User talk:Ixtal/Archives/2021/November

Wrong request for closure
, good evening, I intend to contest your request for closure, as 1/ you do not let 30 days for other contributors to comment, and (all the more) 2/ since it appears to me that you have asked it in order to enable a modification by you of the lead of the main article which would be a breach of WP:NPOV. Therefore, I kindly ask you to withdraw this RfC you introduced today.--Emigré55 (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * My rfc closure was undone, but my request for closure still stands. I believe consensus was reached, and thus continuing that discussion is pointless  A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  17:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, the whole point of the RfC had been that part of the lead -- I just edited according to what I saw was the consensus. Stop swinging WP: links around, it does not help your argument more than just saying what you mean by the link would (see WP:Wikilawyer). A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  17:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I try myself to stick to the rules; What in my opinion you do not in this case, as using this RfC to then introduce a modification of the lead as you did here,, is to me POV PUSHING and breach of the rules, for the reasons explained here, .--Emigré55 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A. C. Santacruz, I think Emigré55 is letting you know that they challenge your closure, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE—although this was not strictly necessary since you brought the matter to WP:CR, which was the correct move. Please, both of you just chill and tread carefully. There is ample room for consensus here if we just think constructively and follow wiki-process. It would sadden me to see you both subject to an WP:IBAN.  JBchrch   talk  18:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * yeah I went on to CR so that neither them nor I would have to be more involved than necessary. I see any further conversation between and myself both unhelpful to wikipedia due to the combative nature of our interactions and to each other due to the possibility of leading to either to temporary retirement, so I dont necessarily object to an IBAN. I addressed it would be best for me to stop interacting on the Zemmour page, and thought closing the RfCs was a good way of leaving it behind for all of us. I don't even know how Emigré found the closing request but their refusal to just let the discussion die off and move on to work on other parts of the project (which could probably use our inputs better) like I have is getting on my nerves. Per WP:YANI, we are not irreplaceable in the Zemmour page and in my opinion should help other parts of the project. My suggestion, seeing how they know French and are interested in ideology would be to help translate articles between fr and en wikis on the topic, but they can do whatever they want.  A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  18:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Just as an aside, I use she/her pronouns so do not use masculine pronouns for me   A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  19:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , my apologies, I did not know you are a woman, and did not mean of course to offense you. By the same token, please do not use "they" or "their", talking about me (as here above), but "he". Thank you.--Emigré55 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not know your gender (thus the use of they/their) as its use was somewhat hidden in your user page, but will make sure to use the proper pronouns from now on. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  19:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , As you further wrote at AN board "They have been disruptive while responding to my edits in this case", please amend.--Emigré55 (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

fixed. A. C. Santacruz &#8258;  Talk  06:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to be referred to as he/him, you should so indicate very prominently on your user page. Otherwise, everybody here uses they/them as default, so A. C. Santacruz did the right thing. JBchrch   talk  15:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

