Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) recently brought buddy breathing through the GA process, which AirshipJungleman29 then brought to DYK. There, reviewer Darth Stabro pointed out a few sentences that showed up on Earwig as verbatim or almost-verbatim copies; Pbsouthwood fixed them, but on re-review, Dclemens1971 found close paraphrasing in another part of the article and asked that it be fixed before promotion. Here, Pbsouthwood turned hostile, saying, Which of the very ordinary and commonly used in this context phrases highlighted by Earwigs tool do you consider too close to the source phrasing? Dclemens then proceeded to highlight sentences that did indeed lift basically their entire structure and cadence, along with a few word choices, right from the source. Pbsouthwood responded that he didn't think it was a problem, but if Dclemens did, he could fix it himself. Dclemens did not take that kind invitation to clean up someone else's mess, and so the nomination was withdrawn by the drive-by nominator shortly before Launchballer would have closed it as stalled.

If that all sounds familiar, it's because Pbsouthwood previously had their autopatrolled rights revoked by Moneytrees in response to pervasive copyright issues in his articles; a desysop was heavily discussed, but it was ultimately decided that he hadn't really had a chance to improve. I will say that even by then, he'd received multiple warnings over the years for closely paraphrasing paragraphs at a time (1 2 3), in response to which he was dismissive towards Sennecaster and the other experienced copyright editors trying to help – which is exactly what happened here as well. Despite that AN thread being two years ago, the relevant contributor copyright investigation is still open, and despite being given that chance to improve, apparently Pbsouthwood's writing has stayed the same. Yes, it's fairly technical and that can make original writing more difficult, but when you've been on notice for that long that you aren't meeting the bar, you should – especially if you're an admin – thoughtfully consider the feedback and improve where possible, even if it's hard. What he's been doing instead is continually making messes in mainspace for others to clean up – which is generally remedied with a mainspace or sitewide block, especially when a CCI is open – and being rude and dismissive towards legitimate feedback, which is more a matter for the community to decide. I'm inclined to issue a block, but I recognize that this would be a serious step and welcome the community's feedback on how these issues should best be remedied. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody's causing chronic and consistent copyright issues, that would ordinarly result in a block, they should be blocked, Admin status be hanged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get into "hanging" anyone, I think we should hear the response to this complaint from Pbsouthwood along with community feedback. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: That's sweet of you, but I think the good ship Hear His Response has already sailed, struck an iceberg, and sunk with all souls lost. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The refusal to fix a problem that has been repeatedly pointed out to him for nearly a decade is astounding. Even if Pbsouthwood genuinely doesn't believe he is putting the project at risk with copyright violations, consensus among other editors has repeatedly been that he is, and he has repeatedly chosen poor responses in these one against many situations. Admins are held to the highest standards of communication and compliance with policy. These standards have not been upheld here. Toadspike [Talk] 21:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Good grief. This sounds pretty awful. Admins, of all people, should not be playing fast and loose with copyrighted material. We are pretty quick to block users for this sort of behavior. @Pbsouthwood: I implore you to please explain why you should not be blocked and/or subjected to a WP:RECALL petition. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies. We need actually actionable dif's. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I am reluctant to step forward here. Copyvio, including close paraphrasing, is a serious matter. When fixing articles, I often look for possible sources for prose that trips my "maybe copied" sense, and I generally reword it even when I don't find a passage that appears to have been copied or copied with just a few changes. The standard Dclemens1971 applied at Template:Did you know nominations/Buddy breathing in theleekycauldron's "proceeded to highlight sentences" diff above is very high: avoidance of shared terminology and of stating ideas in the same order. It's an almost impossible standard to meet where terminological precision is important or where there's only one standard term for something (Earwig's copyvio detector has to be used sensitively; proper names count towards its percentage scores, as well as terms of art like "submersible pressure gauge"), and where there's only one citeable source or the sequence of exposition matters; when both of these are true, there's little or no space for transformative paraphrasing. I do a lot of extremely brief summarising (often expanded by subsequent editors into something pretty close to the source, or even replaced with an attributed quote in the style of a newspaper report), or I will combine details from multiple sources in my sentence and run the risk of being excoriated for ref-bombing. (And of course especially on recondite topics, radical transformation of the source information can be attacked as synthesis.)
  Pulling an example from each of Dclemens' contrasted passages, I am reluctant to label as over-close paraphrasing these transformations by Pbsouthwood:

1. all regulators were of a double hose configuration... One advantage of this design was that it made it easy for two divers in a face-to-face position to share the regulator mouthpiece to twin-hose regulators were the norm, and it was reasonably easy for two divers to share the regulator mouthpiece while facing each other
2. Lacking reserve valves or submersible pressure gauges, divers had little idea how much air was actually in their tanks to was an important skill before reserve valves and submersible pressure gauges were generally available
3. made buddy breathing a more complicated technique to complicated the buddy breathing procedure

I hope I'm not being overly lenient, but I wouldn't blink at these; I think they represent a good effort at explaining things without echoing the source text. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the standard I'm applying isn't quite that high, Yngvadottir. I definitely think it's okay to reuse terms of art if those are standard across the literature; it would be basically impossible to change the words in a term of art without changing the meaning, and it's also usually bad writing (i.e. don't change "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "past a plausible hesitation"). If you're truly citing just one short sentence in a passage, there can be few to no ways to express that idea differently (i.e. there's really only one way to say "Snoofles fetched the stick", "Doe was born on January 1, 1970", "The proposal was never implemented", or "Smith was bit by a rattlesnake"). But reusing colloquial language, reusing sentence structures when more than a few words are being taken, that isn't unavoidable.

To that point, excerpting sentences from Dclemens's examples and focusing solely on those weakens his argument, because the more you cite from a passage, the easier it should be to paraphrase. For the first one, for example, look at the full comparison, and I'll take a whack at rewriting:

Source: This technique has been used since the earliest days of recreational diving, and along with the emergency ascent (originally termed the "blow and go"), it became one of the two ways a diver could respond to running out of air at depth. Back when recreational diving began, all regulators were of a double hose configuration... One advantage of this design was that it made it easy for two divers in a face-to-face position to share the regulator mouthpiece.

Article: The procedure has been used since the beginnings of recreational diving, and along with the free ascent, it was one of the standard responses a diver could use if they ran out of air underwater. At that time twin-hose regulators were the norm, and it was reasonably easy for two divers to share the regulator mouthpiece while facing each other.

One possible rewrite: Buddy breathing and emergency ascent are both used by divers when their air is running low; the twin-hose regulator, which was standard early on, allowed recreational divers to buddy breathe from the same mouthpiece.

I do recognize that policy can be harder to follow in some areas than others, but plenty of people write on technical subjects without creating these problems, and editors are responsible for meeting policy wherever they write, difficult or not. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. As I say, I may be straying over an important line here. I'm pretty confident that my own work can withstand scrutiny for overly close paraphrasing, but it's not outside the bounds of possibility that I suck ... But looking at your attempt at a more radical transformation, I think you've made the point for me by shortening so much that you've omitted that this was the early situation: since the technical change that regulators are no longer dual-hose, buddy breathing is no longer that simple. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK definitely trained me to be pithy :) but I don't think pith is necessary to for originality, I just didn't feel the need to go into more detail than "was standard early on". Anyways, I'll stop taking up all the oxygen (heh) and let other people chime in. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I would suggest DYK has trained you to do a disservice to our readers. I agree with Yngvadottir that the radical transformation denies readers important and necessary context for understanding this topic - or at least it would have denied me someone who doesn't know about this important information presented in an accessible way. Put into policy language, I think it's entirely possible the rewrite runs into NPOV issues by failing to give WP:DUE attention to the information. It seems like Senne has identified more troubling examples below but they are ones I'm having trouble matching the article text to the source text so I offer no conclusion or thoughts about this case as a whole. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I couldn't actually spell out "twin-hose regulators are no longer standard" like Yngvadottir suggested because that would fail verification; all the source says is that it was standard "back when recreational diving began", which is exactly what I put in my rewrite. Pbsouthwood's text doesn't make that broader claim, either? My text is pithier, but I've said as much as the source says on that point, so I'm not sure what disservice I'm doing here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20230831, I see a sea of "Attributed and/or non problematic list content." by Moneytrees in 2023, and an ocean of unactioned claims. I saw one "Small rephrase", which I don't consider damning. What I didn't see was reviewed and multiple instances of improper paraphrasing, so the investigation isn't really evidence of diddley squat. I'm going to reserve judgement, but it seems like there has been a lot of eyes on this and not much action, so I wouldn't be too quick to jump to judgement. I will be honest, I didn't dive into this rabbit hole too deeply, but what I did find looked to be grey area, which can be a problem, particularly when it is an admin who should know better. So I would like to hear from Pbsouthwood before diving in deeper. As I expect admins to be accountable for every action and not just admin actions, I would consider silence the same as an admission of guilt. Hopefully they aren't foolish enough to go back to editing before responding here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  When we find more instances of copyright violations after the CCI is opened, we have to expand the entire CCI with all their edits from the date the case was opened (so over 2 years ago) to now. This is a case with lots of difficult to access sources and requires lots of time for one article; what isn't mentioned here is that a significant portion of the CCI is not completed and that the evidence found to open the CCI is beyond the amount we would normally indef a regular editor for. What also isn't mentioned here is that the ones marked off are all of the easy diffs; they're list of species that are ridiculously difficult to copyvio on, not the more technical articles like the one that triggered this complaint, or Marine construction (relevant listing) which triggered the CCI. The copyright problems listing involved conduct that I believe falls below the standard that we expect admins to be held to, and if I had behaved the same way, I would have been blocked on the spot for IDHT and not getting the point because I wasn't a sysop at the time and didn't have that protection. I understand why none of the non-admins want to work this case if that's the response we're all expecting to receive. That conduct went unacknowledged last time this was brought up (the AP revocation), and I'm not going to be happy to let that slide this time towards the kind folks working DYK. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dennis Brown, fwiw, there’s more than what meets the eye at the CCI. The articles I’ve checked off so far are ones without copyright-able prose; mostly it is lists of species names, or other unproblematic stuff like reverts/merges etc. In other words, I’m marking down the obviously unproblematic stuff before getting to the actual articles and edits of concern…. Which is a lot. The CCI has seen little work on the thousands of articles with actual prose that PBSouthwood has edited, for a few different reasons. The sources PB has been shown to follow too closely are scholarly works or books not easily accessed online; as discussed above, some of the text is OK overlap wise due to how technical it is, but enough of it is not as to warrant removal; PB makes hundreds of edits to these articles over the course of years, and often copies between his own writing, which means if there’s an issue with one article it’s likely affected others; a good deal of these articles are GAs; and you cannot just run Earwig on these and call it a day, as Earwig cannot read most of the sources PB cites and struggles with finding close paraphrasing, meaning that you need to compare sources with articles manually. So even looking at a relatively smaller edit can take a long time… and people would rather edit “easier” CCIs. In a lot of ways, this is the toughest CCI I’ve ever seen. I’ll try to work on some more concrete stuff in the mean time.

