User talk:Starship.paint

Happy New Year, Starship.paint!


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)


 * 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)

Splitting discussion for George Pell


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)

Nomination of Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer for deletion
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 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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Adrian Adonis with rose.jpg
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 &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 04:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Laptop
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)


 * FYI Mr Ernie (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * - 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)
 * 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)

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

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)
 * 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)

Thank you all for notifying me of your issues, 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)

Shooting of Aderrien Murry
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)
 * - OK then we will have to wait for however long sustained may be.  starship .paint  (exalt) 12:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Signing
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)
 * - you should thank, 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)

Helping Star

 * Happy to help, !  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Blurb
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)


 * 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)


 * - 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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jason Chee (disambiguation)


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. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shooting of Aderrien Murry
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! M h hossein  talk 07:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Essay critique
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)

Nomination of Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer for deletion
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 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) 02:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Shooting of Aderrien Murry
Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

r/place source
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)
 * - 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)
 * 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)
 * - 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)
 * 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)

24-BRD violation -- Donald Trump rape
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)

Help with Wikipedia policies?
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. 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 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. 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 and incivility

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.:

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. 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)


 * - 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)


 * - 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)
 * Details #1, 4 and 5 needs actual evidence.
 * (2a) Detail #2, on MSNBC, I suppose you are referring to this, 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, 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)

Support
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) 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)
 * - thank you, please write a message here as if you were commenting there.  starship .paint  (RUN) 10:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * ✅  starship  .paint  (RUN) 14:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I am currently on hiatus from adminship. Pinging @Jayron32 as original sanctioning admin. I have no opinion here. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 19:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Tamzin, sorry to bother you. I thought it had been you originally.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If Jayron or another admin thinks it is a violation I will remove it.  starship .paint  (RUN) 23:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * You shouldn't be doing that. Read WP:MEAT. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

Vanguard RfC
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)

Yes
WP:TWL, or something. Levivich (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:Requested moves/Current discussions
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)
 * - 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)

AN thread
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)
 * - 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)
 * I'd also suggest you read two threads. (a) Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive318 - 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) Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive356. 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)
 * 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)
 * - 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)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

VA discussion of Plymouth, Massachusetts and Salem, Massachusetts
Hello, I believe it was improper to close that discussion at 4-3 and have reopened it. p b  p  14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * - the Grandfather clause disagrees, unless you have a better reason than the rules.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. p  b  p  14:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are level 3, . I really doubt that these two are the ones in danger.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Nakba denial
Aoidh (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Vital
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)
 * - 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)
 * 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)
 * - 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)
 * 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)

Presenting patterns
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)


 * - 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)

Wrong discussion archived.
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)


 * 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)


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

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
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)

Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * - thank you very much Gerda! How are you?  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * see my talk - great opera yesterday, such things --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Minor clarification to the edit of your close
Diff for context

Apologies if you were already aware :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * - I was not aware, and in any case, no need to apologise, thank you. I updated the close.  starship .paint  (RUN) 00:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much :) FortunateSons (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you
I attempted to edit the Kristi Noem article late last night, but I was too bleary-eyed to do it competently. I went to bed cringing about the way the newly-added section was written, particularly because, as you pointed out, the article generates huge traffic. I planned to hit it first thing this morning and was hugely relieved by your well-written, neutral, and concise edit. Thank you. JSFarman (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - thank you for your kind words - just checking, were you referring to this ?  starship .paint  (RUN) 01:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. (It doesn't seem that dramatic as a diff, but when I read it this AM it made a huge difference.) JSFarman (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - I see. Well, it is my hope that the details of the story (and her defense) fairly reflect her side of the story. Readers can come to whatever conclusion they wish. When the story gets condensed too much, you can't really understand why she took these actions.  starship .paint  (RUN) 07:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Professional wrestling notification for May 19
See no evil and fear no bologna. That is all. I tried to work in something about a chestnut tree, but simply did not. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - of course he would, he is the man that beat the man!  starship .paint  (RUN) 02:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm a vegetarian and even I recognize Mr. Former Man! Still the real deal to me, dammit. This Chestnut guy, though, he's the future. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - well he's also the present since 2007, actually.  starship .paint  (RUN) 02:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm a vegetarian, not a hardcore wiener-eater dirtsheeter. Cut me some slack, eh? The important thing is the date (and kind of the mayor, of this kind of a county). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - JBL?!  starship .paint  (RUN) 02:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 'twas on a Shotgun Saturday Night like this, 27 years ago, that The New Blackjacks put an end to the team of Carl Fergie and Reginald Walker forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - Nephew Uncle Howdy?!  starship .paint  (RUN) 03:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my Useless Trivia Powers stop working in 2009. He'll...do fine one day? Probably not in wrestling, from what little I did glean, but you know...all that transpires. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , well, we may see more of him with Alexa Bliss, Nikki Cross, Dexter Lumis, Joe Gacy and Erick Rowan...  starship .paint  (RUN) 03:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just found this clue and RAN here to tell you about it. Boy, are my arms tired! Makes no sense, but so what, wrestling's supposed to be easily misunderstood. Bunch of wackos! Anyway, until the ultimate broken toy lunatic returns to guide this new age voodoo kin mafia, I'm only "keeping my eyes peeled" for clips and retain the right to quit anytime I want. But yeah...promising? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And no, I don't mean Matt Freakin' Hardy. That guy burned down his brother's house and dog, then kicked his ass in a stairwell, last I checked. There's no sweeping that under the rug in 2024. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, you called it! I mean, aside from Sister Alexa the Flamingo (or whatever). Maybe she's too obvious, maybe my guy's too heelish, it doesn't matter. Five out of six is absolutely perfect. Have a hot dog, you earned it! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - dirt sheets called it, mate. By the way, did you see TNA sign the hottest free agent? Ace Steel!  starship .paint  (RUN) 12:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a blast from the past. Not Kintaro Ohki or Jim Steele odd, but certainly not something I'd have called in 2024. Well relayed, Starman, and well received! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you ready? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is he ready?  starship .paint  (RUN) 16:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Joey Chestnut was born ready! Anyway, as a man who cannot be eaten, I feel something for a dude who'll never be hungry again. "Bittersweet", critics once repeated. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You hoodwinked me! That's not a complaint, by the way, well sold. Sometimes we need to think the good guy is finished. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Don’t hate the player, hate the game! Netflix, you monster!  starship .paint  (RUN) 04:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * King's Road style, brother. Maybe the last frank goes down like the 76 before, but as with that straw-bearing camel of lore, one of them simply snaps and then the story ends. It is monstrous, in several senses, but heroes need monsters. Internal, external, all prolonged trauma builds character. I like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Notifications
Some of the notifications you issued appear inappropriate, such as the one to Wikiproject South Africa. BilledMammal (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

