This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them abortion He should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

May 2011 ‒ Sep 2011 ‒ Jan 2012 ‒ Jan 2013 ‒ Jan 2014 ‒ Apr 2014 ‒ May 2014 ‒ Jul 2014 ‒ Aug 2014 ‒ Jan 2015 ‒ Apr 2015 ‒ May 2015 ‒ Jan 2016 ‒ Jan 2017 ‒ Jan 2018 ‒ Jan 2019 ‒ Jun 2019 ‒ I got indeffed (reversed) Aug 2019 ‒ Dec 2019 ‒ Jan 2020 ‒ Jan 2021 ‒ Jan 2022 ‒

Happy New Year!

Starship.paint,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Starship.paint: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A New Year brings new opportunities, new possibilities also it brings more days for us to all read more of the Wikipedia!!! My wish this year is for the whole world to work together and clean up or air, so we can all be able to soar, explore and learn more about the Heavens above, So we can spread our wings and ride the waves of the Milky Way! It is, Love and light that will bring us better sight!! I hope for this New Year also, is that everyone to love a-little more and hate allot less! Because it is in our very fabric of essence that this planet we call home is destined to be great!! Happy New Year !! Tiffany D. Atkins 2601:5CC:8300:5280:A87C:D8EB:A458:1C14 (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that been involved with (George Pell) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Name to be decided). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. _MB190417_ (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Adrian Adonis with rose.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 04:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 14 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to media outlet WLOS, surveillance footage appears to contradict the initial police account of the shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer at his home in Murphy, North Carolina? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was this about? I was responding to TFD's assertion as to what "we believed". There's no problem presenting a contrary possibility on the talk page. It's not article text. Maybe the rhetorical device was too indirect, certainly it appears for Ernie, but I would not have expected such a response from you. The point was that there are large swaths of text on that page that do not follow the sources. There is no source that verifies the existance of a laptop, e.g. I'm only bugging you about this because I have no doubt that your comment will empower those who continue to push such unverified text. Cheers SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI Mr Ernie (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SPECIFICO: - I think there are enough sources that accept the existence of the laptop. We can disagree on that. starship.paint (exalt) 00:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been surprised to find, when I go back and read the cited sources very closely, that the recent ones are careful to attribute or qualify their statements. I had taken the recent NY Magazine bit as a valid example of a source that reported the Mac Isaac narrative as fact. But I was surprised to see that they're actually reporting it as a tale while acknowledging that we currently don't know whether Mac's tale is correct. It's interesting that the extended Fox News RfC at RSN appears to show a decisive willingness to discard unsubstantiated political content such as the Murdoch's are prone to publish. Many of the editors who personally believe in Fox and Fox-adjacent narratives seem to have become more careful in their evaluations of sourcing and narratives, including the understandable but flawed practice of googling to cherrypick RS that are consistent with parts of Fox's stories. This will all be resolved in time. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 12:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I meant to ping you on this edit, but, clearly, failed. Sorry about that!--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The meta-question is clearly prior to any particular choices. Putting it within the poll, -- rather than my initial temporary hatting of the poll -- was a compromise solution. It clearly does not belong after all the !votes as an afterthought, so I am asking you to reinstate it up top as an option in the poll. Placing it after the entire poll as if it were a comment is not appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I see it, SPECIFICO's poll is, essentially, a request for an early closure (and scrapping) of your poll. I don't really see why that needs to be up top, but, given that you started the poll, I think, absent some consensus otherwise, you should have say as to where it goes.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it is not a request to close. It is a request to conduct a poll after there is some agreement as to what the poll should contain. That was the problem the previous poll had, and the result in such cases is always that the poll becomes fragmented without a solid outcome. Please restore the meta-question to its location, where the group can decide whether to formalize the discussion at this time or to workshop the decision more on talk. We made some progress previously and this premature poll is not helpful right now. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you all for notifying me of your issues, @Jerome Frank Disciple, SPECIFICO, and Space4Time3Continuum2x: Unfortunately, I am rather busy at this time to edit much, and defer to the judgment of other editors on such issues. starship.paint (exalt) 23:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The notability is in this case not about the number of sources, but about whether it will be a news event only, or something with WP:SUSTAINED coverage. If the latter is lacking, then it isn't a notable subject, no matter how many good sources you have. Fram (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Fram: - OK then we will have to wait for however long sustained may be. starship.paint (exalt) 12:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gaah. I've gotten so used to the auto-sign feature of the new reply tool (and many other newer scripts), I find I'm often forgetting to manually add my signature when I need to. Thanks for covering for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @RoySmith: - you should thank voorts [1], who noticed you didn't sign your post, but didn't notice that you were the closer, meanwhile, I did actually read your close, but I actually didn't notice that you didn't sign it. starship.paint (exalt) 14:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Thanks for the user talk page help! Springee (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Happy to help, Springee! starship.paint (exalt) 06:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added a nom on In the news - not totally sure about the blurbs; any thoughts/want to tweak? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a bit of a balancing act of length vs clarity. New blurbs might be precise, but a bit wordy ... Iskandar323 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Iskandar323: - I'm not sure how to cut it down. We can let others suggest a shorter blurb? Thanks for the nomination and the credit. starship.paint (exalt) 07:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Jason Chee (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Shooting of Aderrien Murry at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mhhossein ^talk 07:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:

• User:Valjean/Wikipedia's credibility

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 15 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shooting of Aderrien Murry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that police in Indianola, Mississippi, shot an unarmed 11-year-old African-American boy after responding to his 9-1-1 call for help at his home? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Aderrien Murry. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Shooting of Aderrien Murry), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,536 views (711.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I have seen that you removed this primary source from the r/place article. Now, I know secondary sources are preferred, but in this case I believe that the primary source can be kept. If you were to check the secondary source from "the guillotine" part, you can see that it used one similar Reddit post as its source (this one). Also, though used less, in some cases primary sources can still be used on Wikipedia (see WP:PRIMARY). Of course, if a secondary source covering this appears, we can replace the primary one. Thank you! Alin2808 (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Alin2808: - if you cannot find any secondary (or tertiary) reliable sources, it will not meet WP:DUE. The information is not significant enough for independent sources to cover. There are thousands of Reddit posts. Why is this one important? Reliable sources help us determine what is important and what is not. Wikipedia does not document every single instance of anti-spez content just because it existed, we rely on reliable sources to highlight specific important content. starship.paint (exalt) 13:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'd say if the guillotine is significant, then so is this. Otherwise, people would think that the guillotine was the only 'controversial' drawing that was removed (though of course we can't prove if it was the admins that removed it). Alin2808 (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Alin2808: - that cannot override WP:DUE. If controversial drawings being censored is an important event, reliable sources would discuss it. If you cannot find any, it means it is not important. starship.paint (exalt) 14:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Still think it is worth mentioning for the reasons I gave above. But sure, I will be waiting for other sources to discuss it. Surely if a source specifically talking about the protest on r/place comes up it's bound to get mentioned along with the French and the Italian ones. Alin2808 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Starship.
You've violated the 24-BRD page restriction at Donald Trump by repeating your addition of content concerning the details of Trump's sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll. The sequence is

1. Addition of "fingers" detail - here.
2. Addition is reverted - removal, with edit summary.
3. Repeat addition of the detail same "fingers" text.

Please self-revert you reinstatement of that content and use the article talk page if necessary. This wording is UNDUE and unencyclopedic detail for the main Trump page and it comes off as rather salacious, irrelevant, and weird when the central fact is that the judge found that her rape statement was reasonable and that Trump continued to defame her.
Thanks SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that User:Jerome Frank Disciple retired after suffering a number of things, including accusations and incivility by User:SPECIFICO. I wanted to raise concerns because I believe User:SPECIFICO pattern of behavior often results in editors getting discouraged/abandoning.

You seem both experienced and familiar with SPECIFICO, so you seemed like the right person to go to in helping.

What I've noticed

I believe he may be engaged in WP:BRD misuse or WP:BRRR. I'm not sure: I'm not very experienced, so there may be a different way to interpret the pattern.

1. Excessive reverts of good edits

2. Quality of talk page discussion

3. Bad-faith and excessive warnings on user talk pages

NPOV-pushing can be more subjective, so I'm trying to focus solely on the meta-pattern of behavior. More specifically:

Detail

1. At times he has been an extremely frequent reverter for a number of significant pages, including hot-topic issues like Hunter Biden laptop controversy, Donald Trump.

2. These reverts seem excessive not just by their quantity, but because they are not thought out or are willfully ignorant of the specifics: e.g. [2] he reverted an edit that was supported by reliable statements because there were additional sources that were not reliable; he could have simply removed the unreliable source. He reverts an edit here [3] because it is a "primary source"; however, the primary source is justifying the statement "[Source] stated [statement]". The fact that he makes frequent reference to them suggests that he is not unfamiliar with them; when it misapplies them, it looks less like a misunderstanding and more like intentional misuse.

