The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

← Archive 104 · Archive 105 · Archive 106 →

Hi Daniel. I know my suggestion for term lengths hasn't been very popular, so I just thought I'd drop by and tell you that you have my gratitude for signing up to the trial. At present, I don't see it going forward, the mountain does look a bit too high, but I really do appreciate you putting your name forward. Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: No problems at all. I absolutely agree with the principles behind the proposal, and I hope to see something similar instituted in the future by the community. Daniel (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lucciano Pizzichini. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Smerus (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou your WP:REFUND to User:Djm-leighpark/Compass Travel recently. I am firmly of the opinion the talk page is married to the article and can I request you also refund Talk:Compass Travel to User talk:Djm-leighpark/Compass Travel in the interests of consistenetly. When complete I will neutralize project assements while not in mainspace and add the appropriate Template:Old Xfd multi. While I can create a fork of a new talk page this is not best practice as it hides and previous talk discussions. Thankyou. Also I have noticed when completing your closure of Compass Travel you removed lines in some articles which was inconsistent with other practice on those lists. Thankyou.15:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)

@Djm-leighpark: Talk page undeleted and moved. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not so long ago you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography on "delete", and deleted Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography accordingly. In the mean while, an RfC on the discography included in Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 has been closed ([1]), and the discography list included in that article has been trimmed accordingly. So, the WP:CONTENTFORK rationale that led to the deletion of Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography no longer exists, and I would like to ask a WP:REFUND for that list article, or, in the case you can't grant this request for one reason or another, some guidance on what I should do to get this moving. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: acknowledging I have seen this. I will need to do some detailed reading around this to work out what the best next step is. Leave it with me and I will come back to you. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just something I was thinking about yesterday: a REFUND in draft space is a possibility too maybe, so that it doesn't come back to mainspace before being vetted? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: Thinking that too, as the most likely option. Daniel (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: Done, at Draft:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Still a little question, can you restore its deleted talk page to Draft talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography – if you can make the time for it? If I remember correctly it contained an attribution box for the origin of some of the list's prose (some of my co-editors are very touchy about such attributions). Also, I suppose it still contains a link to the deletion discussion (some of my co-editors get suspicious if things aren't out in the open: I have no intention to hide there was a prior deletion discussion about this article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken:, all done @ Draft talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography. Apologies for the delay. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. I just thought I'd quickly get your opinion on "undeleting" the Sustainable Transport Northamptonshire Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sustainable_Transport_Northamptonshire.

Since it was deleted, it's applied for funding from the central Government in the UK, as well as got a lot more press within the Leicester-based news, and has MPs sponsoring some of it's projects, such as Alberto Costa MP.