No hard feelings?
Hi A. C. I just wanted to reach out to make sure that you had no hard feelings about the ANI/Eric Zemmour situation. You are absolutely valued as an editor and I hope this situation does not diminish your motivation to contribute to the project, even if you feel like taking some time off after this. Your DYK and FA picture track record speaks for itself! You have achieved a great deal in a very short amount of time and I sincerely hope to continue seeing you around. I also see that you contributed significantly to Evergrande liquidity crisis: I also share an interest in business/finance articles, and I hope that some day we will collaborate on one of those. Cheers. JBchrch  talk  03:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out :) I most definitely have no hard feelings and intend on participating in the project for a long time. More than anything this whole situation has helped me learn more about what tendencies I can fall into as an editor and how to avoid them. Your compliments are greatly appreciated, and I do hope we'll collaborate at some point.  A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  06:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Great to hear! I'm very happy to know that you intend to continue to contribute. Just a piece of advice moving forward (in addition to what has said): though some find it thrilling, most editors try to stay away as much as possible from the contentious areas of the project, and especially anything ANI (or ANI-related), and especially the most contentious ANI threads, as these things have a way of exploding in your hands even if you do all the correct things. Rest assured that a number of very experienced admins are watching these kinds of processes, and that they'll know what to do and when. Best.  JBchrch   talk  15:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't find ANI too thrilling really (had more fun removing obsolete split tags earlier last month) but tried to do my bit to help. I made mistakes but experienced editors have been extremely polite and kind to me when telling me about/fixing/instructing me in my mistakes, so I'm learning a lot :) A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  15:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In case you like repetitive tasks that require no thinking but still make you feel as if you are contributing to the sum of all human knowledge, you might be interested in Category:Harv and Sfn template errors, which is a maintenance task I very much enjoy. It only requires a lot of trial and error and a pretty solid understanding of, and  templates, but that can also be learned along the way.  JBchrch   talk  15:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Your ANI close
Hi. Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but I've reverted your close on ANI to topic ban Andrew Davidson from deletion activities. I'm certain the close is in good faith, but this is absolutely one of those occasions where it really does need to be an admin closing the wording. Otherwise Andrew (and the few that oppose a ban) can easily get this overturned as a "bad non-admin close" anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for reaching out! How I saw it was that everyone had already given their take and adding more text would just make it a longer job for admins. As I understand it, I was just closing community input rather than partaking in admin activities (actually giving sanctions and considering if the given evidence is enough to warrant sanctions). I wasn't actually giving out a topic ban, and since Andrew et al. have already said why they'd oppose one I think it was clear cut that no more discussion on the matter was needed from the community. However, I do agree with your reversion after looking over at WP:NAC. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  12:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One should not—with the somewhat esoteric exeception of TfDs—close discussions where one cannot technically or per policy enforce the result. Cheers, ——  Serial  12:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's certainly true lengthy ANI threads drain people's energy and are viewed as a time sink. However, it's more important that the end result is correct. In general, closures should state what remedies have been specifically recommended and sum up the salient points for support and opposition. This is important even if consensus is 95% for 'A' - it's still important to mention 'B' and clarify that it wasn't viewed as important or significant as 'A', and people like to see that they've been listened to. Also, because this is a high-traffic thread with many opinions, everyone needs to know that the closer has sufficient credibility to be declaring a consensus for sanctions on a user, and that pretty much restricts it to admins. Closing low-maintenance threads (eg: two users having a content dispute on ANI, but nobody else is interested) is not so much a problem, though.
 * Although it's a moot point as the feature is not yet implemented, in the future it will possible to implement an AfD topic ban by partially blocking a user from, in which case you would absolutely need an admin to close it. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  13:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, I have created a thread in the village pump to see if we can find ways to prevent the massively disorganized mess in ANI from happening in the future (or as often). If y'all think its a valuable use of your time, any comments there are appreciated. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  13:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * At this stage, I think your actions at ANI and the Village Pump are becoming disruptive, and need to remind you that we are here to write an encyclopedia. I'm glad you weren't around to "tot up" scores for this ANI thread; I'd have felt humiliated. As I said elsewhere, I know Andrew D in real life and have met up in the pub several times - remember behind each editor is a real person. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a fair assessment . I'm trying to get myself a bit more involved in WP discussions but I'm somewhat of a beginner at it. I thought my actions could serve to clean the whole mess a bit since the threads were immensely battlegrounded and just getting more and more opinions without much evidence to them. I, or others in my place, have removed or collapsed the sections I created on ANI — which I have no issue with them doing (more than anything it serves as a lesson to me for the future). I'm hoping the VP discussion will get a bit more traction though as it was somewhat sad to see a discussion on the problems with ARS as a whole and what to do with that project change into a bunch of semi-separated proposals to tban users (with discussion on ARS itself stifling away), and wouldn't like that to happen with other discussions. In any case, if you feel I did a big, good-faith mistake, you are more than welcome to whale me. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  15:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh it's not whale-worthy; it's a good-faith and somewhat common "newbie mistake" for an editor to jump in and try to help "fix" an ANI thread (I have made the same mistake myself on many occasions, and I still make this mistake sometimes). You write, . I don't think you're perceiving that what you describe as "sad" is actually a good thing in the eyes of most editors. Why do I say that? Because the first half of the discussion was about venue: do we take it to arbcom? Do we have an RFC? Do we have individual TBAN proposals? Some combination? There was a variety of opinions on that. Some editors started a subsection calling for a close and for this to go to arbcom, and a number of editors agreed. Other editors started individual tban proposals, and far more editors participated in the individual tban proposals than the number of editors calling for a close or an arbcom case. That's crowdsourced consensus at work. The fact that the tban proposals have received so much participation is the evidence that there consensus, maybe not for the tbans, but at least for having the proposals. If nobody thought those proposals were a good idea, nobody would have !voted in them. If consensus was to close the thread and move it elsewhere, that would have happened already. Note that no administrator has closed anything yet (although one said they would close the tban proposals in a few days): that's strong evidence that there is nothing wrong with the discussion continuing. There's a reason why no one did what you did: because everyone else is "reading the room" and seeing something different than what you're seeing. In your VP post, you describe the ANI thread as "devolving" to tban proposals, but it was actually evolving. And that's why it's a newbie mistake: experienced ANI watchers realize this--they know this is actually the most productive ARS thread in years, because they remember the prior ones--whereas inexperienced ones just see a massively disorganized mess. A massively disorganized mess is how democracy and crowdsourced consensus work :-) Levivich 15:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't like it when editors give me unsolicited advice, so forgive me. I don't mean to discourage you from participating in any part of this website; I'm glad you're here and I'm glad you're helping. But you should ask yourself: why isn't anyone else doing any of the things you're doing (trying to close threads, posting vote summaries, making that suggestion at the village pump)? If your answer is "I don't know", then ask yourself: do you really have enough experience on this website to be doing what you're doing (trying to shepherd a massive ANI thread that involves dozens of users talking about something that's been talked about dozens of times for more than ten years), or do you still have some more watching-and-learning to do before you know how to clean up a "massively disorganized mess" at ANI? I know you're trying to save editor time, which is laudable, but so far your answer to "too much text" has been to add more text; you're increasing, not decreasing, the amount of editor time required to process the thread. Levivich 15:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your advice, see above for my reply to . A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  15:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