  I otherwise have no opinion yet here; I just want to fix issues and resolve the CCI. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I figured there was more than what meets the eye, but was not expecting so many edits reviewed with no concrete, clear violations. We need concrete examples presented here, without every individual participant having to dig through the CCI, plus we need recent examples, to show it's an ongoing and long term issue. Diffs and links to sources. I don't care that they are an admin, and the standard for action is the same as it is for any other editor. If the report doesn't have actionable diffs, then this is just an academic exercise and will end up getting closed without action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I see a problem, Pbsouthwood. I left a message on their user talk page, making it pretty clear they needed to come here and at least say something before returning to editing. This is a copyright issue, which is one of the few problems on Wikipedia that have potential legal consequences, so I expect any editor to take it serious. In this case, they've made over 20 edits since then. I'm right at the edge of blocking to force the discussion since they appear to be willfully ignoring the discussion, the same as I would any other editor. It's late where I live, but if I see more edits without any meaningful attempt at communicating here, I absolutely WILL block them indefinitely until we sort this out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this very clear on their talk page. It is getting near bed time on this part of the planet. We will see what the morning brings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• FAFO. I have indef blocked him until this can get discussed. Administrators have advanced tools, and advanced accountability that comes with it. This is the first time I've had to block an admin, but I'm not going to treat them differently than I would any other editor. After my final warning, they came back and made another edit, at which time I blocked. This block isn't for the CCI issues, it is to limit disruption and potential damage by an administrator with these advanced privileges refusing to be accountable to the community. If they handle this badly, I will file a RECALL petition as well. Any admin is free to modify this block without my prior approval, as the situation warrants. It is definitely bed time, so I'm out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pbsouthwood has requested an unblock in order to participate in this discussion, which they say they were unaware of until now. 🐢 a frantic turtle 14:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Dennis indicated he was off to bed, so I've unblocked to allow them to engage with these concerns. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have work and final projects to get done and instead I'm doing this. Going through these diffs is incredibly tedious, but I've found 5 that are all still live that have significant issues regarding copyright or verifiability.

• Special:Diff/1325960218, 05:56, 6 December 2025. The first paragraph added, the first and third sentences are a close paraphrase of [1] page 2 column 1. From the same source, we also see borderline SYNTH in the last sentence of the diff (page 4 column 1). The source is nowhere near as negative to qualitative analysis as the article makes it seem.
• Special:Diff/1325856325, 16:18, 5 December 2025. Same source, except I can't find anything in the source that verifies the content except for the usage of BIBS in emergencies.
• Special:Diff/1325817239. 10:00, 5 December 2025. Same source (page 4 column 2), and while individually none of the sentences are close paraphrasing, the list has no objective ordering and maintaining that order in the article is a choice as well.
• Special:Diff/1325147045, 12:04, 1 December 2025. Not all content is verified in https://weldingpros.net/underwater-welding-helmet/.
• Special:Diff/1325138858, 10:25, 1 December 2025. Not all content is verified in https://divelab.com/frequently-asked-questions/, although this is probably the most minor of the diffs presented.

Pbsouthwood can add good paraphrases of very dense sources, but more frequently than I'd like will too closely paraphrase even though there are possible rewrites. Regardless of whether or not keeping the same level of technical language is even appropriate for a lay audience who is reading our articles, I take issue with the verification failure and close paraphrasing still present and the fact that any other non-admin would have been indeffed by now. Just like at the 2023 May 30 listing at Copyright problems, there's an assertion that it was fine because WP:EARWIG said it was fine - I have not opened Earwig once in the last 2 hours it has taken me to review the most recent 150 non-minor mainspace contributions, because none of these sources or the close paraphrasing is even detectable by the tool. Just because this isn't detectable by the tool doesn't mean there is no problem. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With some help from Senne in finding the correct passage, I agree with her on bulletpoints 1, 4, and 5. The source in question is very dense so I haven't attempted to verify 2. For 3, I think there were ways to summarize that content for our readers without resorting to list form at all, but for me this falls in "writing that could be improved" rather than an ANI level content qua behavior problem. However, if this is representative of PBS editing it is, on the whole, enough to be troubling for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not noticing the notifications on my talk page until the block attracted my attention. I am willing to discuss the situation and agree that I am expected to do so, so here I am. I will mention that it is getting late here and my eyes are tired, so I do not expect to engage heavily this evening.

My first comment is that I do nor consider "Which of the very ordinary and commonly used in this context phrases highlighted by Earwigs tool do you consider too close to the source phrasing?" as hostile, nor was it intended as anything other than a straight question. I expressly mentioned that they are ordinary and commonly used expressions in that context because it is quite possible that the others in that discussion were not aware of that. On Wikipedia it is quite ordinary procedure to rephrase what someone else has written, often without even mentioning the intention to do so and I mentioned that I would not object but hoped they would manage to retain the meaning correctly. I have seen good faith copy edits that distorted meaning quite severely. As the Earwig check had reported a low probability of violation, and I agreed with its report, and I made the assumption that the recent GA reviewer also had checked and also did not consider it a problem, I did not see a problem with leaving it and similarly did not and do not have a problem with someone else copy editing it, if that is their preference. I will also mention that most of the apparently problematic terms are standard terms of art in the field, and it would seem weird if they were changed to some arbitrary neologisms or verbose circumscriptions just to avoid using them. The same terms are also used in other places in the article, also because that is the way most divers routinely express those concepts. I will try to deal with this in small chunks to avoid wall of text issues. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read through all of the diffs presented Pbsouthwood, but I think the concern is that you don't really understand the issue. Again you are saying that because Earwig didn't flag it as problematic (and because nobody else spotted it), there wasn't a problem, but if you read Sennecaster's comment directly above yours, you'll see that the concern is that you are introducing close paraphrasing issues that the tool isn't good at detecting. It seems likely that any GA reviewer would have used the tool and come to the same conclusion (especially, perhaps, since the author was an admin and therefore trusted). Using terms of art is fine, but as I read this report, I get the impression that the problem is that you are effectively taking whole paragraphs and rewording them while keeping the same structure and order of information - that's harder to detect, but still plagiarism.

Can I ask how you write articles like this? Are you looking at the sources as you do it? Are you (heaven forbid) copying from the sources, and then rewording the prose? When I write articles (it's been a while, but I do do it), I make notes - what information is contained in a particular source - and then I put the sources away and write my own text from the notes. Ideally I'll have notes from multiple sources, which helps. If you do it that way, it's quite difficult to replicate the structure etc., you are effectively forced to create your own writing. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the advice at WP:FIXCLOSEPARA is very practical and echos your advice. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The violation likely/unlikely text in Earwig should be removed from the tool, it is so prone to both false positives and false negatives, and too many (good faith) editors take its verdict as gospel.

However in this case, an editor who has an open CCI, was told at the opening of that CCI that Earwig is not a reliable tool for detecting close paraphrasing [2], and continues to rely on it anyway should just be indeffed. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the circumstances,

• If I am adding content that is sufficiently familiar, I do so and then look for a source to cite. When I find a suitable source, I check that it actually supports what I have written, and if appropriate, adjust my content to ensure that it is verifiable. Sometimes more than one source is needed.
• If I find a useful source for something that is not so familiar, I read through it to get the basic picture then leave it open in a tab and open the destination section in another tab. My eyesight is shaky so I don't have more than one tab open at a time. I then write some content from memory, refer back to the source to make sure it is accurate in meaning, and repeat. When I have something coherent down, I do a quick check for obvious errors and save, Then copy edit as more errors are noticed. Much the same for hard copy sources.
• If I find a source that differs from existing content, I generally read the source to understand the difference, then just update or make a correction from memory.

In all these scenarios, I try to concentrate on the information to be transmitted, and write it in the words which come to me naturally to express that meaning. By the nature of the topic there are many words, expressions, and phrases that are standard ways (jargon, technical terms etc.) of expressing a point. I use those because the reader who is familiar with the topic will expect them, and it facilitates effective information sharing. This is also how I used to write before Wikipedia. If the amount of new text is significant I will often run it through Earwig and adjust when it indicates a significant probability of copyvio. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pbsouthwood! Regarding your first point, I invite you to read this essay on why it is not a recommended way to write. @Toadspike's message below might sound harsh, but it is true, in that writing from what you know and then finding sources to justify it can easily lead to issues. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The essay makes some fair points. What it does not mention is that on some topics there is more scope than is covered by a few good sources by themselves and when I am aware of broader scope, it helps to put in the framework for more detailed information when I think of it, then come back to fill in the detail later. Some searching may be required, and some revision may be needed, depending on the sources found, but less is accidentally omitted. As most of the low-hanging fruit (in the context of diving) has already been picked, this type of editing is now seldom possible anyway. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me the issue with writing an article that way is that you're not really honoring what NPOV requires, in terms of what to cover and what not to cover from sources. Almost all my GA work has been in Children's Literature where I often know enough that I could write a lot of the article before I start. I actually find it extra incumbent to instead look at what the sources say, and in what proportion, to ensure I'm not doing any OR but instead providing neutral, reliably sourced, information for our readers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some PbSouthwood edits in Children in scuba diving. I

To keep this focussed on the close paraphasing issue, I re-arranged the paragraphs and bullet points of the source text, and trimmed some of Pbsouthwood writings that I couldn't verify in the cited source (eagle eyed viewers may be able to spot some more). To keep the eye focussed, I bolded overlapping text and underlined sentences that are, from my perspective, much too similar. (Also copy-edited a few OCR-esque typos out) The underlining in this case is just as important as the bolding; some bolded overlap is obviously fine (like the proper nouns, set phrases), but, when looking at all the text, I think it should be clear to all what the issues are.

I do understand that many find it harder to write in more technical areas; however, I come from a mathsy background, which is about as technical as you get. An identity matrix is an identity matrix and there's only a few standard ways to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. And yet comme ex ungue leonem - to insist that just because this is a technical area means there is no creativity in the source text is insulting. And there's no reason for Pbsouthwood to write as he does - to copy-paste large segments of the source text (Special:Diff/1323050387) then remove parts so it no longer flags on Earwig.[4]

Disclosure: I actually first saw this from Yngvadottir's post about defense offsite, but I haven't actually checked back since. I'm considering myself recused from !voting or signing on anything; I present the above diffs merely for other people to see the extent of the issue. Also, I'm currently going through a bout of vertigo - migraines are fun, aren't they? - so apologies if I've messed up any diffs, links, or bolding.) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• (sorry for the length...) First of all, thank you very much GreenLipstickLesbian for the examples that were laid out so cleanly and clearly. Now, I have to say that in my opinion, this isn't exactly a smoking gun, although it is worrisome. When writing technical information, we are somewhat limited in how we present the information, which is often very linear in nature. What I see here appears to be good faith effort to summarize the information in the same linear fashion, in the same "speak". Is it a little sloppy? Maybe, and maybe I'm being just a little forgiving because it's technical writing, which is difficult to summarize. I have reviewed several other edits, and I find overall (imho), Pbsouthwood's edits are too dry/technical for the average reader and maybe that is the problem. With all due respect, it isn't the most readable prose. The edits are just as technical as the sources instead of being tailored for the lay reader. Personally, I aim for writing in a fashion that a bright 8th grader can understand. Perhaps preserving the technical "feel" of the sources is his undoing here. Bring it down to lay level makes it a little more verbose but more accessible. Short version: Right now, I'm reserving judgement, although I get it that others (in good faith) may see these examples differently. I'm not sure what the solution is at this moment in time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure of the solution either. I know it's probably unreasonable to expect all admins to be as diligent about cleaning up potentially problematic content as former admin BOZ - [5] who, after the issues were surfaced, has been exemplary; they were incredibly responsive and went out of their way to rewrite their old articles!

