  If I join the kangaroo court, do I get my own kangaroo? GeneralNotability (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport Tie me kangaroo down. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  It's BYOK, so it's up to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Particularly , User talk:Sirjohnperrot#July 2020, User talk:Sirjohnperrot#Conflict of interests disclosure, User talk:Sirjohnperrot#Final warning, and User talk:Sirjohnperrot#Illustration. Yes, more eyes is not a bad idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to point out re the above that I have repeatedly sought to provide the evidence asked for, calling it 'diffs' was puzzling since none of the posts had been deleted and it is simply untrue that have I refused to do anything. These people just make up accusations as they go along - libel threats, COI issues, making aspersions, using 'passive agressive vitriol' now I refused to provide difs apparently - not a grain of truth in any of it. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've started a poll for a community indef block. This way no single admin can undo it, and the community is empowered and can decide the issue of block and/or unblocking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The definition of fascism is incorrect and appears to be someone's opinion. It does not line up with encyclopedia Britanica, nor merriam Webster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.133.62 (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: You should bring this up on the article's talk page. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 02:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I started my request on this ANI thread, which was the board of my original ANI and the closer wrote that I could appeal "here" (which I interpreted as on ANI board). There have been several responses in support of lifting my TBAN. I am not sure of the process of how it gets closed. Please let me know if there is some other step I need to do. Thank you. Normal Op (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I encourage an uninvolved administrator to close this request, since the consensus is pretty easy to see, I think. I cannot do so, since I am involved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll close shortly Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#SashiRolls

Procedural..to maybe help as alternative to the Arbcom case request. No problem if you say no. From the previous one take it as the community having decided that some type of sanction is called for. Reopen (based on discussion ar arbcom) would be to deermine what that sanction sould be. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Support. Some kind of review somewhere ought to occur. Paul August ☎ 16:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it worth it or would it just be unnecessary drama, if the case is going to ArbCom anyway? Drama would be extended over 3 sections (the original ban just a few weeks ago, the ArbCom case opened one day ago, and then a reopened site ban proposal). Perhaps it'd be most appropriate to reopen only if AC decline to take the case, and if there's a general feeling of procedural error. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Leave it at Arbcom...for now and see if they accept. If they do, then this discussion would be, if not moot, then certainly duplicatory; if they don't, then we can carry on here as we would have done had the RfA never been filed. ——Serial ^# 16:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Leave at Arbcom. I didn't get the impression that the ANI was reaching a strong conclusion, and if anything, might probably have gotten further to a no consensus had it stayed open longer? However, the issues are material, repetitive, and complex. ArbCom is a better forum to resolve such things imho. Britishfinance (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course! My idea is that this merely offers another option for Arbcom North8000 (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Could another admin please review a request by the user FTVA. I blocked them as a sock of Shaddai Wright and FTVA Official. Keep in mind, according to a (now deleted) bio this user created, they are 13 years old. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Declined the request (obviously) and removing talk page access due to that ridiculous request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks RickinBaltimore -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

In line with Template:Confirmed, would it be possible someone add a parameter to the template, so one can change "Unrelated" to their desired text? As the talk page for the said template has not been viewed since 2010 I thought it would be more worthwhile posting here, as it would get a faster reply. Thanks --DL6443 08:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@DL6443: I've put in an edit request on the page for you, as that's the right process to do this, rather than an AN post. Note that the talk page not having been visited or not having watchers won't be an issue, because TPERs are automatically added to a backlog category that's monitored by template editors and sysops. Hope that helps! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: Thanks a lot --DL6443 08:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)