A question - why are you getting interested in closing ANI discussions? It's reasonable that if you've been around for a while that you can pick up an interest in administrative areas; the key is what motivates you to do so. In my case, I first worked out why articles got deleted, and became interested in deletion debates to see how that process worked, with an eye on trying to salvage anything that was practically possible. Later on, as I started to do more in-depth writing, it became necessary to know about edit-warring, how to avoid it, and how page protection worked. So getting involved in the back-area of Wikipedia was just a natural progression over about 3-4 years. The key here is despite having been an admin for some years now and participated in a lot (some might say too many!) ANI threads, I always have this nagging doubt in the back of my mind that the encyclopedia comes first. On a number of occasions, you can see me making lengthy discussions on noticeboards immediately followed by a few gnoming edits on an article, and that's because I always try and finish an editing session having worked on a bit of content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * honestly if I reflect for a while I might be able to come up with a particular reason for my recent interest in ANI (I guess my first real contribution there was dealing with Riyadhcafe87 at the start of last month), but in terms of administrative areas or discussions I have a longer-lasting interest in RfCs, GARs, DYKNs, and from time to time I like giving a go at reducing the split proposal backlog. Above all, as can be seen in my user page I try to improve the articles regarding the First Carlist War (and when I'm in more of a list-editing mood I add on to my Basque electoral history list draft). My interest and focus bounces around very often, but I particularly enjoy when I get the chance to dive down into academic research. So I don't think I'm necessarily getting interested in closing ANI discussions as a focus of my work for this project, but more that I saw what I felt was an issue, tried to solve it or talk to others in the VP about what I thought could be a more wide-ranging area of improvement than just the single thread, and came out of it learning a lot about ANI, complex discussions about WP topics, and procedure. I'll probably find myself in ANI again from time to time but I don't expect it to be a big interest just yet. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  17:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Your Utada Hikaru close
Please remove "rough" from the close at Talk:Utada Hikaru. There is nothing even fainly rough about the consensus. It is overwhelming and near-unanimous. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright. Really only one very loud and repetitive editor dissented so I'll remove rough .  A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  05:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We get too much drama around this subject area, and said party has been involved in two AE filings just in the last week or so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is, who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:


 * 1) with 5072 points
 * 2) with 3276 points
 * 3) with 3197 points
 * 4) with 1611 points
 * 5) with 1571 points
 * 6) with 1420 points
 * 7) with 1043 points
 * 8) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.


 * wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
 * wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
 * wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Research
You should add me to your list. <b style="color:#070">VdSV9</b>• ♫ 03:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean add to which list?  A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  07:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * GSoW. BTW, I wasn't trying to be discouraging or menacing or anything. I just saw that my name wasn't in there and I have already stated elsewhere that I am with the group, so this information could be useful for you to figure out just how reliable whatever method you were using was. <b style="color:#070">VdSV9</b>• ♫ 11:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated :)  A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  12:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Forresters Manuscript
Hello! Your submission of Forresters Manuscript 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 as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI edit
re Special:Diff/1053659886 I appreciate the desire to help, but I would like to note my agreement with what Ritchie333 and Levivich said above. The verb "sealioning" is a very pointed description and unlikely to reduce the energy level. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * fair enough, will append A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  09:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