  And so I think being forgiving is a good thing - I would say though, that at least in the fist example, the Divers Alert Network and the Professional Association of Diving Instructors do a very good job at writing their material for a lay reader. That is to say, it's not as technical as it may appear, at first blush - they're a list of questions for nervous parents about to let their precious kiddiewinkles into the big scary ocean. It's obviously sacrificed accuracy at some points - when's the last time ADD has been its own diagnosis? - but that all appears to be in an attempt to make the material understood by the target audience. (Though it is a shame that clarity is not reflected in the Wikipedia article)

  So yes - I'm not sure of the solution, but at the end of the day, we all are responsible for our own edits and assessing our own skill levels. I can't write medical or chemistry related articles competently, so I don't create them. I don't speak French, so I don't write BLPs reliant on French sourcing. I can't follow NPOV on specific articles, so I don't edit them. I'd hope that, if I repeatedly caused problems in any of those areas, that the community would step in to save the articles from me, even if they recognized that I was writing in good faith, or doing my best in a difficult area. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 12:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Having looked at the examples presented by Sennecaster and GLL, I am now almost as worried about the failures of source-text integrity as I am about the copyright issues. The explanation given above makes it clear how this happens: "If I am adding content that is sufficiently familiar, I do so and then look for a source to cite." Toadspike [Talk] 12:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that's how experts work. I would submit that it isn't problematic from a NPOV/OR perspective where the subject matter is agreed history (like the evolution of strategies for when a diver runs out of air at depth, and the changes in the equipment that are the context) or where the set of concerns that need to be satisfied is generally agreed, maybe even a matter of legal requirements/certification (like the checklist for allowing participation of a child in diving). In many respects it's better—including less likely to produce overly close paraphrasing or poor choice of citations—when the editor knows the stuff cold rather than first learning it in order to teach it. The disadvantages come from internalised bias or ignorance, as when there are different conceptual frameworks/terminology elsewhere in the world or a different expert/academic perspective that the editor may not even be aware of. (I would hope that that kind of thing is much more prevalent in more theoretical or speculative areas of academia than in areas of expertise that concern practical and safety-adjacent matters, like diving.)

This has become a really interesting and useful discussion, and the different perspectives are illuminating the tension in our unusual kind of writing: we're charged to accurately reflect the preponderance of reliable sources, without echoing them too closely and without bridging gaps in a creative manner. Multiple editors have taken the time to present concrete examples with markup, and Pbsouthwood has explained his method of working. And Dennis Brown has also spent time looking at the CCI. I see now that Theleekycauldron also returned with a further response to my critique. The one thing that I'll note is the advisability of combining sources and cited passages: the point about dual-hose regulators no longer being standard, which theleekycauldron didn't find in the cited source on the historical situation, was in the bit about buddy breathing having been complicated by the change, and in its cited source passage. Clear exposition may require separating the history from the current practice, or the early history from the later history, but there's nothing wrong with adding a citation covering the connection between the two, in order to make that connection explicit without a failure of referencing, and indeed such telescoping or interweaving of things taken from different sources or different pages in one of the sources facilitates getting away from over-close adherence to each source (slab of material clearly based on Source A, slab of material clearly based on Source B ...). Writing it up clearly and then adding source references is the best way to do that! But you do have to stuff the chinks very carefully with refs. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Yngvadottir in saying that often, an expert is going to simply write something they know to be true, then go find sources that support it, then modify it a bit if they got a detail wrong. This isn't any different than I've done in the past in areas I would qualify in. The problems that I've run into is that it is sometimes hard to source every nuance, so you have to settle for sources that more or less support the bulk of it. If you are actually an expert at something, sometimes things might appear to fall under WP:BLUE to you, while others would disagree and would tag it for citation. It's just the nature of writing, and it's easy to tag stuff. But all this isn't related to the issue at hand, which is already complicated enough, and I feel like it is a distraction. Now, if there is a pattern of multiple sources not remotely touching on the topic at all, that is another issue, but I don't think we need to go fishing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pbsouthwood, you have had a CCI open for a couple of years now, and people have presented fairly convincing evidence that the concern with your editing is reasonable at some level. I think you've participated in good faith here, but you see the problem differently. In fact, I would say, everyone here sees the problem differently, some as it being somewhat minor and some as being very major. I find myself in the middle, seeing as a real problem that can't be ignored, but one that could be fixed IF (big if) you fully grasped the concerns, but I don't think you do. I don't think you're dense, I think you genuinely see it just differently, as a very minor thing or not as a thing at all. That gives us NO path forward. We have a stand-off. I would like to think I'm pretty experienced at dealing with WP:AN/ANI type issues, and I'm not afraid to boldly make the call even when consensus isn't perfectly clear, but I don't have a solution here. I've put a great deal of time and thought into this case over the last few days, and I'm stumped.

I'm think this needs an Arbitration case. Not because a lack of willingness to discuss or any personal animosity, nor a desire for "punishment", but because we simply can't find a solution, and Arb's role is to settle issues that the community can't solve. This has gone on for a couple of years now, and we are no closer to a solution than on day one.

I suggest someone (respectfully) file a case at Arb, and let them decide if this truly is a problem. I think a panel of experienced editors with the authority and power to make a final decision on the behavioral aspect is what we need in this case. I don't see any bad faith by anyone, but I am 100% convinced there is no way we are going to be able to generate a clear consensus on such a complicated issue here, so it will continue to fester and get nasty. It has already caused one block that was avoidable.

That's my solution: Ask Arb to intervene, because I don't think we can get enough participation and objectivity to find a clear consensus anywhere else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea; I'd be recused anyway, obviously, so I can put together a filing and post at ARC, unless someone else would rather write it up. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron, I think you would be the most likely candidate, having more background with the history and familiarity with Arb expectations. Ping me if/when you do. I don't think I have much to offer, other than providing background and rationale for why Arb needs to review (ie: the community can't solve this), but will participate as needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All righty, I've gone ahead and submitted the filing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who believes something written by User:Pbsouthwood violates WP:COPYVIO (including WP:CLOP) may, without warning, delete the offending text, with WP:0RR applying to Pbsouthwood, i.e. he may not restore the text. He may request that the text be restored by posting on the related talk page an explanation of why WP:COPYVIO does not apply.

Have I missed a diff of Pbsouthwood reverting copyvio/CLOP removal? If anything I would expect this is a de-facto standard for all editors, so long as the removal is in good faith the RD1 request should be left for an uninvolved admin to action (as the template says). This restriction doesn't do anything to ensure Pbsouthwood isn't adding copyvio to the encyclopedia and sinking hours of time for the editors who have to clean up after him. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting removals has never been the issue here, although other editors do revert copyright cleanup efforts enough that it isn't something we consider rare. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. it was just an idea. RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this misses the mark and doesn't address the core issue. It does demonstrate what I've experienced, which is to come up with all kinds of ideas of how to deal with the problem, just to find they all miss the mark as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would strongly prefer we keep this report OPEN while it is being considered at WP:ARC. If it is accepted at Arb, then there is no point in keeping it open. If Arb does not accept the case, then I think that we don't need to start over, and should instead discuss it. So please don't archive yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for transparency that both Mar-A-Lago face and Republican makeup were nominated for deletion by an editor, through comments by User:Jimbo Wales on User_talk:Jimbo Wales#Face. Might not be a bad idea to eyeball/watch these pages and AfDs, given the potential of partisan rancor, and any amplification of any of this via Wales becoming involved.

AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mar-a-Lago face
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican makeup

FYI. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for fuck's sake. Do we need to TBAN Jimbo from AMPOL? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both AfDs have been closed by a non-admin as "snow keep". • a frantic turtle 🐢 18:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy (and most others in fact) have pretty wide latitude to say whatever they want on their own user talk pages so long as it isn't mean. Two AFDs speedy kept submitted by someone who isn't Jimmy falls into the nothingburger category. Izno (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't blame Jimbo for someone else construing their opinion as a "do my bidding", with a 2-day delay. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I blame Jimbo for continuing to say dumb shit about NPOV and working people up over political culture wars bullshit. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JIMBOSAID and WP:QUOTEJIMBO should cover this tbf. CNC (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Arab–Israeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmedis not extended confirmed, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. Participants are limited to 1,000 words per formal discussion.

Israel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Cremastra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: Coining (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 23:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User_talk:Cremastra#Closure_review

Reasoning: WP:BADNAC situation 1 (which says "The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial".) The closure also uses phrases like "completely ignoring", "not constructive", and "rather disappointed" that are not neutral in tone, which though not inherently required is probably advisable for a contentious RfC closure. Coining (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC) -- Further explanation of the reasoning has been subsequently added by me below under Discussion. Coining (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to requests to go beyond the closer being a non-admin, I'll note first that it wasn't the sole reason presented in the initial reasoning above -- the above comment notes that the wording in the closure could be viewed as disparaging and that undermines the argument that views of editors were seriously considered, and more generally this discussion of an especially contentious topic, interacting with what might have been the single most contentious RfC on Wikipedia in the past year, is an especially important one to be handled by an administrator. This goes well beyond saying that the close should be undone merely because the closer wasn't an admin.

Beyond the above points, having had more time to look at the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Requests for comment, I'll note that the scope of consensus is an issue with the close. Instead of relisting the RfC with a request that opposing editors specifically address this RfC assuming that the Gaza genocide RfC was sacrosanct/not subject to change in this RfC (despite WP:CCC), arguments that the closer objected to, the close wholesale rejected a main thrust of many opposing arguments. A better approach would be to ask for engagement with the more limited scope of what change to make, if any, if the RfC at Gaza genocide was binding on the Israel article, rather than closing the RfC without the closer believing that the discussion had been fully engaged. Something like 40-45% of editors were opposed to this RfC; they deserve more than to be told that a policy like WP:CCC is in practice inapplicable to this situation and that they were essentially foolish for trying to make the argument that it is. More generally, the criteria states Editors should consider not only whether their assessment of the consensus is correct, but whether the discussion might be better closed by an administrator as a matter of form. This point also implicates the the need for closure criterion.

Related to the nature of the question criterion, the closer selected one editor's proposed alternative language, entered it into the article, and effectively seems to have locked it in behind a closed RfC. Attempts to edit this sentence in the article will be met with arguments that it cannot be changed without a new RfC. This is not the question most editors thought they were responding to. An alternative approach would have been to relist the discussion with a request to respond to the proposed alternative language, but that's not what this closure allowed.

Note: I had originally posted this addendum below in the Discussion, as I wasn't sure of the proper procedure, but I have been encouraged, now by multiple editors, to list it here now for easier reference. Coining (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write a detailed response tomorrow, as I don't have time right now, I think my views are made sufficiently clear in my comments in this section and my replies elsewhere but in the interim I'll make a couple notes:

1. Discussions aren't votes.
2. I see nothing "non-neutral" about identifying poor !votes as poor !votes, if this is done civilly.
3. WP:BADNAC shouldn't be raised purely on the basis that the closer is not an admin.
4. Interpreting the widely advertised and well-attended Gaza genocide discussion is as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not seem to me a very accurate approach; secondly, oppose !voters could have provided specific arguments as to why the Israel article should not be consistent with the main article on the Gaza genocide. Instead, many of the oppose !votes relitigated the past RfC. I noted this in my close.

Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another note about the localcon question:

It is unreasonable to expect a major change in a central article on a topic not to affect other related articles. If we note in our beetle article in wikivoice that beetles are one of the largest and most successful groups of insects, we could reasonably assume similar remarks to be made in other articles.

In this case, the claim is very controversial, so RfCs and caution are necessary to be applied. But we should still apply a degree of consistency after the central article on a topic has been subjected to a major change – a type of change, I'll note, just in case anyone accuses me of bias, I twice urged the project not to adopt. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 03:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re Extraordinary Writ ‒ I don't think I overcompensated, but I would say that, wouldn't I? I did not participate in the most recent RfC on the Gaza genocide, the one that put genocide in wikivoice, which I think is the most relevant change. In real life I'm genuinely conflicted as to whether what Israel is doing amounts to genocide, which is why I set out to close this, as I don't have strong leanings either way. I listed the diffs above as an automatic shield against editors accusing me of rampaging anti-Israeli bias, because this is a contentious area and feelings run high.