In general, the organisation is getting a lot more traction, locally, nationally and internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumveeHardhat (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HumveeHardhat, there is a very clear consensus in that discussion to delete it. I am happy to return it to the drafting area, where you can work on adding these new reliable sources that demonstrate notability, then ask for it to be reviewed by the Articles for Creation process to ensure that it is ready to go. Is this OK with you? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel: Sounds good, that's fine by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumveeHardhat (talk • contribs) 10:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumveeHardhat: all done, at Draft:Sustainable Transport Northamptonshire. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind considering vacating the close on this and either relisting or letting me renominate please? Two keep votes appear to be checkuser &/or socking related and I don’t think non-policy votes or disputed arguments over sourcing are enough on their own to have a conclusion. I’d like to have an untainted discussion with more source analysis and policy based argument. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz: hope you're well. The number of socks at AfD seems to be becoming more of an issue with each passing day. Don't think relisting is going to be the best option here - a clean start might be the best move - so I'll vacate my close to a "procedural close" to allow you to renominate. Will make the edits now and feel free to renom at your convenience. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of those that Spartaz thinks is a sock. Just to be clear, I am not a sock or a returning user, despite their accusations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, I think the two !votes Spartaz was referring to Fatzaof (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and Niceguylucky (talk · contribs · logs · block log), who are both blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Not sure what is going on at different discussions around the place but they were the two that I found when I was verifying his statement above. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel is correct. If I were certain I would have said three not two. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This article was deleted after a contested disucussion. Its creator appears to claim that you allowed its change to a Draft under WP:REFUND. This in itself seems odd to me since WP:REFUND is explicitly "a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted" (which this was not). The creator has now moved the article back into mainspace. I wish to place it for consideration in AfD, not least because it constitutes a content fork of Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53; this was one of the main resaons why it was deleted in the first place. however I cannot apply the AfD template, as this refers to the orgininal debate which is still up. Can you please explain to me how to refer the article to AfD? It would also be interesting to have your views on this resuscitation. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "The creator has now moved the article back into mainspace." – incorrect: the move from draft space to mainspace was done by GeneralPoxter (see edit summary). Besides, Smerus, I already *told you* that I was not the editor retrieving the article from draft to main space (see my reply to you). Smerus, please don't inadvertently mislead the editors you're talking to. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see Francis Schonken seeking to bully me by accusing me of misleading. He has "*told me*" nothing; he himself referred to a WP:REFUND: by his own reference it came about after an appeal by him to User:Daniel after the deleton. Buy his own account he "submitted the draft to be moved to mainspace, which was granted by another editor in very short time." - or as I put it, he moved it back into mainspace. I am attempting to discover how it is that a page which was deleted has so soon reappeared; and (imo at least) how I can refer it to AfD for repeating the fork for which it was orginally deleted. To neither of these questions does Francis Schonken's comment above provide an answer, nor does it (or should he) prevent me from asking them - although of course I am well aware that it this editor's normal tactic to avoid issues by seeking to divert the topic. I therefore await the reply to my query by User:Daniel, to whom it was addressed.--Smerus (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Smerus: sorry that my wording may have appeared a bit unclear for someone not very acquainted with draft space: the one who *submits* (as in ((submit))), which was me in this case, is not the one who *grants* the submission, and in this case that was GeneralPoxter. *Granting* a submission happens in this fashion: the one who grants the submission does the granting by moving the page to mainspace. So that means that this person granting the submission vets the submission, and if he or she thinks it OK (in this case the one granting the submission thought that the submitted article was pretty much OK), he or she moves it mainspace. So, for clarity, "The creator has now moved the article back into mainspace" is incorrect, as I already said. The one granting the submission can think for themselves, and I have no influence over them, and they can refuse to grant the submission for whatever reason (they would normally explain then). Sorry again if my initial comment in that sense (at the BWV 53 talk page) came across as unclear, and probably I could have formulated it a bit clearer for someone not acquainted with draft space processes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Francis Schonken is seeking to divert attention from the main issues. However he does make it clear that the person who asked to have the article transferred to mainspace was....Francis Schonken. The editor who actually made the change is neither here nor there - although I do wonder if he was aware of the full background. My queries however were adressed not to Francis Schonken but to User:Daniel who I am confident will not succumb to Francis Schonken's attempts at derailment and will respond to my questions as in my inital post in this section.--Smerus (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early this morning the article Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 was transformed into the forked content Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography together with other material in userspace. The edit summary gave WP:TNT as a reason: "A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over". However, the correct policy in this case is (pardon my French): WP:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There were two RfCs on the talk page which involved multiple users building consensus. There were similar discussions on the AfD page. Mathsci (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis has been warned about this kind of things plenty of times. I've tagged the page for G4. As for myself personally I'd probably support some form of action for both editors; since clearly neither of them seems willing to abide by the interaction ban. @GeneralPoxter: (since for some reason FS used ((noping))) Courtesy ping. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is back at AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography (2nd nomination). Nothing further needed here then, I assume? Daniel (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 0 more needed I agree - someone else got to nominate it. Best, --Smerus (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, was asleep while the above all played out! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have all the luck!--Smerus (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy St. Patrick's Day! I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk

Thanks Timothy, you too! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Just seen that you have deleted The Army Rumour Service page which I'm surprised about. Although not what it once was I'm surprised as it certainly used to be quite influential.

Here's a few examples although I can provide plenty more to show that it is notable.