After seeing your subsequent edits, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to stop editing ANI unless you have something really urgent to share. It's really easy to make edits at ANI that seem helpful but don't move the conversation forward. The current conversation needs calmness, not escalation, and proposing a topic ban when nobody had been talking about one before counts as escalation in my book. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought that continuing the discussion would just continue increasing the tension. I had already been called stupid, a witch-hunter, etc. All types of accusations had been thrown around. By making a specific proposal where others would be forced to stop just lashing out, and hypothesize and say "considering the evidence, do I agree or disagree" people would stop making pointless arguments about Sgerbic being an expert or if wikiprojects are all evil or ... A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  21:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of those are true about proposals in general, but targeting one user when the discussion is about the whole group doesn't seem like a good use of time. And I don't think the proposal is going to have the described effect on the discussion; it's possible for people to continue behaving the same way under the proposal. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily disagree with your closing on the section. However, it had been established that GSoW would have to be taken to Arbcom for any real action on that side. However, Sgerbic's flagrant COI and promotion of SI within wikipedia had been argued at length by that point. I don't see what else in that discussion can be said that hasn't been said before. In fact, the arguments are starting to become ad hominems, arguments from authority, appeals to pity, etc. rather than actual discussion. I'll kinda stay on the sidelines for now as I feel I've said all I had to say, and will await for more experienced editors to lead the way w the whole arbcom thing. (Ngl arbcom is kind of scary to a newbie like me but I look forward to this learning opportunity ^u^) A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  22:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Santacruz, as a very long term IP editor who's seen this a thousand times before let me be blunt with you for a minute: If you continue to hang around the Administrator's noticeboard you are going to find yourself blocked for disruptive editing. Your comments there are not helpful and are simply turning discussions into massive trainwrecks, and your article space contributions related to them (like those prods, the speedy deletion tagging, and the deletion of reliably sourced content) are almost indistinguishable from vandalism. The administrator's noticeboard is full of highly experienced admins and editors, many of whom have been here for over a decade - this isn't the first time they'll have dealt with an off-wiki group and they'll be more than capable of dealing with this one. Focus on article editing until you have a lot more experience. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I've seen this happen dozens and dozens of times before - a newcomer gets involved in some administrative area of the project without having the proper experience and knowledge to contribute there properly, ends up being disruptive in their attempts to help and ultimately ends up blocked. Please don't let it happen to you. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah for sure, I appreciate the comment. Honestly after all the insults and everything I'm just going to go back to my Carlist-related editing for a while. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  23:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Collaboration on a case regarding the Guerrilla Skeptics
Hi,. As we agreed on the relevant ANI page, the fact that there is an offwiki group with hundreds of editors whose membership is not known to outsiders within Wikipedia is a massive problem. I think a strong case should be made to the community (in what forum I don't know) to see how to resolve this, and was wondering if y'all were willing to collaborate in preparing such a case. A. C. Santacruz &#8258;  Talk  09:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Further pinging based on their comments in an archived BLP thread in case they're also interested.  A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  09:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can collaborate, but I'm not sure how you'd want to proceed. I think our best plan is likely just keeping an eye on articles that would attract their attention and work to keep them neutral. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My experiences with the GSoW were not glowingly positive, as you can see there. I'm not sure there's 'a case' per se, but I do think there are serious questions about whether their operations are appropriate in a culture that gets upset about things much more transparent. I also share David's sourcing concerns pretty sharply, especially combined with my own experiences with GSoW members having very poor understandings of sourcing broadly (e.g. removing non-English or paywalled sources, assuming things are "press releases" without reading them to see they were actually criticisms). <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 18:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's the fact not the intention which is the problem. All Wikiprojects are advocacy groups of some sort, even the very gnomish one which I started. While I was drafting my comment at ANI, I was thinking of WP:Womeninred and WP:ARS. Both have admirable aims; even the recent criticism at WP:ANI was largely directed to the way it operates.
 * We see similar WP:MEAT problems from time to time when someone attempts to use platforms like Facebook and Twitter to flood an article, or discussion, or two. Existing procedures seem to handle those fairly well; they tend to be limited in time and scope.