The Venn diagram of "editors interested and able to close the RfC" and "editors who have not participated in past discussions on the question" has a very small intersection; I think it's impractical to require that the closer really just needs to be completely uninvolved in the dispute. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close: You didn't read the last sentence of BADNAC: "In non-deletion discussions, a non-admin closure should not be challenged solely on the grounds that the closer is not an admin" (emphasis added). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, you haven't pointed out any actual flaws with the close other than saying some language are not neutral in tone, which, as you acknowledge, is not a requirement. Do you have any actual arguments about how Cremastra's weighing of consensus is incorrect? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  With regard to my question, if the answer is yes, you should discuss any issues with Cremastra first (as is required before opening a close review) and only then open a new close review if there's actually a valid reason to do so. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Without weighing in on the merits of the challenge, I don't agree with this reading of BADNAC because it would render it basically toothless (outside of deletion discussions, at least, which have special rules). By this logic, any close challenge based on the BADNAC criteria (user is too inexperienced, topic is too contentious, close will require administrator to implement) would be considered challenges based "solely on the grounds that the closer is not an admin" and dismissed, which would thwart the intent to, say, prevent non-admins from closing a discussion with a consensus to CBAN. I read the line to mean something more narrow, like "a close should not be challenged just on the basis of it being a NAC (but it could still be challenged on the basis of being a BADNAC)". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I read the line to mean something more narrow, like "a close should not be challenged just on the basis of it being a NAC (but it could still be challenged on the basis of being a BADNAC)".

  That's how it came accross the me that voorts had read it. TarnishedPath^talk 04:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, I disagree with the application – the challenge says this close is a violation of BADNAC#1: A non-admin closure may not be appropriate in any of the following situations: ... The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial. if we agree on the reading of BADNAC that the last line doesn't exclude BADNAC challenges, invoking BADNAC#1 should be enough to survive Voorts's challenge here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please also see my discussion comment below where I begin by explaining why my initial reasoning wasn't solely on the grounds that the closer is not an admin. Coining (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think my reading renders it toothless, and I think it's a bit absurd to say that my logic would lead to non-admins closing CBAN discussions without us having recourse to immediately reverse that. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  if you want to provide a rationale for that position, please do; if not, i'll just take your word for it instead of burning the time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See my response to Coining's new reasons below. This is still not sufficient reason to overturn an RfC and it wasn't discussed with Cremastra before this close review was opened. The point of the discussion requirement is to see if things can be worked out before dragging the community into this. In any event, there's still no argument being made that consensus was incorrectly assessed here, which is telling. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you suggesting that this discussion should be closed and a new discussion needs to be opened? What do you think it is the path forward here? We can either keep this discussion open or it can be closed, we can continue to discuss with the closer and then start a new discussion. I hope the answer isn't close this one as malformed and final. Also note that two editors did raise closing concerns on the talk page before this discussion was opened. Springee (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think people need to stop litigating this issue, particularly if they're not willing to present any evidence that a genocide has not occurred or contend with the fact that almost all genocide schoalrs/experts call this a genocide. The community has already rejected the vibes-based arguments being made in opposition. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Editors did argue those points in the RfC discussion. Editors did present sources that didn't agree this was a genocide etc. You say the community has rejected the opposing view but that RfC was decided by a head count. Are we counting heads or not? If we are, then this RfC is clearly nocon. If we aren't then the other RfC needs to be reopened. Springee (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The claim that it was decided by head count is factually incorrect. The head count was the cherry on the cake, that's all. M.Bitton (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Then why did the closer note the head count? Certainly you aren't trying to claim that across 29 editors no valid objections we offered. If the closer didn't find them, well that would be yet another reason to overturn a clear 50/50 split RfC. Springee (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the objections (based on an issue that has been settled) carried no weight whatsoever. M.Bitton (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on what, your opinion? What about the supports that said, "per other RfC", are you going to say they also don't count? The closer didn't address a number of the arguments and deferred to the prior RfC which was closed with a head count. Springee (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue of the Genocide in Wikipedia's voice has been settled through a very lengthy and well attended RfC. If some editors want to keep banging on about it, they can, but that won't change a thing. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A RfC that was closed based on a head count... the sort of thing you have said shouldn't happen. Springee (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  First, it wasn't based on a head count. Second, if that's your objection, you should've raised a close review for that RFC. Third, how that closer closed that RFC has no bearing on how this RFC should've been closed. Drop the stick. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 M.Bitton (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are missing the point. In that closing, a closing we are expected to adhere to on a separate RfC, head count was a primary justification. Here we have a very clear NOCON per head count as well as all the for/oppose arguments made during the discussion. Yet, we are told that head count doesn't matter this time. I don't disagree with the use of a head count in the previous close. That is on those who are waving the NOTVOTE flag. Springee (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But the other RfC did not use head count as a primary justification. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per the closing, "Option 1 was favored in more than a 2:1 ratio, and this determined the outcome." Springee (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What you're doing here is the definition of WP:CHERRYPICKING. M.Bitton (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I'm reading the closing. That was a closing that acknowledged arguments on both sides yet said, based on the numbers the result is a consensus for option 1. We might as well accept that we aren't going to convince tone another and move on. Springee (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't asking. M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, I closed the previous RFC, and I can say for sure that it is incorrect that it was closed on the basis of a simple counting of votes with no consideration to policy or sourcing.

  Consensus is neither determined 100% of the time by counting votes, nor 100% of the time by policy. As Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus points out, there are situations where it's unclear which policy should determine the outcome. In these cases, counting votes resolves the question. The previous RFC close had a long passage (before the part quoted) explaining why this was a situation where the vote count mattered. It was a question of whether the reliable sources for a given claim met a certain threshold. Because the answer is not obvious from policy alone, the participants had thoughtfully discussed exactly this core question at length, and the closer is not entitled to a supervote, the last step of determining the outcome was to count votes. -- Beland (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I'm not saying you only counted votes. Instead you had sound arguments on both sides of the issue (same as this RfC). When the relative merits are equal a head count makes sense. In this case the merits were the same if not stronger for the oppose side because an academic paper had come out specifically calling this a controversy. In this case the head count was 50/50. If a head count was the ultimate tie breaker last time why not this time? Especially given the extremely controversial nature of the claim and NPOV staying that Wikipedia doesn't take sides. Honestly, in RfC you closed I would have said 2:1 is just the threshold for consensus by a head count and given the nature of the claim error on the side of no consensus would have been an equally valid close. Springee (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, you said it and repeated it multiple times.

  Since when "a paper" can contradict a raft of rock solid RS? M.Bitton (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You said numbers don't count. Clearly they did per the close. You invented the part about me claiming it was only numbers (I never claimed and would reject that view). Springee (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Multiple editors responded to your baseless assertions (about the head count). M.Bitton (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is pointless to reply to you since you fail to understand that I never claimed headcount alone is the deciding factor and you posts don't show that. At the same time you have, falsely, said that headcount doesn't matter when clearly it did in the previous close. I would suggest we stop replying to one another since I don't think either of us will change the other's mind. Springee (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The closes are different because the second RFC raised a consistency question which the first did not. You can think of this close as either 1.) finding the headcount was not 50/50 after discarding weak comments that did not engage the new concern, or 2.) finding there were not good arguments on both sides, so it's not a context where a headcount should be used to resolve the question. In the previous RFC, both sides more substantively argued the core sourcing question. -- Beland (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with discarding weak comments is it presumes the weak comment was the only reason the poster agrees with. Consider a hypothetical where editors argue to include a contentious claim about a BLP subject. One person argues against based on BLP policy. A second editor says the new material reads poorly. The second reason isn't a good reason for removal even if it is a good reason for at least changing the added text. However, discounting their !vote without asking if that is the only reason they object is an issue. It's quite possible they agree with the BLP concerns but want to further the need for removal with the second claim. In this context, a number of editors only said, "support" to keep the two articles consistent. Should we discount their votes because they didn't address any of the concerns regarding if this was a NPOV violation? The mix of the questions represented in the answers is, in my view, a good reason to look at both RfC's together. As a hypothetical, if say 100% of the supports, also !voted in the other RfC and 100% of the opposes did not (as a fact I don't think this is true), that would add 29 opposes to the prior RfC head count. The previous RfC was about 80 editors with a bit more than 2/3rd in favor. Call that say 55 to 25 (again, numbers for argument sake). With an additional 29 it would be basically a 50/50 split. If that were the ratio of the last RfC would you, as the closer, still have called it consensus? I do think this is a case where wikipedia needs to show caution and not weigh into the debate by picking a side (per NPOV). Springee (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Springee, if my word counter is to be trusted, you have breached the 1000-word limit by 1,171 words. Please stop replying here and strike/hat your most recent comments. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do I have the option of striking others? I would prefer to keep the stronger comments vs some of the back and forth ones (and this one would go as well). Springee (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, personally I do impute the strongest arguments from each faction to everyone who identifies with that faction, on the assumption that people won't repeat arguments that have already been made. In this RFC, it appears the "oppose" faction as a whole was simply left with no strong arguments.

  Some closers do drop any comment that doesn't explicitly make an argument, either directly or by reference. If you think there should be a guideline against that, I recommend starting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Consensus or similar. -- Beland (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Beland, I went through the trouble of combining the two RfCs, 130 editors !voted. First, it was interesting that there were just 18 editors in common. The editors in common favored "in wiki voice" 2:1. When both sets of results are grouped and editors in common are given just 1 !vote, the result is 79 to 51. That results in a 1.54:1 vs 1.93:1 for the Gaza RfC. I've seen 2:1 used as the consensus by numbers. If these groups were combined, would you have still closed as consensus? Also, given the rather limited overlap between the groups I would be concerned about treating an article level RfC to justify a site wide result. Springee (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Springee: you are way above the 1000 words limit, please refrain from making further comments. FYI, striking the comments to comply with the restriction doesn't reset the counter. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I count 528 words over the limit, accounting for strikes. @M.Bitton, striking the comments to comply with the restriction doesn't reset the counter – where is that said? Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, that makes sense, but I don't remember reading it anywhere. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

  Perhaps we need clarification. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it' said anywhere, but that's what I gathered from the various AE discussions and their 500 words limit restrictions. The bottom line, if someone has reached, or exceeded the limit, it means that they already said too much and should step back. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Precisely. The point is to prevent editors bludgeoning discussions, not to allow bludgeoning, unbludgeoning, then rebluegeoning. If you've gone over then respectfully please step aside, and if you want to participate in discussions for longer, engage less frequently. The spirit of the restriction is as important as the letter here. CNC (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ARBPIA5 introduced word limits to formal discussions. See WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) for details. Once that limit is reached editors should disengage permanently from that particular discussion. Editors should be aware of the limit and economise their comments in formal discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 04:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  how are editors supposed to tell if they have reached the word limit besides people telling them? Is there a way to check? GothicGolem29 (Talk) 04:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep a record of your replies and put into a word doc or similar. CNC (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close/Endorse per Voorts. Frankly we don't have enough admins to expect that all closes in CTOP areas are conducted by admins. TarnishedPath^talk 00:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close per voorts and TPath. We don't need to discourage future participation in the process with these overly bureaucratic reviews. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 01:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• a type of change, I'll note, just in case anyone accuses me of bias, I twice urged the project not to adopt — I know I may not be in the majority on this, but I do think that's a problem. There's no WP:INVOLVED exception for actions running contrary to a previous position, and I think that's for good reason: while it may not have happened here, it's very easy for a closer to consciously or unconsciously "overcompensate" for their previous actions/biases, and I've definitely seen that lead to suboptimal decisions in the past. Especially in such a contentious area, I think the closer really just needs to be completely uninvolved in the dispute (and I do think the two discussions linked fall within the same dispute). Overturn and reclose. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No adequate reason has been provided for the closure to be overturned. An admin closure isn't required, especially not if the question here is fundamentally the same as that of another admin-closed AfD. Cortador (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What? No adequate reason? Sorry, when you have 62 editors reply and it results in a near 50:50 split you need to have a very good reason to call that anything other than no consensus. Springee (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a vote. M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct, it's not a vote. However, suggesting that 29 editors gave answers that should be ignored in favor of the replies of 32 others suggest a super vote rather than a careful weighing of the issues. If not a vote is the issue then why did the previous close, the one that seems to be the justification for the closing here, specifically mention a 2:1 !vote in favor of the outcome? ("Option 1 was favored in more than a 2:1 ratio, and this determined the outcome." [6]) Why do numbers matter that time but not this time? Springee (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  !Votes that don't carry any weight should be ignored. That's how RfCs' results are determined.