• I draw the Minister’s attention particularly to the Army Rumour Service website—better known, if you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by its acronym ARRSE—which provides a free and frank window on the views of an increasingly dischuffed service population - UK Parliamentary Debate 16 Oct 2007^[1]
• Military campaigners on the Army Rumour Service website have dispelled any idea such a forum would be a move towards a trade union, which is illegal under Queen's Regulations. - BBC website dated 27 Jan 2006^[2]
• Since the exposure of a video of alleged abuse in Iraq by British soldiers, a debate over the issue has been raging on the unofficial military website, the Army Rumour Service (arrse.co.uk) - The Guardian newspaper dated 14 Feb 2006^[3]
• "I constantly monitor that" said The Independent's Terri Judd stressing that chatter on ARRSE might prompt her to write a story. (and more) - War 2.0 Irregular Warfare in the Information Age By Thomas Rid, Marc Hecker^[4]
• Multiple references in a recently published book - The Changing of the Guard The British Army Since 9/11 by Simon Akam^[5]

Hopefully the deletion decision can be reviewed? Thanks

Sumo664 (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumo664: The deletion discussion was open for 9 days - this information would have been best presented there for analysis. It's been too long since the deletion discussion was closed which means I can't simply reverse it and reopen the discussion, so I am going to have to regrettably direct you towards Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daniel

I am a little concerned about this AfD. It is blocking me from moving forward with some interesting writing on Medical Extended Reality. There is not much discussion. It is like a trial where the indictment, explanation of the charges, the testimony of the plaintiff, the testimony of the defendant, entry of evidence, and concluding arguments have been skipped and a completely random jury, some jurors without Wikipedia identities, others self-described as wiki-sysops with names of greek gods of vengeance, are rendering opinions without explanations.

Are there AfD lists for technology, product development, and, manufacturing. I have looked but have not found them. Stevep2007 (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

---

Hello,

Hope this message finds you well.

I recently noticed you deleted the page for a known singer, Iman Sen (Page Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_Sen#/issues/0).

I have enough research on the person and I would like to appeal to restore the Wikipedia page. Let me know if you need anything from me.

Thank you. Imdavid21 (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Imdavid21: the article was deleted as a result of the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iman Sen. Because it was a consensus of editors at that discussion, that is the binding result and I cannot unilaterally alter it. The only recourse available to you is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Regards, Daniel (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you deleted 2021 International Friendlies. Firstly, I just wanted to ask... if listing friendlies was such an issue, then why does the article 2021 Three Nations Cup exist? And my reasoning for why it should be brought back is that International Friendlies aren't just guys goofing of playing for fun, this is serious teams playing against each other competitively. It even affects their FIFA World Rankings! I know friendlies can be seen on the countries' results. But what if they aren't looking for a specific team? What if they just want to check out the friendlies. Someone can improve this article but International Friendlies should be an article. When you look up INternational Friendlies you get a lot of TV providers and websites covering the matches. And I know this information and fixtures can be found on a different website, but so is every other article. Do you think no other website covers the 2018 FIFA World Cup? Anyways, I know a lot of people who are interested in International Friendlies and the teams playing, which is the whole reason I made the article. Thank you! Mohammad (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: the article was deleted as a result of the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 International Friendlies. Because it was a consensus of editors at that discussion, that is the binding result and I cannot unilaterally alter it. The only recourse available to you is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Daniel (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel,

We were hoping to get in contact with you as we noticed Andrew Fox's Wikipedia page was recently deleted. We are hoping to see if there was anything on your end we could have added to the page in order to change your mind on the deletion?

Additionally, Andrew and his company have been featured in many recent interviews, articles and released news that is highly notable and we would love to have the chance to update the page with it.