 * I'm not sure what the best way forward might be here. One possibility could be a well-thought-through WP:ARBCOM case, with the aim of setting out guidance for admins as to when and how to intervene. Should such a ruling be made, WP:AE could be a suitable place for enforcement. Narky Blert (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with the reference to Women in Red as an admirable aim that greatly improves the project. Perhaps a good start would be to create some sort of Draft Space evidence gathering to record instances of (I don't know what word to use here) coordination/problematic operation/overlap in editing? I don't know exactly what structure the evidence for an arbcom case would have, for one. Would it list editors? Or overall patterns? A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  11:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I can tell you as an arbitrator that you're not likely to get an accepted case regarding Guerrilla Skeptics without a) copious amounts of evidence of them being disruptive, and b) evidence that ArbCom is the last resort and you've tried everything else in dispute resolution. Cases are slogs for everyone involved, so it definitely behooves people interested in making changes to try AN boards first anyhow. I think you would need to demonstrate that en masse the organization is effecting bad changes or editing patterns in violation of Wikipedia policies—enforcing or edit-warring to keep in BLP violations or habitual misuse of sources. My main concern that I brought up to RS/N with little result was that many of the sources used don't seem to meet reliability standards, and getting a firmer consensus on that in and of itself would probably be of great help to clarifying the issue (because there's lots of articles that basically only exist due to a "bubble" of these questionable sources, rather than evidence of notability from more mainstream publications.) I hadn't seen the BLP thread you linked before and Gerbic's poor attitude is probably not a good sign the project is interested in working through those issues, but you gotta' try (before she went SlimVirgin did do a decent job overhauling Gerbic's article, at least.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that the loosest thread to pull on to untie this knot is activity related to Skeptic Inquirer-associated BLPs. Pages like John Mashey and Peter Gleick are both Fellows or consultants to SI's parent company Center for Inquiry, while Wesley R. Elsberry presented at a conference associated with SI. Looking through relevant talk pages, finding attempts to breach SPS or notability principles to increase puffery in said articles and other similar avenues could provide a good way to start looking into the issue. Sgerbic described GSoW events to try to cite issues of SI as much as possible throughout Wikipedia, so starting from there seems like the best way forward. A. C. Santacruz &#8258;  Talk  13:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Aside from these issues, I have no experience bringing discussions to RS but if someone feels SI is unreliable when reporting on skeptics (I won't venture into saying that) there are many articles about skeptics that would fail the notability test. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  13:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey don't forget me, I wanna help! Sgerbic (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * DWF makes a very good point. The key issue - and it's not restricted to the topic of this thread - is misuse of sources. This can include (but is not limited to) reliance on WP:SPS or other unreliable sources to assert notability, cherrypicking, WP:REFBOMBING, and (IMO by far the worst) citations which don't support the fact(s) they're cited in favour of. Should a clique collaborate offwiki to raise an article from WP:STUB to WP:FA - well, I'd rather they were working together onwiki, but the result would be praiseworthy.
 * That suggests that the best place for investigation is misuse of sources - especially, for obvious reasons, in WP:BLPs. (BLP IMDb-only refimprove exists for a reason.) If a pattern emerges, I can see two likely main issues: (1) reliability of a particular source, which is a matter for WP:RS/N, and (2) persistent misuse of a source or sources by a particular editor, which is probably a behavioural matter first for WP:TPs and if necessary later for WP:ANI. Only if a larger pattern emerges is there an argument for escalating further.
 * Any investigation has to start from suspicion, somewhere, often as a fishing expedition - even with IP vandals. But an arguable case needs evidence not suspicion. As anecdotes, last week I decided to investigate a UK tabloid newspaper (which I detest) to see if it could be downgraded from "generally unreliable" to "deprecated". So, I bookmarked all their major news stories (ignoring WP:GOSSIP) over several days, then looked at them all together. Some or most of their interpretations were laughable, but I found no instance where they'd made stuff up. So, "generally unreliable" is right, and there's no justification for a new thread. On the other side of the coin, about the same time I researched the host of a YouTube channel I follow (he knows his stuff), in the hope of writing him up. Nope, not a chance - the sources just aren't there. Narky Blert (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * How many articles would more or less be needed for a solid case for "a larger pattern" . The example of them going over 160 articles with just one issue of SI seemed like enough to me but the community did not seem to see it that way. The diffs in the conversation already showed that the articles of fellows/consultants/contributors to SI are quite heavily affected by SPS and partisan sources. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  23:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent experiences
Hi A. C. Santacruz! I'm not sure how to approach this, but I wanted to add some general support. It seems to me that you've been dragged through some pretty rough stuff lately - what I'm finding particularly frustrating is the CIR accusations, which border on personal attacks. Wikipedia is a strange place. You can edit for years and never run into a problem; or you can accidently run into an ongoing and insanely complex dispute and find yourself a target for reasons you don't understand. One of the first times I hit a major probem on Wikipedia was when I as editing an article about a koal and I became the subject of a surreal online campaign for reasons that I still don't understand. Sometimes we walk into them knowing what to expect, and sometimes we get blindsided by a dispute that makes no sense. It seems to me you may have had your fair share of being blindsided of late.