  What previous close? M.Bitton (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See the close for the RfC that, per this close, decided for all of Wikipedia that this should be called genocide in Wiki voice (see link next to the quote). Springee (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Was that close challenged? If so, what was the result of the challenge? M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems like a moving goal. It's logically inconsistent to say we can't consider numbers here and should instead base this closing on a previous closing that was based on a head count. Springee (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your conclusion is based on a misinterpretation of another close (that mentions the NPOV policy in its first sentence and the enormous number of sources that have been presented). M.Bitton (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Gaza genocide close said, and I quote, Option 1 was favored in more than a 2:1 ratio, and this determined the outcome. The closing admin has twice referred to the result of the Gaza genocide RfC as a "supermajority", indicating it was decided by a vote (see here and here); they have also referred to it as an "enlightened poll" (here). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't need to quote anything, especially if you intend on cherry picking sentences out of context. I understand that you don't agree with the consensus (you made that amply clear), but hat's not a good reason to keep banging on about. M.Bitton (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You said to Springee that Your conclusion is based on a misinterpretation of another close. What is your interpretation of the close? If I had to guess, it'd be something like "a sufficient number of reliable sources have been provided to support the wikivoice phrasing." Would that be an accurate description of your views? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What I said doesn't anyone's interpretation. The only worth saying at this time is: attempts to circumvent the consensus will be noted. M.Bitton (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You didn't answer my question. And to respond to your accusation of consensus-dodging, I have not edited the Gaza genocide article since December 5 and I am not planning to make any edits to it or the Israel article that could be considered controversial in the near future. If I do try to circumvent the consensus despite this just let me know and I'll self-revert. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - In the current political environment, more topics are contentious and contentious topics are becoming moreso. Even if it could be argued that a close was not technically perfect per BADNAC, I think there must be another good reason to overturn. And as Cortador says, particularly if the same subject was admin-closed previously. I don’t see worthwhile reasons for taking editor or admin time for another shot at closing this with a different result. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note that you !voted in the Gaza Genocide RfC. Springee (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could be that I !voted in another RfC. Although I can't find it. And I'm not going to get into a lengthy back-and-forth with you. My statement above is all I have to say about this filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In the "Gaza Genocide" RfC you !voted to put it in wikivoice [7]. (18:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)) Springee (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)added link Springee (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You could just note it yourself and provide a link to the diff. -- Beland (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ahh, A briefly stated !vote back in August on another RfC. I'm so embarrassed. I may have miscounted; but it looks like you have now stricken 21 of your own posts in this section. Perhaps using a bludgeon isn't the most effective policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - It appears to me the close is a good one. I make no judgement on the matter under dispute, merely the merits of the close, and commend the non-admin for stepping up. Jusdafax (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. A non-admin close in CTOP is wrong, and in this situation the logic is not straightforward. LidDahl (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse good close. For the record, I am a non-admin and I have closed 16 RfCs on articles under CTOPs/GS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close/endorse; I am not impressed by efforts to dig up separate rationales to overturn this close after being challenged appropriately by voorts. The second original objection is weak sauce. Even if valid, that bears no objection to the actual result of the close, which was good, per-policy on not weighing !votes not considering policy/the previous Iseult ^Δx talk to me 17:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn This was simply a bad close and objections have been raised at the closer's talk page. Due to limited time at this moment I will only provide a high level summary with an understanding I would like to add to my reply later. A simple place to start is that this RfC had 62 !votes by my quick count. 33 support, 29 oppose. If we assume any sort of reasonable arguments on both sides then this can't be reasonably called anything but no consensus. SuperPianoMan9167 opened a discussion with the closer here [8]. The closer seems to hang their hat on the idea that the Gaza Genocide close was well attended and thus should have decided the issue across all of Wikipedia. However, this RfC was also well attended. Using that logic, this RfC should now carry across Wikipedia. Of course, RfC's at the article level can influence content in other articles but they don't dictate it. It might be interesting to combine the results of the two discussions and see if the influx of editor who weren't involved with the first would have swayed the earlier result had they participated. Given there are reasons to challenge this beyond it was a non-admin close in a very contested area, I would say that one should also apply here. Springee (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close this challenge, but open a new one Although I did not !vote in the RfC, I made so many comments on it that I cannot consider myself uninvolved. The given reason for overturning the close does not apply, as correctly stated by editors above, but there are other issues with the close (besides it being a controversial NAC) that I raised on Cremastra's talk page. If the issues with the close cannot be resolved there, then a close challenge is warranted. Voorts stated it perfectly in this comment. Accordingly, this specific close challenge should be discarded and a new one written up that specifically addresses issues with the close itself if they cannot be resolved via discussion (such as whether or not it was a supervote, or if there are problems with the closing language). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC) I give up. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

As an example of issues with the close, consider this quote:

Most oppose !votes failed to respond to these points and instead argued broadly against identifying the genocide as such in wikivoice at all, either discarding or completely ignoring the consensus that emerged from the past RfC. This was not a constructive approach, and regrettably I gave little weight to some oppose !votes which appeared to be for an RfC that had already happened.
If you think the best argument the opposers can come up with is "well, uh, the preceding RfC was flawed, because I disagree with its outcome" or "we shouldn't be putting that in wikivoice because x", then I'm rather disappointed. They could have far better arguments than that.

This reads not as a neutral summary of the discussion but as an argument that most oppose !votes should be completely discounted because the result of the previous RfC is binding. That is not a valid argument. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a valid argument. The prior RFC was open for over three months and advertised at T:CENT. This one was open for one month and not advertised to the entire community. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaza genocide RFC, by its own words, only applied to the article Gaza genocide and not to any other articles. I do not think that an RfC on one article that did not explicitly state it applies to all articles can be used as justification for making the same controversial change across all articles. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperPianoMan9167 See my response in the section above. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 03:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. However, I do think that a bit more caution is necessary in such contentious topic areas. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caution should most certainly be taken. That's why we had an RfC, nearly the highest level of discussion available to us. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 03:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why have a RfC if you are going to close it based on a different RfC? Springee (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the RfC was held as a direct result of this ANI discussion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of poor !votes, an significant number of supports barely said anything more than "per Gaza genocide RfC". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get that consistency across articles is important, but a large number of comments all making the same argument can quickly become unhelpful unless consensus is obvious (in this case, it wasn't). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that !votes which say "per (editor xyz)" were strongly discouraged, or maybe even "not to be considered". Am I wrong? David10244 (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If editor xyz is giving a good WP:PAG argument and you agree with it, I personally see absolutely no problem with saying per xyz. TarnishedPath^talk 13:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute agreement here ^ Springee (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed I see no issue with that. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I get that consistency across articles is important, is it? This seems to be true from a commonsense perspective, but is this thing many of us assume is an important objective written down anywhere in policies or guidelines? Does anyone know? Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSISTENT officially encourages making titles consistent across articles.

Making factual claims consistent across articles seems to be one of those things that is too obvious to write down, but we do have infrastructure to support that task, like {{contradicts others}} and Category:Articles contradicting other articles. -- Beland (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is entirely obvious in a multi-agent system like Wikipedia. It strikes me as more of a choice. If you think about statements in different articles that address the same specific subject as if they are competing to optimize something, let's say the various policy compliance requirements, the process of editors (with their individual source searching and sampling biases) nudging things towards better compliance over time relies on allowing some variation, mutation etc. across the project. I think imposing/enforcing cross-article consistency probably works well when there is not much variation in what sources say about X. When there is a lot of variation, maybe cross-article consistency isn't such a good idea, or at least it might have unintended consequences. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continued at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Benefits of inconsistency. -- Beland (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we really should write a guideline on consistency across articles. Just add a sentences somewhere to something existing. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend starting a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), where there isn't a word limit nor a contentious context. -- Beland (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we should be consistent across articles. However, that raises issues when a decision is made in article A which now isn't consensus in article B. For example, should a subtopic article RfC become consensus for the parent article? What if the original RfC was not well attended (obviously doesn't apply in this case), would the consensus of a few become the new consensus for all? One of the concerns in this RfC was if the original RfC should count across all of Wikipedia or if it's an article level consensus. In general, a RfC at a specific article is a consensus for that article only. Part of the reason for that is to avoid special interest articles dominating primary articles. A previous consensus in a previous article should count for something but, unless the RfC is really site wide, it shouldn't be seen as applying to other articles absent a consensus at those articles. Springee (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and started Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Consistency and consensus for both of your questions. -- Beland (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't offer an opinion in the RFC, but I did leave a couple posts so I'll put this here. In the event this discussion isn't speedily closed, I think Cremastra's analysis of the !votes in the RFC may be of interest. I'm also the one who posted the closure request, if that matters. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and speedy close. As voorts rightly said, the OP hasn't pointed out any actual flaws with the close. M.Bitton (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. While I beleive they should have made a neutral closing statement as said above it is not required and NAC is allowed in this area so that is not a reason to overturn. As for the close reasoning, having read Cremastra's analysis of the !votes in the RFC I can see why they weighed certain !votes lower so in terms of the decision on consensus I see no reason to overturn. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are the participants of this close review under the 1000-word limit of WP:CT/A-I? if so, I think this should be explicitly stated somewhere. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • PIA usually is, yes. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I support an overturn to no consensus, but SuperPianoMan is correct that this should have been fully approached on the talk page first. I dont think the closer is not neutral or supervoted, and they provided a lengthy assessment of each contribution, which is above and beyond for a closer. Their concern about consistency is important, but that should probably have been cited in the closure of no consensus referring to a broad community RFC for a global consensus (or that it should be localized, which I think there may be a case for). Given that we are already here, its probably pointless to procedurally close what is inevitably ending up here. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn --- BADNAC: "The non-admin is involved in the discussion, or otherwise has an actual, potential or apparent conflict of interest that could cast doubt on their closure."

• ---Closer has been making edits on this war since 7 October 2023
• ---Closer created the page War crimes in the Gaza war on 21 October 2023
• ---Closer has previously stated "Given that the ICJ has not yet ruled, it is still in question." in reference to a genocide description. As of today, the ICJ has still not made a ruling. LDW5432 (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the second point, the "creation", was an administrative split agreed upon on the talk page, not an independent action and not an original creation.