3. He posts an excessive number of talk-page warnings, many of which seem designed to intimidate, especially new users, and makes serious false accusations "by mistake" In the last month alone: [4] [5] [6]

4. He makes frequent reference to WP policies as justification in situations where they do not apply.

5. He has an extremely active and direct style. This is normally good, but when a reasonable fraction of edits are non-constructive, it can overwhelm normal discourse. When his directness is factored in, it can emotionally drain editors.

6. A long-time editor redited because of his accusations[7] and incivility[8]

Possible BRD misuse

Put together, it begins to look like not the intended use of BRD:

1. He makes an excessive number of reverts, not all of which are well-considered, in order to force discussion onto the talk page.

2. His reverts are often based on "no consensus" and/or "mistaken" application of WP rules, without opening talk page discussions.

3. On the talk page, he does not always engage in the best, substantive discussion, but seems to try to holds off the achievement of what he sees as "consensus". Sometimes he is constructive, but frequently he does not refute central points.

4. He makes frequent reference to the WP:BRP cycle to "educate" users, e.g.: [9]

5. In pursuit of ad-hominem, he posts an unreasonable number of warnings and accusations on other user's talk pages.

A good edit cycle means discussion. However, when this style is excessively and selectively applied, it begins to look like WP:BRD misuse.

I'm not sure how to put this all together: perhaps you have a better interpretation of what is going on.

What to do?

Four days after this user joined Wikipedia, he ended up on ANI for edit warring. [10] He has been topic-banned and wiki-banned repeatedly. However, as soon as bans expire, he seems to act the same way as before. Editing Wikipedia is usually a pleasant experience; today it was not, and I think many editors feel the same way after interacting with him. It's too bad the process allows this to happen.

Frankly, I found it exhausting, so I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @DenverCoder19: - I am rather busy in real life and will address this when I am more free. Take care. starship.paint (exalt) 04:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @DenverCoder19: - I've reviewed your evidence and as it stands, your evidence is not strong enough. You need stronger evidence of misconduct, and there are some things you have misunderstood. starship.paint (exalt) 06:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Details #1, 4 and 5 needs actual evidence.
  • (2a) Detail #2, on MSNBC, I suppose you are referring to this [11], is AdWeek reliable? I'm not sure, and anyway this can be passed of as a simple mistake.
  • (2b) Detail #2, on Nassim Nicholas Taleb [12], this is actually a good edit. Information on Wikipedia should be WP:DUE, based on reliable secondary sources, not just anything a person, even the article subject, posts on Twitter.
  • (3a, 3b) Detail #3, warning DarrellWinkler and ElijahPepe with a blue box is fine if they have not been warned with a blue box on the same topic within the past one year.
  • (3c) Detail #3, talk post message for Dissident93, I would say SPECIFICO is correct, the WP:ONUS is on those who want to include disputed content to achieve consensus. It does not seem that SPECIFICO exhaustively explained their actions for reverting, but then again a talk page discussion was never started by Dissident93. ** (6a) Detail #6, the incivility, I believe, was responded to by the community with a one-month topic ban.
  • (6b) Detail #6, the accusations, there's a point there, as admin Newyorkbrad said that this is being referred to as SPECIFICO seeking revenge for a sanction imposed against herself, and it is hard to avoid that conclusion ... SPECIFICO's conduct loathsome ... reward sanction-gaming. However, admin Newyorkbrad did not take any action towards SPECIFICO. While this action wasn't good, it is not necessarily worth a sanction on its own.
  • (7) Possible BRD misuse #4, I do not see any issue with that notification. starship.paint (exalt) 06:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support your proposal here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC_on_Module:Find_sources_-_replace_New_York_Times_with_Associated_Press) but I'm unable to comment as I'm blocked. I'm not T-Banned from the topic though. Feel free to copy over my indication of support as a member of the community if you so wish. I support it for the same reasons as you have identified in your vote of support below the proposal. Jack4576 (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Jack4576: - thank you, please write a message here as if you were commenting there. starship.paint (RUN) 10:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support - for the above reasons as articulated by starship.paint. The associated press I think it is fair to say, is a source moreso associated with worldwide NPOV viewpoints than the NYT. On pages like this sources like the AP are preferable as to avoid centering the US perspective. Wikipedia can and should be more than an American website Jack4576 (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Done Jack4576 starship.paint (RUN) 14:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Starship.paint, Tamzin, and Jack4576: Starship, just saw this as I reviewed the RfC at Village Pump. Posting at VP appears to fall within Jack's block from W space pages. I don't understand their point about not being banned from "the topic" - whatever topic that may be? Topic of references? Am I missing something, because this appears to be a violation of their sanction? SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am currently on hiatus from adminship. Pinging @Jayron32 as original sanctioning admin. I have no opinion here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tamzin, sorry to bother you. I thought it had been you originally. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Jayron or another admin thinks it is a violation I will remove it. starship.paint (RUN) 23:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No admin has raised an issue with it, so I'm not sure why you removed it. No matter though. Jack4576 (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m not posting there another user is relaying my opinion there. It’d be a block violation if I socked, which this is not. Am I missing something? I was invited to make a contribution and I provided one for another user to copy over