Please let us know what your thoughts are. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,

Elev8NewMedia (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For reference; I believe they are referring to Andrew Fox (businessman), deleted via afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Fox (businessman). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Elev8NewMedia:, apologies for the delay in replying, I have been travelling the past few weeks. Because it was a consensus of editors at the discussion Hammersoft linked, that is the binding result and I cannot unilaterally alter it. The only recourse available to you is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Regards, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 47

Hi - you closed as delete the AfD on P. K. Firos; this was nominated by Kashmorwiki, who has now been indefinitely banned as a sockpuppet. Would you consider a relisting? The article was recreated shortly after your closure under a slightly different title (P.K. Firos), renominated by Kashmorwiki and closed as delete; I'm pinging the admin (David Fuchs who made the second closure as well. My understanding of the Manual of Style would indicate that P. K. Firos (spacing between the initials) would be the correctly formatted title, hence asking here and not with the other admin. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see evidence that socks compromised the consensus-making process with those AfDs, and I think (and I assume Daniel did as well) that consensus was clear. I don't see the point in relitigating it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply; I'll wait to see if Daniel has any comments before commenting further. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Goldsztajn: and @David Fuchs:, apologies for the delay in replying, I have been travelling the past two weeks. Goldsztajn, I agree with David; there was a clear consensus even without the nomination. I would suggest deletion review would be the appropriate next step. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

Daniel, I am writing to appeal my one-way interaction ban as decided here, which was added to my Usertalk page by you: "you are the subject of a one-way interaction ban relating to FDW777 (talk · contribs), for an indefinite period."

I originally decided that, owing to this incident exacerbating the symptoms of my mental disability (included in WP:DISCRIMINATE), I would not take any further action, and leave it alone, for the sake of my health. I have no wish to communicate with this editor, although it does seem unnecessarily punitive. "A one-way interaction ban forbids one user from interacting with another user." This is problematic, as it does not prevent the unsanctioned editor from interacting with the sanctioned editor. This editor has since taken advantage of the one-way IB to raise an AR against me here. I was happy to agree to a two-way IB at the original discussion, but the inevitable pile-on and court of public opinion resulted in the consensus becoming greatly biased in favour of the editor making the complaint, so that the "jury" proposed a one-way IB, and this then became the inevitable outcome. The cause of the editor's ANI case against me is highly contentious, including the fact that I had politely posted a harassment template message at their talk page. I politely ask someone not to harass other users - and they then compile a dossier of the ways in which I have harassed them. The whole situation beggars belief: in sixteen years of editing Wikipedia, with thousands of edits, I have had no cases like this; then, in the space of a few weeks, one editor has continually raised complaints against me, and my clean record suddenly includes three sanctions. There is an effect of WP:GASLIGHTING here, in which all my concerns are readily dismissed by the established editors and administrators who spend time at ANI. The vast majority of editors and administrators do not appear to spend time there, perhaps wanting to avoid conflict, so it will inevitably end up attracting those users who are more drawn to conflict. FDW777 appears to be engaging in a prolonged campaign of WP:HARASSMENT and WP:HOUNDING against me: since the one-way IB, they have raised a case at AR/AE, resulting in a topic ban, which I am also appealing.

User:ToBeFree originally proposed a two-way interaction ban. There was also a comment by User:Floquenbeam: Since both editors agree to an indefinite 2-way interaction ban, there's no need for any further discussion here." FDW777 originally posted "I would have no problem with a two-way ban, providing I am still able to edit articles about politicans in Northern Ireland without any impediment." They then went back on this. I refer you to the comment by Floquenbeam: @FDW777: It's not a matter of fairness; I'll admit it did not occur to me to interpret your caveat as "I accept a 2-way iban, as long as I can continue to interact with TrottieTrue if I think she's doing something wrong". I just assumed you meant "as long as I can continue to edit in that topic area". Perhaps my suggestion to strike that part out was snarkier than I intended. My bad. Since you made it clear now that is what you meant (and she's kind of made it clear her his acceptance was similarly limited), my simple "nip it in the bud" action is no longer acceptable. To be honest, the smartest idea in this thread is your suggestion buried somewhere below that you both agree to walk away with no official anything, although I kind of suspect that wouldn't have worked out either. It's just that 1-way ibans seldom work, unless they're treated as 2-way ibans in practice. This seems like a setting you up for a future "FDW777 is following/reverting/commenting on an editor who cannot respond to his comments, thus taking advantage of a 1-way iban" thread here. I would definitely stay far away from her him, if I were you, even if a 1-way iban is enacted. But like I said, good luck to both of you. In fact, FDW777 then went on to suggest there was no need for any I-Bans: I'll suggest a simple propsal without the need for any I-bans. TrottieTrue said here on 5 May I am attempting to disengage from the conflict, which I took to be a good point to stop discussing with them. All I ask is that they stop forum shopping this issue that has been addressed already, return to editing and I'll do likewise. Since they already said they want to disengage, just do so and stop creating threads about me.