Making copyedits to the article on the war does not constitute a conflict of interest, nor does having opinions on the topic, as practically every human alive who isn't living under a rock has some opinion on the topic. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 04:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reeeal stretch. The closer was not involved in the discussion and there is no actual, potential or apparent COI. If anything, you've provided evidence that the closer has historically been sympathetic to the other "side" of the debate, which supports the objectivity of the close. WillowCity^(talk) 14:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we even doing this? I can't imagine a rationale here that doesn't just effectively amount to restating the arguments made during the RfC itself (e.g. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which was discussed in the RfC), which is explicitly not the point of closure review. To me it feels like we're just dragging it out. casualdejekyll 20:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that most parts, if not all, of the Reasoning listed for this closure review above are not points that could have been raised until after the closure occurred (and therefore are not restating the arguments made during the RfC itself, but please let me know if things I wrote there are duplicative of the RfC. Thanks. Coining (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The close seems perfectly acceptable. David A (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. This is clearly one of the most controversial topics in Wikipedia these days, and a non-admin close was totally inappropriate to begin with. Furthermore, as has been mentioned, the closer uses non-neutral language. There is an entire conversation taking place in WP:GENOCIDE and a non-admin taking a position here is out of line. Nehushtani (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: I am not convinced that this was a BADNAC. Cremastra did not !vote in the RFC, so they are not involved in the discussion. Administrators may be preferred for more controversial closures, but they are not required when the close doesn't involve an administrative action (ex. an AFD discussion where there is consensus to delete an article). This close was likely to be controversial no matter who closed it with what result. The use of neutral language also isn't a requirement. The question of whether the RFC at Gaza genocide should apply to Israel was discussed in the Israel RFC, so I would consider further comments on the matter to be relitigating the discussion, which is not what close reviews are for. As has been said by others, consensus is not determined by a simple headcount, but by the strength of the arguments, so it does not matter that the headcount was an even split. I believe that Cremastra accurately found that some arguments held more weight than others, and determined consensus that way. Chess enjoyer (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, for the record. The closer gave a reasoned opinion on why they gave certain arguments greater weight than others. You might disagree, but that's not decisive. I !voted in both RfCs on the topic (to the extent that's relevant), out of commitment to NPOV, which rejects WP:FALSEBALANCE. But as other editors have pointed out, this is not the forum to relitigate the underlying issue, which I believe has been canvassed thoroughly and appropriately resolved. WillowCity^(talk) 19:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A response to @Springee's argument. WP:DETCON is not a WP:HEADCOUNT. Quickly going through the !votes, I saw a not insigificant number of editors who were in the objecting camp who had arguments along the lines of 'the ICJ or ICC hasn't convicted'. If I was closing I would have disregarded any such arguments. We don't base how we describe things on the basis of what the ICJ or ICC does, that would be original research. We base how we describe things on the basis of what reliable secondary sources state. TarnishedPath^talk 02:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's not a head count. However, when the head count is 50/50 you need a strong reason to find something other than no consensus. The closer didn't find that strong reason beyond, "well the other one was closed as consensus". Since you are going to dismiss some arguments on one side, are you going to claim all the "supports" all have valid claims? Springee (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I stated, I quickly went through. I didn't conduct a full analysis. However, GothicGolem has linked to Cremastra's analysis above. TarnishedPath^talk 03:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• RE @Springee: The closer seems to hang their hat on the idea that the Gaza Genocide close was well attended and thus should have decided the issue across all of Wikipedia. However, this RfC was also well attended. Using that logic, this RfC should now carry across Wikipedia. The Gaza genocide discussion was advertised at T:CENT and remained open for several months. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And this one came after that RfC and had a different result. How many people don't follow notices from T:CENT? Regardless, if this were say a RfC with just 5-10 participants, sure. However, this one was not far off the other one in terms of participation numbers (I think the other was 80 vs 62 here). Both are large enough that neither should be seen as controlling the other. Springee (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to User:Cremastra on neutrality. I do believe the closing statement was not neutral as you expressed your disappointment with the arguments made and also said this quote" "well, uh, the preceding RfC was flawed, because I disagree with its outcome". Both the uh statement and you stating your own disappointment is not neutral and goes beyond explaining the weight of the arguments. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 03:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Re @Cremastra: It makes sense that the Gaza genocide RfC must be overturned at Talk:Gaza genocide, and I see your point about major articles getting similar changes, but a quick scan of the Gaza genocide talk page shows a lot of what could be considered status quo stonewalling. Just look at discussions like this one, which involved an edit war over the inclusion of a {{POV}} template, and this one, which came out of the previously mentioned discussion; disputes have been going on for three weeks over just the infobox. (I know infoboxes are controversial, but there's been a lot of unproductive bickering going on regardless.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• In response to requests to go beyond the closer being a non-admin, I'll note first that it wasn't the sole reason presented in the initial reasoning above -- the above comment notes that the wording in the closure could be viewed as disparaging and that undermines the argument that views of editors were seriously considered, and more generally this discussion of an especially contentious topic, interacting with what might have been the single most contentious RfC on Wikipedia in the past year, is an especially important one to be handled by an administrator. This goes well beyond saying that the close should be undone merely because the closer wasn't an admin.

Beyond the above points, having had more time to look at the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Requests for comment, I'll note that the scope of consensus is an issue with the close. Instead of relisting the RfC with a request that opposing editors specifically address this RfC assuming that the Gaza genocide RfC was sacrosanct/not subject to change in this RfC (despite WP:CCC), arguments that the closer objected to, the close wholesale rejected a main thrust of many opposing arguments. A better approach would be to ask for engagement with the more limited scope of what change to make, if any, if the RfC at Gaza genocide was binding on the Israel article, rather than closing the RfC without the closer believing that the discussion had been fully engaged. Something like 40-45% of editors were opposed to this RfC; they deserve more than to be told that a policy like WP:CCC is in practice inapplicable to this situation and that they were essentially foolish for trying to make the argument that it is. More generally, the criteria states Editors should consider not only whether their assessment of the consensus is correct, but whether the discussion might be better closed by an administrator as a matter of form. This point also implicates the the need for closure criterion.

Related to the nature of the question criterion, the closer selected one editor's proposed alternative language, entered it into the article, and effectively seems to have locked it in behind a closed RfC. Attempts to edit this sentence in the article will be met with arguments that it cannot be changed without a new RfC. This is not the question most editors thought they were responding to. An alternative approach would have been to relist the discussion with a request to respond to the proposed alternative language, but that's not what this closure allowed. Coining (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no obligation to relist an RfC. Cremastea didn't invent the argument that the other RfC controls out of thin air. The fact that editors didn't respond to those arguments in a convincing manner and instead made virtually no argument other than "I don't like it" and "the ICJ/ICC haven't ruled yet" is not the closer's problem. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True. There were bad opposes like this one and this one. It is also true that many oppose !votes did, in fact, make valid responses to the idea that the other RfC controls (see this comment and this comment). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They did, but the general consensus clearly did not lean in that direction. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phirazo's argument was not a valid response. Let's go through it point by point:

• This is a general article on Israel, and it should take into account opinions beyond academia, especially since academia is at least perceived as having an anti-Israel bias (for example, Harvard's Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias) Genocide isn't a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact. The fact that experts on genocide overwhelmingly call it one cannot be answered with "well, politicians and journalists say differently!" It's also ironic to assert that academia is biased against Israel by citing a source from a task force that is itself biased in favor of Israel.
• The idea that there is an academic consensus should explicitly cited, not implied by Wikivoice. The primary source given is Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate which is a WP:SYNTH of academic sources. If it can't be used in the article, it can't be used to justify Wikivoice. This is a ridiculous argument. How else do we determine if there's academic consensus without looking at what academics have to say?
• It is easy to find sources in reliable, non-academic sources that the war in Gaza isn't genocidal (The New York Times, for example, is willing to run a piece called "No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza"). Bret Stephens is not a reliable source for what is or is not genocide.
• The debate exists, and the text should reflect that. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the denials of genocide should be excluded from this article. It's also prominently featured in the lead of the Gaza genocide article.

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Genocide isn't a matter of opinon it's a matter of fact". People can and do have opinons on if something is or isn't a genocide all the time so it can be a matter of opinon before court cases rule on it then it becomes a legal matter(though Wiki of course goes by what reliable sources say rather than looking for what is a fact.)

I agree they are not a reliable source.

"I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the denials of genocide should be excluded from this article. It's also prominently featured in the lead of the Gaza genocide article." This argument from what I have seen is more that the articles statement on genocide should reflect the debate stating what scholars etc rather than using wilivoice on it not that scholars who disagree that it is genocide are not included in the article. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of intention beyond a reasonable doubt is obtained all the time in criminal cases. It's usually based on statements made or actions taken that could not be reasonably interpreted as consistent with any other intention. (For example, shoving someone off the roof of a 100-story building is compatible with the intention of murdering someone, but not with the intention of "just scaring them", and a video can determine whether the physics of the action were compatible with an accident, an intention to dangle near the edge, or an intention to fully push them off the roof.) -- Beland (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of bludgeoning or exceeding a word limit your last two comments put you over the 1000 word limit. Please self-revert both of them. M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: I'm sorry. Do you know by how many words I am over so I can condense my comments to meet the limit? I don't think I can remove my own comments now that people have replied to them. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubscribed from the topic. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not arguing that court cases are the only way to determine facts, only that telepathy is not the only way to determine intentionality. -- Beland (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Motive" and "intent" are different things. No one is reading minds. The sources are applying fixed legal standards to the evidence. Editors, bound by the weight of the sources, picked a wording consistent with NPOV, which requires us to acknowledge the reality of genocide in Gaza, as the sources do. Anyway, all of this is beside the point, because the question is whether the close was fine, which it was. Simply disagreeing with a conclusion is not grounds to challenge it. WillowCity^(talk) 23:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Coining: I think it would be a good idea to add this additional reasoning to the main reasoning section above. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I wasn't sure I could. I will do so now. Coining (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They already added a note about it, and others have replied to the "further explanation". M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New contributors to this discussion will benefit from seeing the full reasoning up front. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty they can read the note that says Further explanation of the reasoning has been subsequently added by me below under Discussion.. M.Bitton (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would have been more useful and more cordial if you had, at most, deleted that note rather than deleted my extended explanation in the section above. Being an editor coming to the Administrators' noticeboard is intimidating enough as is without having my edits reverted. I don't even understand the point about others having already replied to the further explanation being a reason for deleting my extension of the Reasoning, because those replies would in any case be below in later subsections given how this page is organized. Coining (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having a note and the same "extended explanation" in two places feels like an attempt at ramming something down the readers' throats. M.Bitton (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all what it was; it was an attempt to put the information in the most useful place once I learned that was allowed and when publicly recommended by another editor, just a few comments above this one. It's not "ramming" when a news organization puts a story on both its homepage and in the section devoted to news articles on that topic. It's being helpful to readers. I didn't accuse you of trying to silence me, though I easily could have, so please don't assert that I was in any way close to the disruptive editing practice of bludgeoning. Coining (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many participants in this discussion are saying "no valid reason given for close challenge"; I don't think you intended to open a close challenge solely based on BADNAC #1. I think you should re-add the extra reasoning to the top. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it shouldn't have been removed. It would be appropriate to indicate it was added after the original opening. Springee (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had done that when I readded it originally. I will restore. Coining (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a critical question is, would this close be different if it were considered absent the other recent close? One of my concerns here is this is basically a 50:50 split. A number of editors say that doesn't matter since NOTVOTE says it's not a numbers game. However, the previous close specifically said, " Option 1 was favored in more than a 2:1 ratio, and this determined the outcome." [13]. The previous RfC was closed based on a head count. Why do head counts not matter this time? Springee (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @SpringeeHeadcount *can* be useful if its overwhelming in one direction and most of the !votes on both sides are good. A 50:50 !vote split does not necessarily mean that there is no consensus, if, as in this case, many of the !votes on one side are poorly reasoned.