I’ve been able to comment in WP space ANI discussions in the past despite my block from that space because other users copying the comment

Im not banned from contributing to discussions on this topic

If an admin wants to remove it I don’t mind. Let others be so vigilant if such strong views are held. I was invited to provide an opinion and don’t feel especially strongly

Jack4576 (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You shouldn't be doing that. Read WP:MEAT. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You misunderstand the policy

I was invited to contribute to a discussion; and this is not an example of canvassing; nor is it a covert attempt to coordinate off-site to bring about a false consensus. I invite you to read the policy you have linked more closely User:Valjean Jack4576 (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the closing. Could you please go ahead and configure the list of deprecated sources accordingly since I, being the discussion initiator, do not feel it'd be right for me to do so? -The Gnome (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:TWL, or something. Levivich (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Death Barnstar
		For your efforts contributing to the page Palestinian genocide accusation. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't (effectively) edit that page directly. Its entire contents are built every few minutes on-the-fly by a bot, so changes made to it will quickly be erased. If you need to fix something in an RM listing, that has to be done at the RM at the talk page of the page proposed to be moved/renamed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @SMcCandlish: - thank you for informing me. I think I did already take those alternative actions. The move has now been closed, making this moot. But I appreciate your help! starship.paint (RUN) 02:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I missed the whole thing because I'm at a reading group with friends, but want to quickly note some things before I return to it. Frankly it got me scared to see I was at AN again, though quickly dissipated since by the time I saw it the thread was already closed.

1) I appreciated your support and don't think you have anything against me. I think we disagree on a few things but I've seen you around and generally trust your judgement as an editor. I found the near unanimous support touching and a sign that regardless of what people thought about my original case, people agreed my editing has improved and I wouldn't be an issue from now on. 2) nothing I said was disingenuous. I spent over a month drafting that appeal and part of that length of time was trying to balance the pragmatic/cynical advice to confess to everything with my principles that I will not admit to something I didn't do. I meant every word I said in that appeal. I said it a lot more tactfully than in the past, and very intentionally tried not to be rash or run my mouth off and generally carry myself with the decorum expected of me. I was under the impression that's part of what the community wanted from me. I'll note I have a reputation of being honest to a fault (for better or worse according to my critics and supporters lol) 3) the following is a hill I will die on: "you are biased against anti-trans groups and activists, therefore you are a danger to any article vaguely related to trans people" - was a grossly disproportionate response. My work in GENSEX was not a monolith and it was hurtful a specific subset of it (and I emphasize, specifically regarding hate groups and quacks) was generalized to all of it. Apples to oranges. I would not have appealed early in the first place if the ban had originally been a lighter/more targeted sanction on editing regarding anti-trans groups. All I ask is you try and put yourself in my shoes and consider how the scope of the ban relative to the charges felt. 4) like I said in my rant, and my recent appeal, and my earlier appeal(s) - I'm in no rush to edit about anti-trans groups again. I want to write about queer history again, the collateral damage of my original case per point 3. It's a purely factual statement that all my articles have had a long time consensus they're written according to NPOV, RS, and FRINGE. Also a factual statement that SPAs repeatedly said they're not, and have been refuted by consensus. I have no reason or motivation to edit them because as I've repeatedly said and fully believe, I have faith in the Wikipedia community to steward and improve them without my input. 5) like I said, I've had my lips stapled shut for months. Sure, it was a rant, but frankly I think anyone banned is entitled to a rant when unbanned to let it out of their system before editing again. In my opinion it's much better, for both Wikipedia and the individual editor, to vent honestly and openly and decompress before editing than it is to bottle it up and not be honest about the psychological effects of the ban. 6) for my curiosity, what parts of my rant did you consider factually incorrect? You quoted a few things, but I'm not sure what parts you actually objected to.