I was given no defence (as would happen in a court of law), just a prosecution, and the whole outcome had the odds stacked against me by its very nature (it's worth noting that several of those supporting the one-way IB have given awards to FDW777 at their usertalk page, which makes their judgment questionable to say the very least). The final comment by User:Nil Einne is a clear example of WP:CIVIL being violated, as it uses profane language to belittle me. Neither this, nor FDW777's incivility towards me (which I detailed thoroughly), have been sanctioned: it's clear that some users can get away with saying whatever they want to another editor; as long as the latter is perceived to have violated policy, this effectively means that any wrongdoing towards someone like me can be ignored, nay, justified. The editing history of FDW777 shows a continued pattern of conflict, including with other editors. User:CeltBrowne and User:OgamD218 both asserted that FDW777 "uses baseless claims re WP rules to bully other editors. This user also has a history of tendentious editing in the Troubles area".

Finally, I would like to quote from User:Jimbo Wales: "Even if a concern is raised in an awkward way, by someone with a long history of campaigning on a subject, the concern itself should be approached seriously and not dismissed based on the messenger. It is entirely plausible - and indeed likely in many cases - that even when contributors are all individually making every appropriate effort to be not-biased, there still is a systemic bias caused by structural issues which we may - or may not - be well positioned to address." See their comment just two days ago here. I believe this applies to the situation at hand.

I also quote from User:Valereee at the topic ban discussion: 1. "I am not experienced here at AE, but I'd like to register that I'm a little uncomfortable with a situation in which editor X has a one-way iban from editor Y, and editor Y brings editor X to AE. Is that something that makes other people uncomfortable, or am I way off base here?" 2. "I just that I think one-ways are really difficult situations for the person who has the restriction, and my very strong feeling is that best practices are that the other editor just try to ignore the person who has the iban from them." 3. "Honestly I'm wondering if we need to require that reports can't be filed by someone on either end of an iban. Because if we know FDW777 can't keep an eye on this user, someone else will." 4. "Well, this probably isn't the place, but if editor X is the only person willing to monitor editor Y, and no one else is even noticing what editor Y is doing, maybe we need to rethink how bad editor Y's issues are. Because if editor X can't and still no one else puts it on their watch list...how bad is it?"

Bottom line: I have no wish to be involved with FDW777, but this IB was unjustified, and is now being taken advantage of by them (I've been sanctioned twice at their behest, and therefore this has added to their case for the topic ban). The incidents leading up to this one-way IB included policy violations on their part, and the process itself was horribly one-sided.