  Secondly, and more straightforwardly, your claim that the other RfC was closed only on the basis of headcount is out-and-out false. If you read the closing statement you can find out the set of reasons the closer found there to be consensus one way. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  When you have a 50:50 split you better have a damn strong reason to decide head count doesn't matter. You didn't provide much beyond, "well that's how the other one closed". I didn't say the other RfC was based only on head count but it was clearly a big part of the close. There were also arguments on both sides. The same is true here yet you ignored that. I'm sorry, this could easily be confused for a super vote. That is absolutely not the sort of close we should have for such a contentious issue. That is why the best way to handle this would be to have a panel close rather than a nonadmin close, especially one that is questionable. Springee (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't "ignore" the oppose !votes, I just gave some of them less weight because they were relitigating an old issue and weren't pertinent to the discussion at hand. It's a fairly bold type of closure, I agree, but so is picking one proposed alt text and flying with that rather than the original proposal, and no-one's complained about that. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You did ignore them yet you didn't ignore "support per other RfC" arguments. If you want to mix the results then actually mix the results and evaluate the two as if they were a single RfC. I know that's a bit unorthedoxed but better than making a mess of something like we have here. Editors did argue the case in the discussion. BTW, it's also bad form to assume that an editor who provides an argument you don't like doesn't also support the strong arguments. Again this is why head count shouldn't be just dismissed as you did. Springee (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you asking them or telling them? M.Bitton (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As an editor disagreeing with that RfC's consensus I suppose the only way to change it is to make a new RfC, as Beland's close was reasonable. But how soon is too soon? How long does it take for proposing to change a recently established consensus to not be disruptive? And I'm sure many will oppose a new RfC on the grounds that "the situation has not changed", which was also one of the most prominent arguments made in that September RfC. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe we should take it to AE and find out about what you're suggesting as well as what consensus means. M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As the closer of the previous RFC, I can say for sure that it was not closed simply based on headcount. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus says the use of headcounts in closing can be good or bad depending on the context. Sometimes they are used straightforwardly to resolve questions like which policy should control, but in other cases the tallying is strongly influenced by discarding bad arguments. Sometimes headcount is completely ignored, based on the policy context. (I recently closed a libel RFC as "not subject to consensus".) The first RFC close had a long explanation based on policy and reliable sources presented about why that was a situation where a counting of votes was the last step in determining the outcome. This RFC has a different context, because it raises questions of consistency, rather than a from-scratch question about source consensus on a factual claim. It makes sense that it's not judged in exactly the same way. -- Beland (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I have never claimed it was only a close on the headcount. My read is the arguments on both sides were effectively 50/50 thus the close was decided on headcount. In the case of this RfC we had largely the same arguments but a 50/59 head count. If the previous close was ultimately decided based on a head count, and this one has the same facts but a different headcount, why not use headcount again? If we are going to say "for consistency" then we should pool all the replies from the two RfCs and see if headcount still carries the day. Consider this, if we put the claim in Wikivoice and are wrong, then it's discrediting to Wikipedia. If we attribute the claim we cannot be wrong since clearly many have made the claim. Springee (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You did say that RfC was decided by a head count. M.Bitton (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Funny how it's a misrepresentation of the facts when I quote the closing that it was decided on headcount, "Option 1 was favored in more than a 2:1 ratio, and this determined the outcome.", but you think you aren't misrepresenting me by claiming I mean only headcount. Which is it? You certainly aren't consistent. At this point I've already, clearly, said it's not only that but clearly the closer said that was the decider. It is pointless to argue with you since you don't seem to care about about these pesky facts. Springee (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you didn't (as you are now claiming), then this whole "head count" thing is just a strawman argument. M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please, no personal attacks. If you don't have anything to say about the merits of the question, please just don't say anything. -- Beland (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by uninvolved Jtrainor The very fact that there was even a vote on this in the first place is a bad joke and an absolutely awful look for Wikipedia. The fact that large amounts of antisemitic FUD generated by partisans out there on the internet is being held up as 'reliable sources' for something that is just objectively not true and being done for the purpose of POV pushing, and y'all are just letting it happen is a dark day for Wikipedia. These people should have been sat on from the start because this is just an apocalyptically bad look for Wikipedia. I fully expect to be punished for pointing out the Emperor is, in fact, not wearing clothes, but I just wanted to get my two cents on the record here so that it is understood just how eye rolling and damaging to the already shaky credibility of Wikipedia incidents like this are to normal people and the general public.

Jtrainor (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an extensive list of academic sources at Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate. Though some of them might be problematic, it's implausible that all of them should be dismissed as "antisemitic FUD generated by partisans out there on the internet". -- Beland (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Given WP:NACPIT's admonition to Avoid closing a discussion if you have a strong opinion on the topic, I'll raise @Springee's observation: "Based on this edit summary, Cremastra appears to have their own personal opinion on the topic, "especially refusing to call the genocide in Gaza as such" [15]". Coining (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a casual phrasing in an edit summary, not a statement of opinion. Cremastra said above they are conflicted about the label. They have previously made remarks calling the label "in question", so I see no evidence personal bias resulted in an unfair outcome. -- Beland (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The question is less why I'm referring to wikivoice consensus in edit summaries and more why Springee is scrutinizing my most recent contributions for... something. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's realistically impossible to find a closer who has absolutely no "personal opinion" on the topic of the close. Just like how judges in courts have their own personal views as humans. That's why NACPIT refers to those with strong opinions (i.e., opinions that could interfere with objectivity). The question is whether there is reason to doubt the (real or perceived) integrity of the process. In this case, there isn't. WillowCity^(talk) 15:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I don't know. Psychopathy is about an order of magnitude more common in prison populations than general populations, so maybe that would be a good place to look for closers who are completely indifferent to human suffering and therefore have no personal opinion about this kind of topic. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You can find closers who have no opinon whatsoever though a lot of the time they will have some opinon so I do agree why it says no strong opinon. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you can find closers who profess to have no opinion whatsoever, but I genuinely question the extent to which that's actually possible. Maybe if the close is for something really technical, like applying MOS:FLAG; otherwise, I don't see how a properly-informed closer could have absolutely no personal opinion whatsoever, especially in a CTOP. WillowCity^(talk) 18:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For sure technical is one of the places a closer might not have an opinon on the close but I am sure in closes at XFD and RFCs there are topics some closery have no opinion on as they do not follow or looked into it and their main response in that area is to vlose based on the discussion. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've closed RMs I have no opinion on. But in a CTOP, lack of opinion is extremely rare. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough I can imagine in a CTOP it would be rare not too have an opinon. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 19:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• MoonknightPP34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MoonknightPP34, formerly YeetaSkeeta, is writing to request unban. They are WP:3X-banned, since they were caught for sockpuppetry by CUs on multiple occasions after their initial block. They initially made an unblock request at the end of November at User talk:YeetaSkeeta2. They have not completed the standard offer, but I can say that I have found no evidence of recent sockpuppetry beyond what they admit to in their appeal, and on the present account they have not continued the behaviour that got them blocked the first time. See User talk:MoonknightPP34#Previous unblock discussions for related discussion.

Too all the community. I would like to address my previous sockpuppeting and mistakes over the years on the site. I made various accounts in order to edit the page, I was naïve, unwilling to learn and disruptive. I just wanted to edit and escape from stress I was going through in every day life and I unfortunately reflected that in my editing and my responses to people who were trying to help and was plain rude and annoying which I deeply apologise for. I kept making accounts to 1) edit 2) I was being petty after getting banned twice previously which is a stupid angle and not supported in any way on this site. I came back on this account to get back to editing and forget my pettiness and silly mistakes of the past. I wanted to come back and actually make constructive edits on this account here which was inevitably found out, I then made more accounts to continue my editing and that alone when I know I should of just taken the standard offer and waited. To the community and the admins I am truly sorry. I know I shouldn't have done any of this, but it was and still is an escape from reality, an excuse to put passion into something as a hobby. I have taken a deep look at my accounts, how I acted and what I did and would like to move forward on only this account and no others in order to keep my editing passion alive. If you, the community would rather I take the standard offer that is understandable and I will but if you can find it in yourselves to forgive and allow my to move forward and accept this request then that would be deeply appreciated. I now know the extent of what I did and I am sorry to every person in this community for doing what I did and it will not happen again. The accounts I have used previously are YeetaSkeeta, YeetaSkeeta2, GuruOfSpeed, MasterChief280, MickyJFan6790, RedactedUser300, Spooderman6920, Spooderman6920no1. I last used a temporary account/ip account a couple days ago on the 26th Nov and have not edited since

Thanks in advance to all for the consideration. -- asilvering (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock: That block appeal looks pretty good so far. They've learned from their previous mistakes and understood that they should've held back; however, to prove regain of trust they'll need to do the 'when to restrain, wait for feedback, listen to others' thing on a consistent basis to stay unblocked. Self control is an important trait during adversity, but I'm pretty confident they can do it this time. 🌻 A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 06:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock per above. This may be a good way to restart. Always listen to the instructions. I still have problems on and off-wiki, so welcome back. Ahri Boy (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose with regret. I do think that this editor is well-intentioned, but there are a couple key points that make me really want to see WP:OFFER be successfully followed. First, there was direct deceit involved, with this editor explicitly lying about sockpuppetry, just three months ago [16], [17]. Second, phrases like I just wanted to edit and escape from stress and but it was and still is an escape from reality are red warning sirens about their discipline. Given these points, and the fact that their last block evasion was just over two weeks ago, I think that WP:OFFER, which is a crucial demonstration of an editor's self control, is absolutely necessary in this case. I would very likely support a similar request after six months. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per CoffeeCrumbs. I don't see anything that suggests we should give an exception to the usual standard offer. Their most recent edits were on 10 October as User:MasterChief280, which is only two months ago. The previous day they argued that CheckUser is an invasion of privacy [18]. This editor needs to show us that they can follow instructions and have sufficient self-control by actually taking a full six months away from the site. Toadspike [Talk] 10:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Per below, most recent edits were on 1 December as YeetaSkeeta2. Toadspike [Talk] 18:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike, that wasn't socking. That was them making a block appeal. -- asilvering (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and I called them the "most recent edits", not socking. I left the correction to explain to future readers why my number ("two months") differs from the numbers given below ("three weeks ago", "two weeks"). I'm guessing @Compassionate727 and @Ivanvector based those on the last edits by YeetaSkeeta2, not those of MasterChief280. Toadspike [Talk] 20:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the clarification. I based my comment on their comment in the block appeal that their most recent edit was logged-out on the 26th of November. I took them at their word and didn't investigate further, but that is sockpuppetry. Posting a block appeal isn't, and someone told them they needed to log in to their original account but they said they lost access to it. Creating a new account with a similar name in order to post an appeal is a reasonable response to that. I would have suggested they use whichever account they wanted to use going forward, but let's not confuse things more. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the account they've decided they want to use going forward. I can confirm also that I did WP:CHECK and believe their account regarding their TA edits in their unblock request to be truthful. -- asilvering (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Coffee. Long history of sockpuppetry with the latest only three weeks ago. Six months minimum is a must. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at this time - my opinion is that the standard offer recommends waiting six months but does not require it, and blocked editors should feel free to appeal whenever they believe their appeal has a reasonable chance of succeeding. I would be willing to entertain this after a reasonable amount of time has passed, but it has been two weeks since they last evaded their block. That is barely the length of time I normally block first-time sockmasters for, and this user has been socking for several years. This is reading to me as an ongoing problem with impulse control, and I would like to see a longer period of time respecting their many blocks as a demonstration that they'll respect our other guidelines if their block is lifted later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per CoffeeCrumbs - My view is that repeated socking requires a lengthy block. Jusdafax (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is too soon. This editor just socked recently and needs more time to prove that they won't do it again. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Yeah, nah, they've edited as a sock this month. TarnishedPath^talk 07:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that the User:YeetaSkeeta2 account? If so, it feels a little harsh to consider that socking since all they did was submit an appeal & were redirected to their original account to try again.

  If there are other edits/accounts then OFC that's a totally different story.