Best regards (on my phone and I've yet to update my sig so I think the new username won't show yet lol), TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: - thank you for reaching out. First I would like to apologise for the distress caused, which was not the aim of the report. Second, sure, I can offer you a response as to what parts I object to. As you can see, I didn't quote all of your rant. You ranted about the SPA who filed the report, I get it, and ranting about the SPA was not such a big deal. The main problems: (1) criticising civil POV pushers in the topic area right after a ban lift, (2) criticising editors who supported the topic ban, (3) calling the entire process a show trial and implying that you pled guilty despite your innocence. (3) made me doubt your sincerity, essentially you called the process a sham right after restrictions were relaxed. But to me that's not the most concerning part, that would be (1), it shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach (instead of a collaborative approach) to the topic area, again, right after restrictions were relaxed. That doesn't bode well for future editing. starship.paint (RUN) 08:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'd also suggest you read two threads. (a) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive318#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Davidbena - I believe Davidbena is a pro-Israeli editor and I believe that Nableezy, Huldra and Zero are pro-Arab editors, yet the latter three argued to relax restrictions on the former in that very topic area. (b) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive356#Comments_by_involved_editors_(Gilabrand). I believe Gilabrand is a pro-Israeli editor. Yet Nableezy argued that Gilabrand should not be indef blocked for topic ban violations in that area. I want you to read and consider if you can ever exhibit such behaviour. starship.paint (RUN) 10:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You're welcome, and thank you for the apology, in-depth response, and informative cases!

  I'd like to clarify I have no issue with most editors I'd say seem to have gender-critical leanings. I've had cordial and even heated disputes with such editors in the past but believe they are net positives to wikipedia. Hell, I think such editors copy-edit my articles better than anyone and improve their tone tremendously. A comment I made to other queer editors off-wiki during my ban that I think you'd appreciate was (paraphrasing) "in light of my experience with my ban, no matter how ardently transphobic or POV-pushing someone is, if they make solid contributions to other queer content I would vehemently advocate for their right to do continue to do so, even if I support sanctions on specific articles or subsets thereof". I think bans should be preventative, not punitive, in any situation and don't worry about people's beliefs as long as they edit constructively.

  I contrast the behavior of those I just happen to disagree with on things who are productive solid editors, with the fact there's a very small minority of editors who do nothing in GENSEX except push WP:FRINGE content with unreliable sources or without any sources at all. FRINGE is not "we disagree", it's "medical consensus overwhelmingly explicitly calls this idea QUACKERY, we won't put it in wikivoice". Very very few editors fit this description, but some do, causing nothing but a time-sink for everyone involved at best, or sneaking FRINGE content to articles at worst. I didn't name any because I was not looking to start conflicts, but they exist. If you want an example from my research into the history of GENSEX onwiki though, I was honestly stunned to learn User:James Cantor/James Cantor edited here for over a decade, and wasn't blocked for his nonstop PROFRINGE content that editors are still cleaning up, for which he is well known, but socking to attack a trans woman who criticized him. Like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.

  I'll also note, I have no issues with the vast majority of people who supported my topic ban. I am criticizing their conflation of hate groups and anything vaguely queer (healthcare, history, queer people, discussing the experience of trans editors, etc), a position I will criticize without hesitation, but I don't personally have anything against them and tried to take their criticisms of my editing to heart (and all criticisms were about anti-trans groups). I actually blame the LTA (not SPA, he's a long-time shit-stirrer known for GAMING the system) for that: he presented a grossly disproportionate sanction without evidence of issues, then good faith editors raised issues and called for other sanctions, but because it wasn't DENIED the conversation didn't revolve around specific issues/sanctions but an all or nothing match that self-evidently split the community (as it did at my close review, which actually explicitly noted it should've been denied, early appeal, and the spin-off discussion at the village pump about reforming ANI for GENSEX issues). I think if an editor had raised good faith issues on my talk page they could've been addressed, or even at ANI some more targeted sanctions based on specific issues (such as a PBAN from KJK) would have sailed through and even been supported by myself. But I can't change the past, so I purposely aimed to focus on the future, re-unite the community, and prove my commitment and improvement instead of dredging up past conflicts (personal or even content based). I was actually originally thinking of posting some notes I mentioned from my rant in the closed AN thread so everyone could see, but decided not to climb the reichstag dressed as spiderman and only discussed my grievances with how everything played out on my talk page.