I am happy to stay away from FDW777. User:Andrew Gray has already proposed (in the topic ban) that they could assist me in the issues which FDW777 raises against me, which would be more constructive, and avoid the need for conflict. I therefore politely request that the one-way interaction ban be removed, and I will disengage from the conflict.--TrottieTrue (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrottieTrue, the interaction ban was not imposed by me, it was imposed by the community per the clear consensus at the discussion at the noticeboard. As per the appeals section (which I believe I linked to in my post to your talk page), this can either be appealed to the community, or to the Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_of_bans_imposed_by_the_community). My strong recommendation is that there is minimal point appealing to the community at ANI, given the clear consensus was only established at the same venue a matter of weeks ago. However, you can always appeal there if you so choose. The other option, as detailed by the section I linked, is to appeal to ArbCom. I cannot do anything unilaterally, as detailed by that section, and appealing here will be fruitless for that reason. Daniel (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrottieTrue, I think Daniel is correct that appealing to get rid of this altogether isn't likely to succeed, but given the discussion at the ANI, I think you could make a good argument there for turning it into a two-way. —valereee (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I was going to suggest changing this to a two-way now that TrottieTrue has been t-banned from BLP. The reason this was made a one-way was because FDW777, who had stated they were fine with a 2-way, was advised that a two-way might keep FDW777 from being able to edit at (IIRC) Irish and Scottish politician BLPs, which was the main area the two editors' interests overlapped. A 2-way might address both editors' desires. —valereee (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That can be decided at ANI - if it is more appropriate; I cannot unilaterally do anything here. I would respectfully suggest that there was no way other than the way I closed the discussion given the status at the time (TrottieTrue had not at that stage been banned from BLP's, which has subsequently occurred), and the consensus of the community was incredibly clear on the topic...so any ANI post should be looking to modify the ban, rather than appeal the close (valereee, as you touched on above). Daniel (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further thought...If TrottieTrue wants to go down the 'modify to two-way no-fault iban' route at ANI, I would also suggest that they will have to withdraw their 'appeal' of the topic ban that is currently proceeding - as they cannot in good faith present an argument at ANI that the one-way is now not preferred due to the iban, yet be contesting the topic ban elsewhere concurrently. I suspect the community would see that for what it was, and any attempt to try that switch-a-roo would be met with a significant level of derision. Daniel (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I hope I didn't imply you closed incorrectly! —valereee (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: no, no, sorry...I was referencing the challenge to the closure in the initial post that started this thread. Apologies, who replies have been directed to have been a bit of a mess from me. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Daniel, I apologise if this is not the right place. The WP policies and guidelines can be incredibly complex for someone not fully versed in them, and I simply assumed that the same process of appealing a decision would apply to this as it would to a topic ban, ie. in the first instance going to the editor who made the decision, which I thought was you, because you notified me of it. I could actually live with the IB decision, until it had become clear that it would be used as further ammunition against me by FDW777. I probably could still live with the 1-way IB in practice, except for the clear potential for it to be abused, and smear my otherwise good character in editing at WP.

User:Valereee, thank you for your suggestions. I personally feel that a two-way IB would have been more appropriate, but the route of me raising this option makes me uncomfortable. This is because the previous cases suggest that the odds are stacked in favour of FDW777, and against me (the previous result was effectively a "pile-on"). I feel it would also invite further conflict, and character assassinations against me, which I don't think I can tolerate any more of. Me suggesting a two-way IB could come across as me "harassing" FDW777, which I am not interested in doing.

I could live with a two-way ban, so if you or anyone else wants to suggest it, I will happily agree to it (as I did before). FDW777 was concerned it would hinder their ability to edit articles about Northern Irish politics, I believe, which would not be the case with such sanctions. I could probably live with either a one-way or two-way IB (although the latter is preferable for me), since communicating with FDW777 is not of interest to me. What concerns me more is the topic ban, so given a choice, I would rather focus on that, since it actively hinders what I want to spend any time on WP doing. This includes, but is not limited to, BLP articles. I think the nature of the one-way IBAN is questionable, but were FDW777 to stop harassing me (which I firmly believe they are doing), I would not appeal it at this present moment, whilst trying to appeal a topic ban.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get this off Daniel's page. Moving to TT's. —valereee (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks valereee, will leave with you to discuss and best advise TrottieTrue. Daniel (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Daniel, in case you hadn't yet seen, you can actually p-block from article space altogether. Not just from individual/multiple articles but from all of them. I've used an indef p-block multiple times for editors who have never edited talk space, including their own, to see if we can get their attention, get them editing a talk page somewhere, whether their own or at an article talk. —valereee (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, that's probably on me, and I should have gone that option. I'll go change it over now. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty new option! :) —valereee (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Hello, Daniel,