My one big rule is to trust the community. In every major dispute I've found, where the editors are intractable and the problems seemingly impossible to solve, the community has ultimatly come up with a solution or the problem has simply gone away. Sometimes with my involvement, sometimes without, but Wikipedia is a surprisingly resilant place. Patience and stepping back works more often than not. Eventually, either GSoW will change their practices, or the community will address them. In the meantime, step back and enjoy the good experiences Wikipedia provides. I'm impressed with your work in DYK, and it seems to me that Wikipedia needs editors like you, so I'd hate to see you discouraged. - Bilby (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! I really appreciate your support. I am most definitely not discouraged: I adore this community and believe in it above everything else. The last week has been pretty rough but I overall had a lot of joy this month in my editing ^u^. What stays unmoving, in fact, is that eventually the community will deal with any important issues that arise. Meanwhile, I will continue editing and contributing here for a long, long time :) A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  11:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am very happy to hear that. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello from Susan Gerbic
I tried to apologize for misspelling your last name yesterday but I think it was part of one of the posts I ended up with a edit conflict and didn't make it. I know how frustrating it is to have someone misspell your name. It wasn't on purpose, I have always lived next door to Santa Cruz and my fingers just type that naturally. I hope if you have questions about GSoW you will reach out. My email is SusanGerbic@Yahoo.com Sgerbic (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I assumed so, don't worry too much about the spelling mistake it happens from time to time :) A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  20:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, my songspam was sort of close... And not even on purpose! El_C 14:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Userpage
Hi A. C. Santacruz, love your userpage and copied the "This user has access to the following sources: " to my own, hope you don't mind :D About the discretionary sanction notice above, the notice is commonly given to editors editing in areas where there is a discretionary sanction involved, you probably have edited a few BLP articles recently and thus gotten the notice.  Just ' i ' yaya  15:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I really liked it when I saw it on 's userpage so I asked him how he did it. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  17:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for CSS Maurepas
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Alpha Phi Beta
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Utada Hikaru&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 00:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Kashmir&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Syed Ali Shah Geelani&#32; on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 13:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Jean Walton&#32; on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Sudharmono&#32; on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:GST distribution dispute&#32; on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 09:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Lyceum Theatre (Broadway)&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 00:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Caroline Reboux&#32; on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:New York Marriott Marquis and &#32; Talk:Marquis Theatre on "Art and architecture" Good Article nominations. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 02:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Revolt of the Fourteen&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Art and architecture Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Cort Theatre&#32; on a "Art and architecture" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 04:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Winsome Sears&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 00:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Julian Assange&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 17:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Jack Posobiec&#32; on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 02:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:J. K. Rowling&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice
—— Serial  15:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't get what this means regarding me. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  17:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , was this ever explained to you adequately? If not, ping me, and I'll explain. Mathglot (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * from my understanding it's kind of a "this room is full of fine china" type of warning where admin actions and the like can be done quicker and with less procedure, but I don't have too good of an idea I think. Thanks for the offer! Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  20:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That's basically it. It's also, as the notice says, not in any way a flag that you did anything wrong; in theory, these notices could (maybe even should?) be handed out to everybody who edits certain controversial topic areas and hasn't received one for that topic in the last 12 months. You're also free to archive or simply delete the notice at your discretion, which will be taken as proof that you read and understood it. If you want to see the complete list of topics considered controversial and subject to Discretionary sanctions, it is here. It's possible to stave off such warnings by means of Template:Ds/aware&mdash;you can see one in use in the header box at the top of my Talk page&mdash;but I probably wouldn't do that if I were you at this stage in your career, as you probably *want* the reminder, in case you wander into some controversial topic unawares. But if you're confident you won't forget, and don't need/don't want to receive them, you can use the 'aware' template, and you won't get the notices anymore. The flip side is, you could suddenly get blocked if you forget and inadvertently cross a line somewhere; so, it's up to you. Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Closing an Rfc
A. C. Santacruz, you are still a new user, so you can't be expected to know all the rules around here (of which there are many), but I see you've learned some of the rules about RFCs, in particular, how to create one, as you did here at Talk:J. K. Rowling; so bravo for that. On the other hand, you haven't yet learned about proper Rfc closure procedure. This closure by you was an invalid closure, even if the result would have turned out the same eventually. Normally, an Rfc runs for 30 days, although they can be closed earlier by agreement, or by the original poster *withdrawing* the Rfc. However, nobody can close an Rfc 26 hours after it started, and the original poster can never close an Rfc and also assess the result, no matter what the "score" is at that point, and no matter how many days have elapsed since it started. Also somewhat concerning, is the fact that within 7 hours of starting the Rfc, you were talking about its closure, and follow-up with a second based on a presupposed consensus, saying: "once consensus is reached (the RfC started yesterday so it'll wait for a bit) I will start a second RfC presenting various options for wording based on the result of this RfC". That statement was premature, and did not help the Rfc that was underway.