  I said show trial because pledging I am not a danger to every article and discussion vaguely queer (asking the tban to end) was downright weird because I never was a danger to every article and discussion vaguely queer, and the jury was hung on whether I was even a danger to every article about anti-trans activists. The original ANI close noted my commitment to addressing the issues raised (such as battleground behavior and RS), and in subsequent discussions I've always noted that many criticisms were true and tried to present hard evidence I've been working on them. Regardless, I want to emphasize, I want to return to the non-controversial GENSEX articles for a while. There's a long todo list I've already got (translate Trans history in Brazil, fix up LGBT rights in New York, finish Tri-Ess, start adding in the images I uploaded to commons, etc) where I can edit in near guaranteed peace from PROFRINGE battleground behaviors from others. I'm even staying away from the articles like Gays Against Groomers where my work was overwhelmingly well-recieved (by editors, if not the group or their fans lol). Other editors can focus on anti-trans activism - I just want to relax and write about queer history since it's hurt like hell to be cut off from that.

  Hope this all clarifies things! Best regards, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: - thanks for your detailed response. I don't thinh there is a need for an extended debate so I'd just like to address one point, the point about targeted sanctions you obviously would have preferred versus the broader sanction you received. In many cases, editors receive broadly construed topic bans for areas. In some cases, that is because there is a perception that they cannot edit neutrally in the wide topic area, of which evidence came from a small part of the topic area. Rightly or wrongly, this perception may have applied to your case. starship.paint (RUN) 05:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I believe it was improper to close that discussion at 4-3 and have reopened it. pbp 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Purplebackpack89: - the Grandfather clause disagrees, unless you have a better reason than the rules. starship.paint (RUN) 14:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The other thing that bothers me about those removals is that there are a couple of fellas who would vote to remove New York City or George Washington from VA because they know and care so little for American history. pbp 14:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Those are level 3, Purplebackpack89. I really doubt that these two are the ones in danger. starship.paint (RUN) 14:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 12 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nakba denial, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nakba denial is a form of historical negationism pertaining to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nakba denial. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nakba denial), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I now avoid vital rankings completely, but would urge you to renominate Nuper rosarum flores and Missa Pange lingua. Simply put, Nuper rosarum is the most important work by the most important European composer of the entire 14th century. Missa Pange lingua is the most famous work by the most important composer of the entire Renaissance... At the moment, early music coverage on the list is highly skewed towards later works. Aza24 (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Aza24: - I am sorry, but the low page views and the low interwikis brought me to nominate them for removal. I see that the composers are still vital. starship.paint (RUN) 02:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Rather depressing to hear that those are the metrics you're using—they kind of defeat the point of the vital list. In such terms, WP:POPULAR would be a much more suitable list Aza24 (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Aza24: - I see it differently. If they were that important or that famous, they wouldn't be so little-read or little-written about. starship.paint (RUN) 02:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This is a highly dangerous ideology to have my friend. Measuring importance from underdeveloped wikis (which are in no way representative of that language/culture's value for a topic!) or from low page views (one of the key distinctions between WP:POPULAR are vital). You ought to look into systemic bias on WP; WP's existing coverage is an extremely dubious method of measuring importance. Aza24 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't present patterns of the likely nationality, religion, or ethnicity of other editors when discussing their responses to an RFC. It's never constructive and can end poorly. There's really no reason to compile information on editors to present at an RFC in any situation. If you have evidence rather than hunches about possible canvassing or other disruption present your evidence in the right venue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @ScottishFinnishRadish: - I didn't post patterns of "nationality, religion or ethnicity", I posted on activity on he.wiki. It doesn't matter if editors are Israeli (or not), Jewish (or not). That said, if you don't want me to post patterns of edits on a wiki, then alright. starship.paint (RUN) 03:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 12 February 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Kelvin Kiptum, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uh starship.paint, you accidentally archived the William T. Anderson debate on the VA project, not the Tarana Burke discussion. SailorGardevoir (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just undid that archive, even though I’m certain that Wikipedia is not going to like that a new user like me just did that. SailorGardevoir (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SailorGardevoir: - thank you for catching that. I used the OneClickArchiver tool and something went wrong. starship.paint (RUN) 03:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al Jazeera.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]