This article was recreated and tagged for deletion due to the deletion discussion you closed but as an editor states on the talk page, there were no deletion votes at AfD except for the nominator's statement. Would you consider this case a soft delete? The article recreation contains some sources which you mention the original version didn't have. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, probably is a soft-deletion, yes. I still don't believe it meets the sourcing standard and should still be deleted, but that can be determined at AfD (2). I think a word of caution is probably required for the creator for the phrase "zealous deletionist", used to describe the AfD nominator, as that kind of discourse is entirely unhelpful. Daniel (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 1 2. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've found out that you have made an action to topic ban Cengizsogutlu from Iran, Turkic peoples, and Turkey. Great! There's also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continuing disruptive editing from User:FleurDeOdile, which is an another ANI thread that proposes a topic ban. Since there is at least two people outside the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones chiming in to the proposal yesterday, I suggest that you can take an action on that thread, like what you did previously. Thanks. MarioJump83! 08:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarioJump83, just because I close one discussion at ANI, doesn't mean I am obligated to close others? With the discussion you link, I would prefer not to close it. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable. Thank you. MarioJump83! 08:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, Hope you are doing fine in this covid scenario, I am here to request you to undelete the page Deepti Pillay Sivan as there was only one user commenting on the AFD. I saw the message of deletion and the deletion discussion today only as I was away due to the covid scenarios. There were adequate news article about the person and a film director and actress who did lead roles. Kindly undelete or move to draft in case you seems its needed more additions. There are news articles about the person which is not included in the article as well. Thank you. Jehowahyereh (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jehowahyereh, because of the low participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepti Pillay Sivan, the presence of some sort of sourcing, and the short period of time, happy to grant a relist here. Have relisted for a further 7 days, please ensure you contribute within that time period. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Daniel. Jehowahyereh (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some vigilance will still be required, but you have solved much of the piling on of supposed votes Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 14:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: I reckon this is going to be a very interesting close, when it comes around to it. It's far closer than it appears on the surface, at least my reading. Very happy to be steering clear of it! Daniel (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not wish to close this one. I think she may pass our policy based criteria, but I am not getting into the arguments either way. I hope it closes as a consensus close, not another with none. Making sure folk, talk it out will be a good tactic here. If it's a close call my get feel would be too extend it in order to draw out all arguments. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Always great to see an old hand in a new era. ;) Welcome back! Kurtis ^(talk) 11:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurtis: great to see you again too! Plenty changes but some things stay the same. Daniel (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we restore this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gehad_Hamdy Mrjohnaytedvx (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mrjohnaytedvx, in my opinion the draft does meet our criteria for inclusion. Due to the existence of a deletion discussion which closed as 'delete' recently, this will need to go via the articles for creation process, or deletion review. Daniel (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

== Hey ==

Hey please we need to publish (Gehad Hamdy) this URGENTLY as it's included in international news. Search for gehad hamdy speak up or gehad hamdy Egito. Mrjohnaytedvx (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

== Please ==

Yeah I was asking for deletion review for draft:Gehad Hamdy Mrjohnaytedvx (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

== Review draft:Gehad Hamdy ==

Review draft:Gehad Hamdy Mrjohnaytedvx (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mrjohnaytedvx, you do not seem to be reading or listening to the information provided to you. I supplied two links for venues where you could ask for a review of this, as I believe the article does not meet our critieria for inclusion. I will repeat the links again: Wikipedia:Articles for creation and Wikipedia:Deletion review. There is a message on your talk page for our Teahouse, where you can get assistance regarding issues as a new editor. Please use these pages. Daniel (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Daniel. When you responded to my request at WP:RfPP, you said

"NEA" is a context driven thing, and while there has been an upsurge in activity, it still doesn't meet the threshold considering the public nature of the figure in question.

At that point, Joe Manchin had already been protected by MelanieN, but I don't think she had seen the RfPP request. I'm curious – what does "NEA" mean? I've tried searching for it (WP:NEA) and didn't get any results. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdrqaz, apologies for the confusion. NEA refers to "not enough activity", and it's the template code admins use to generate the ((rfpp)) template. Sorry again for the confusing jargon. Happy with MelanieN's protection, it's firmly a judgement call and this was on the border for me. Daniel (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see; it's incredibly obvious in retrospect. Thank you for the explanation and for stepping up to deal with the backlog (and I hope your head has recovered) Yours, Sdrqaz (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Sdrqaz, I hadn't seen the protection request. I keep a lot of controversial politicians, judges, etc. on my watchlist so that I can jump in quickly if things start to get out of hand. I probably have a shorter trigger than many (see User:MelanieN/Page protection) but that's Wikipedia for you. BTW I was also unfamiliar with the term NEA - I use the ((RFPP|nact)) template - so I learned something today. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that was an interesting read Melanie – thanks! Sdrqaz (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]