  For the record I agree it's a bit too soon overall, but feel it might be a bit unfair to include that account. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Blue-Sonnet, if you count "this month" as December, yes, that's unfairly harsh for the reason you describe. If you count "this month" as "within the last 30 days", they've said I last used a temporary account/ip account a couple days ago on the 26th Nov and have not edited since. -- asilvering (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point, thank you! Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATeahouse#Mass_Revert_Request , my recent edits of categorising KML templates has inadvertently broken their functionality on pages, however I've made ~10,000 of these edits, leaving the manual reversion task unfeasible to rollbackers and ordinary users. Can the AN offer assistance? Thanks. SID 'Gingerfool' RAT ☎ 00:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For admins here, as I said at the Teahouse, I do not know if there is a better place for this (perhaps WP:BOTN), but I do know admins can perform more rollbacks and tag them as bot edits, which is what I hope we can get here. win8x (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What tool did you use to make these edits? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on rolling back these edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rolling back a bunch too. Mass rollback makes it easy for those history pages with only the template edits. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing that from the oldest edits. I limited the contribution history to the template namespace and checked the current edit box. I then reload the page and continue. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I went from the newest and hit you in the middle. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) SID 'Gingerfool' RAT ☎ 00:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI for future reference, User:Tamzin/scripts/massRollbackWithBotMode.js to add a mark-as-bot button next to the regular mass rollback one. (Only works for admins.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I just did it by hand - open up a few tabs from the Uncategorised Templates list, paste the category, save the page, continue. SID 'Gingerfool' RAT ☎ 00:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How could you have possibly done several a minute, minute after minute, by hand? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I just put TV in the background and entered a flow state. It was quite relaxing, so its a bit disheartening to see that it's got to be undone. SID 'Gingerfool' RAT ☎ 00:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you decide to categorize templates? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the Uncategorised Templates report and that there were a load of similar ones (Attached KML), figured that they probably needed categorising, then went from there. SID 'Gingerfool' RAT ☎ 01:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd thing for a new editor to do. Have you ever edited Wikipedia before? Also, I suggest you stop editing templates while this AN thread is open. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited TARDIS Wiki (Doctor Who wiki) a decent bit before, and done some Wikipedia, I figured it was an easy way to contribute without having to do too much thinking per se - every edit could be a simple paste of a category. I've stopped editing templates now as I've realised that the list probably comprises ones that would break otherwise. SID 'Gingerfool' RAT ☎ 01:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you try some content editing instead of mass-edits to templates. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: 1) Wikipedia is set up differently, so while you may know wiki syntax, what may be an innocent edit on TARDIS could be a mess here (as you found out), 2) Wikipedia is much larger, so errors here have greater consequences, 3) the rate of edits can change a minor annoyance into a major problem, so never do a bunch of rapid editing without lots of testing beforehand--this applies to all sorts of automated/semi-automated editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on technical evidence they probably did it all by hand without any automation tools. They did edit every three seconds, which is unusual if the preceding statement is true. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did it by hand, just using things like keyboard shortcuts to speed up actions, but I'll be honest I don't think I have the know-how to make any kind of automation that would come close to working! SID 'Gingerfool' RAT ☎ 01:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah edits like this aren't the best idea. I have actually encountered new users doing mass-editing like this before, but not on that scale. Nice work on the mass-reversion; Listen to Wikipedia makes that sort of thing so much more fun. I've checked for edits by the user under discussion not tagged as reverted, removed the category from Template:Attached KML/New York State Route 17, and tagged both Template:Attached KML/North Downs Line/doc and Category:Attached KML templates for speedy deletion. Graham87 (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of editors have popped on my Watchlist up in the last few days adding pronunciation audio files of Nigerian biographies - any idea what's going on? GiantSnowman 18:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by this edit summary by one such editor who's otherwise been adding a bunch of audio, I'd bet it's related to WP:AN/I#Editor overlinking, using odd link format, with cryptic edit summary "#STEMART" ^LaffyTaffer💬(they/she) 18:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Useful, thanks! GiantSnowman 19:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Regarding edits by account @Orchardsalt

This fairly new account is being used pretty much solely to change categories of pages from Catalonia to Spain, and sometimes replacing references to Spain with Catalonia within the actual article itself.

There is obviously some contention within Spain regarding the prospect of Catalonian independence, but categories should not be used as political statements and subnational categories don't replace national ones by default. With all due respect to anyone's personal political ideology, Catalonia is recognised internationally as a region within Spain.

If the page is about a place which is in Catalonia, Spain, it would of course make sense to *add* the category, but to be going through and systematically also removing the Spain category (or other references to Spain as opposed to Catalonia) on a high number of pages is almost certainly politically motivated.

Some diffs below but there are more examples if you look through their page

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igualada_Leather_Museum&diff=prev&oldid=1328033984

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fabra_Observatory&diff=prev&oldid=1328181165

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CN_Montju%C3%AFc&diff=prev&oldid=1328181571

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arc-voltaic&diff=prev&oldid=1328182935

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quaderns_de_poesia&diff=prev&oldid=1328183448

RufusLechuga (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a little late where I am so I'm not going to start what I can't follow up on, but it looks like they need an indef block and nuke all contribs. The speed of the edits makes this look a bit planned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC) It appears I was very mistaken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Spain and Catalonia political issues, but the edits by Orchardsalt listed above appear to be consistent with WP:CATSPECIFIC:

Each categorized page should be placed only in the most specific categories to which it logically belongs, and subcategories should be categorized under only the most specific parent categories possible.

For example here Category:1944 establishments in Catalonia is a subcategory of Category:1944 establishments in Spain and so per the guideline, it is best practice to remove the "parent" Spain-category when adding the "child" Catalonia category. In other words, strictly by the guideline, no page should be both Spain and Catalonia-related categories; this assuming the Spain category is the "parent" of Catalonia category. It's a common issue I just got through explaining on my own talk page. DB1729^talk 13:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping User:Dennis Brown. DB1729^talk 19:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; in most cases, categories such as "Foo in/of Catalonia" should be the only categories articles are listed under, not "Foo in/of Catalonia" and "Foo in/of Spain". There are some cases where both would be appropriate, but these would be edge cases. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there are certainly edge-case exceptions and I could've worded that better.

Looking at this again, I notice RufusLechuga's original post suggests Orchardsalt's edits were made by someone motivated by the prospect of Catalonian independence. I see the opposite. Orchardsalt's edit are not only consistent with category guidelines, they are consistent with someone who views Catalonia as an integral region of Spain. Compare to an edit of mine from a while back to the article List of Florida state legislatures. I removed a general United States politics-related category, and replaced it with the more specific Florida politics-related category. I hope no one thinks I support Florida independence because of this;) DB1729^talk 00:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, certainly no block is warranted in this case. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, glad I didn't act, as I trust the above comments are a more educated view of the situation. At first glance, I can't help but see what looks like an orchestrated effort to cause trouble. It would appear I was wrong. My apologies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you @DB1729 especially for explaining here. My mistake. I had seen a similar issue not too long ago which was disruptively editing for exactly this reason and I'd thought wrongly that this looked to be the same thing. RufusLechuga (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:RufusLechuga, understood. I have reverted one revert of yours, the one highlighted as an example in my first reply. But beyond that, I have made very little effort to determine if any other of Orchardsalt's edits were mistakenly reverted. Are there any more? DB1729^talk 16:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...cont. I took a longer look and there doesn't appear to be any more. Thanks all. Glad this was settled with virtually no harm done. DB1729^talk 16:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that's it but I'll double-check and revert I'd needed RufusLechuga (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Greg Biffle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we get one of yall on Greg Biffle ASAP please? need protection fast Electricmemory (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:RFPP. This is not the place for page protection. Toast1454_TC 17:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toast1454 Responses there tend to be not fast. Rampant fast vandalism is going on on that page at the moment. Electricmemory (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism. It's a content dispute. Toast1454_TC 17:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing somebody from alive to dead without any source is a BLP violation and vandalism. Electricmemory (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with BLP, I'm going to read over it again. Toast1454_TC 17:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a BLP issue. Semi'd two days. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Electricmemory (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• List of ethnic groups of Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm trying to revert this page to the last good revision, but I keep running into the spam blacklist. Some help would be appreciated here. Thanks. Sugar Tax (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like this was taken care of already, and the page is protected as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, something might still be off. The last revision before today was in January and brought the article to 17,750 bytes while the edit by Joyous! brings it down to 17,233 bytes.

Might need some more repair to fix things. (Though, the fix might not be to revert as that ref seems like a url shortner, which might have been mistaken as additional vandalism.) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the last edit reverted the inclusion of the docdro.id URL, not sure how it was put in though without flagging the filter. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:39, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked! They said they just used rollback. I kept hitting the filter, too. Joyous! Noise! 01:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found the NIH cite anyway, so I'll put that in. More importantly, how did the original slur get in? I'm surprised it's not covered by a filter, and if it isn't, should it be? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They did in fact trigger multiple filters. Some of which blocked the edits, other which warned/forced a captcha. There's a tradeoff between trying to block every possible variation of a slur (which vandals will inevitably adapt to get around), and having broader filters which detect vandalism early for quick blocks. --Chris 02:53, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please move Assassination of Osman Bin Hadi back to its original title December 2025 Bangladesh violence. The move was done without any discussion by a new user. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and move protected. Any interested party is encouraged to open a discussion as to what the best title might be. Star Mississippi 02:09, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi, it doesn't seem like the talk page was moved? Its still at Talk:Assassination of Osman Bin Hadi, and the current talk is a redirect to Talk:Bangladesh post-resignation violence (2024–present). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @45dogs. I need to read tick boxes and not edit while tired Star Mississippi 02:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{checkuser requested}} See [52] and previous contribs of AwerDiWeGo, and last few edits to talk page. Email if needed, not disclosing more due to IP restrictions but it's a little obvious as to potential connection. I had tagged on his page, but I get the feeling that the category isn't really followed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, CUs cannot connect IP addresses to named accounts. -- asilvering (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asilvering You can see if a TA is the blocked user logged out and repeating their last edit before being blocked, however. That is what I was asking, if they are the same person, and evading their block and talk page access removal by logging out and posting as a Temporary Account. If that is the case (and there is sufficient evidence to at least check), then there is a reason to modify the existing block a third time. ie: block evasion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They can't publicly make the link, but they can block bad hand LOUT IPs: WP:CUIPDISCLOSE. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They can block AwerDiWeGo for a longer time if they are evading their block. I feel like I'm not being understood here, but I understand how it works. I'm saying block evasion by a TA is the concern. [53] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:29, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dennis, I was actually replying to Asilvering rather than you, in agreement with your request, but the indentation has gone sky west and crooked, as it were! —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I could block, but I would feel better if a CU took a peek. I'm trying to not connect too many dots, but there are a few different reasons to think they are the same person, Asilvering, and I'm erring on the side of not geolocating previous edits by the named editor. We certainly CAN CU a TA if we have sufficient reason to think it is a blocked user, which we do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown Just wondering, how would you describe the difference between roughly geolocating the editor by looking at their edits and a CU much more definitively geolocating an editor through the technical logs? And why are you uncomfortable with the first but not the second? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, pages with an active {{checkuser needed}} get added to the SPI table, so it is generally sufficient to get CU attention. Also, I doubt asilvering is trying to say that this is a check that can't be performed – I understand him to be (very much correctly) pointing out that responding to this sort of public request in a way that avoids implicit disclosure is a rather hard thing to do. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's as if they were answering a question that had not been asked. Still, as long as AwerDiWeGo is warned for obvious logged-out editing (or possibly more than warned, since the TP comment was a continuation of the same personal attacks they are already blocked for), this thread will have served its purpose. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A warning is woefully insufficient, assuming they are linked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But you'll have to do that on behaviour now, for the reason Blablubbs and I have described. -- asilvering (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's suggested otherwise. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a CU, but  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Blocked the TA for evasion and given ADWG a sterm warning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:07, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]