I say all this as someone who voted with you on that Rfc, but I believe the Rfc guideline takes precedence over my opinion, and the formalities of the Rfc process have to be respected, irrespective of anyone's personal point of view. Unfortunately, the damage to process by the invalid closure has been compounded, because you then opened another one, using as a premise of the second Rfc, the fact that the first one had been closed and properly assessed. In my opinion, this now makes the second Rfc tainted by the invalid closure of the first. I'm really not sure what to do about all this, and will leave it to an uninvolved closer to unscramble.

In any case, the reason I'm explaining all this, is just to say that if you decide to open another Rfc some day (on any topic), please ensure that you do not attempt to evaluate it or close it at any point; it's also a better look if someone else other than the OP calls for snow close, or requests closure and assessment after it expires. I hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Following here from Talk:J. K. Rowling: FWIW, A. C. Santacruz got the opposite advice at WP:ANRFC. Firefangledfeathers 05:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting; I'm surprised. Well, just goes to show you, if the experienced editors don't agree about such things, we certainly can't blame newer editors from getting confused. To A. C. Santacruz's credit, they went to the right place, got some advice there, and applied it; I certainly can't fault them for that; just the opposite. The fact that I don't happen to agree with that advice, is neither here nor there. Mathglot (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Firefangledfeathers. Could you perhaps provide the exact link showing that advice? -The Gnome (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * diff Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  08:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I would also have likely cautioned against closing your own RfC in all but the most exceptional cases. I think one ingredient here is the contentiousness of the topic area. Even with clear early support for one option, who knows what opinions might pop out of the woodwork? Conversely, who knows who might later question the solidity of the consensus without allowing enough time? Worth thinking/talking about, I think. Firefangledfeathers 06:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to my talk page to give advice, I really appreciate it ^u^. To be perfectly honest I wasn't too keen on closing it (still believe it should've run at least the weekend) but the wording of the advice on WP:CR felt a bit authoritative. I wonder if its a good idea for me to reopen the discussion. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  08:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't reply at length now, but at this point, I would not reopen. Mathglot (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "So if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days; if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious" (WP:CR)


 * "When further responses are likely to result in little more than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same widely held view, then it should be closed sooner rather than later" (WP:WHENCLOSE)


 * "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be.", "There is no required minimum or maximum duration" (WP:RFCCLOSE)


 * "If there is unanimous support for something uncontroversial, then a discussion can generally not be seen as contentious or heated, and WP:SNOW can be applied".


 * These were the basis for my reasoning. And if I might add, WP:CR stipulating "any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion" and WP:RFCCLOSE establishing that "any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion" is slightly confusing.


 * Regardless, I take full responsibility for this and apologize for my misguided counsel. Also, I intended in no way to convey my advice in an authoritative manner. I understand that the legitimacy of the close and thus the subsequent RfC are now in doubt as a result; so if needed, other RfC participants may be asked for their opinion on this or WP:AN may be consulted. I hope this helps, and again, I’m sorry. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , your comments here at A.C.S.'s talk page are very gracious, and I don't think you have anything to apologize for. Your reading of the guidelines is most certainly a defensible one, and you gave your advice, as I and others did, in good faith, and that's all anyone can ask for. Beyond that, anyone who is willing to reexamine their own behavior in a given situation epitomizes, in my opinion, the very highest standards of Wikipedia; you are exactly the kind of editor that Wikipedia needs more of. So, bravo, thanks for your comments, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

A.C. Santacruz, it seems you were in a similar situation before at Talk:Éric Zemmour, in which your recommendation to another editor to close an Rfc they started was rebuffed by (here) and  (here). I can see you're getting some conflicting advice about this whole closure business, and if anything similar happens again regarding this, or any guideline or policy, that's probably a good sign that as a still relatively new user, you should probably take the most conservative approach and leave any iffy move to a more experienced editor, and let them take the heat if they try something that isn't clearly compliant. Sorry you've been mixed up with all this, to some extent it's collateral damage from having edited in controversial areas (Rowling: gender-related issues; Zemmour: right-wing politics) and if you want some peace and quiet for a while, just try and avoid such topics for a bit. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (since I was pinged): Two oft-forgotten components of WP:BOLD are 1. WP:CAREFUL and 2. the notion that Although editors are encouraged to be bold in updating articles, more caution is sometimes required when editing pages in non-article namespaces. A. C. Santacruz, be less bold and more careful in non-mainspace pages and you'll be fine. JBchrch   talk  02:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Opening an RfC
On a related note - was opening either of the RfCs on Rowling the wisest course of action? There are fairly frequent changes to the article and heated discussion on the talk page, but over the last yeart or so, rough consensus has emerged, following previous discussions and RfCs. It seems from some of your comments that you haven't read those or indeed, the article itself, in full, before jumping in with both feet to start the two RfCs. While I understand WP:BOLD and absolutely assume you started these RfCs with good faith, what we are seeing know was eminently predictable - in the majority of cases, people are !voting based on their personal opinion of the topic of transgender rights/activism/criticism, rather than on WP policy. E.g., claims of "too recent" or WP:DUE for the lead, ignoring what the MOS:LEAD already states. In particular, I have concerns about 'splitting the vote' in offering two different options about "if we keep this in the lead, what should we say". Actually, even more fundamentally, after snow-closing the previous RfC, it should have been made clear that only a tiny minority of those commenting in that RfC favoured removing from the lead. Now, suddenly, that's up for debate, even though it's been stable in the lead for months. I've been here quite a while, and I can tell you if I were to start an RfC on something so controversial, I'd likely be seeking advice on wording, options, format, or even appropriateness of doing so, before starting. Sorry, just my 2c. Regards, <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am beginning to wonder if there's a yen for WP:DRAMA apparent from such actions, kind of like what caused problems at ANI a couple of weeks ago. Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that removing it from the lead as an option is not my fault, I merely gave an option for other rewordings of the lead. I didn't even consider there would be actual support for removal from the lead aside from one or two editors with transphobic opinions (who I recognized from other discussions). In any case, RfCs are not decided by votes, and if the closer sees there is widespread support for inclusion but disagreement on how exactly to word it (either A, B, or C) they will mention that in the close. A subsequent RfC can then be made between those option with clear mention that removal is against consensus. I sought the advice of in this discussion on their talk page. I strongly believe that the lead will be contentious for the following years, and having a consensus on the exact wording of the lead will help keep it stable. As you can see from the discussion there is a non-trivial number of editors that find it problematic in its current state (too much or too little mention of the trans views) and I continue to believe that RfCs guided by specific options helps make that debate more structured. Just looking at the discussion above my first RfC and how disorganized and battlegrounded that was, I don't think that me deciding to create those RfCs was wrong. In any case,  I genuinely appreciate you coming to my talk page and letting me know of your concerns ^u^.  Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  13:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It won't keep it stable - and nor should it! - because new things will happen and editors old and new will come along and change the wording, for better or worse. This is as it should be. Wordings should never be set in stone by an RfC, and in fact they can't be. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There has been at least one case where an RfC did decide wording under the aegis of arbitration: WP:GMORFC. But otherwise there is a general growing problem on Wikipedia of editors (especially new ones) seeing RfCs as quasi-legal ways of "settling cases" - as decision-making-mechanisms rather than requests for comment. Editors are launching RfCs before doing proper WP:RFCBEFORE and a lot of community time is being wasted. There are plenty of hornets' nests on Wikipedia, and it's not a great use of time to go around kicking them. Alexbrn (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not mean stable as in unchangeable or set in stone, rather as a steady point of reference. Recent consensus is useful at guiding edits in contentious articles. Other editors had suggested changing the wording in the first RfC I made, and so I created a second one to discuss that. please use less idioms when talking with or about me, as I find them hard to understand in this context — just say what you mean. The idea I am seeking controversial articles to create more controversy and drama is an unreasonable accusation lacking both in diffs and proper process (there are noticeboards for that), especially when I have repeatedly mentioned I created the RfCs in order to bring some structure to the mess of a discussion previously held in the talk page. I'd appreciate you stop lurking my talk page if you don't wish to change your tone when addressing me as I find it insulting and patronizing (WP:NOBAN), but you are still welcome to message me here when necessary for the Wikipedia process.  Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  14:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you follow, it instructs users to "seek dispute resolution if needed", and links to Dispute resolution requests, where launching a RfC looks like the most reasonable and straightforward option. Actually, I would argue that learning how to avoid RfCs is something that that is generally reserved to experienced editors who know their way around the project and its customs. JBchrch   talk  16:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

A new RFC (as you're aware of) is up & steamrolling ahead. So, your closure of the earlier-related RFC, shall have to remain. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)