it’s apartheid.  starship .paint  (RUN) 05:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your point is? This accusation isn’t related to South Africa. BilledMammal (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - the current discussion is literally about apartheid, which South Africa quite famously had.  starship .paint  (RUN) 05:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn’t explain why this accusation, that does not involve South Africa, is relevant to their WikiProject. Please remove the notification, to prevent any potential WP:CANVASS issues. BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - the editors there may be more familiar with apartheid, the subject of the RfC. No, I won’t remove it, but if you want to remove it, you can take action.  starship .paint  (RUN) 05:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you are giving me permission to remove it? BilledMammal (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - no, I’m not, but you don’t need my permission to remove it. It is within your ability to revert my notification. I will simply note it in the RFC discussion.  starship .paint  (RUN) 05:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to edit another editors comment, outside of blatant talk page policy violations, without their permission. I had hoped you would do it yourself; the justification for making the notification is tenuous at best, and as such now concerns have been expressed it would be best practice to remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, up to you. No, I won’t remove it myself just because of your concerns. But if anyone reverts, I won’t be edit warring or reporting to WP:AE/ANI, though maybe other editors will.  starship .paint  (RUN) 06:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow, that seems like a weak justification. So do Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, and Malaysia. It would be inappropriate to notify WikiProject Germany for an RfC on accusations of genocide in the lede of Indonesia. Zanahary (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At the risk of solving 0 problems and pissing off everyone, would notifying Judaism not be the appropriate remedy? Then we would have added a project with similar distance? FortunateSons (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - do it if you wish, you won't see me complaining about that, though I can't speak for everyone, of course. With this RfC, I think I can change my name to Joe Biden.  starship .paint  (RUN) 08:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I’ll wait for a second person to respond, just to make sure.
 * Yeah, ARBPIA can be though, Mr. President. ;) FortunateSons (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed that BilledMammal wrote "Some of the notifications..." rather than "One of the notifications...". Is there more disagreement than I first realized? For the record FortunateSons, I don't object to any Wikiproject notifications. I think it's better to focus on increasing participation because it solves multiple problems at once. My reading of the guidelines is that there is a lot of wiggle-room in the terms like 'related' and 'may have interest in the topic under discussion' when the objective is "broadening participation". Notifying projects Israel and Palestine is an obvious choice. The Discrimination, Human Rights and South Africa notifications match the projects involved with the Crime of apartheid article. There are multiple projects involved with the Israel article so maybe there should be some more notifications based on interest in that article. I suppose there are risks of bias with all of the notifications, but it could be argued that Wikiprojects are inherently biased by design, or you could say focused. I think ARBPIA RfCs should be illuminated from lots of different directions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - I am pretty sure that "Some" equals "One" because at the time BilledMammal first posted on my talk page, I had not yet notified Discrimination / Law / Human rights.  starship .paint  (RUN) 10:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Right. I could have figured that out myself by maybe doing some due diligence before posting a comment... Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

<- This conversation is both funny and confusing. The accusation isn’t related to South Africa, but it is related to apartheid, which Wikiproject South Africa participants presumably know something about, so we can conclude...(I have no idea what goes here). Good luck with that. Would it be appropriate or inappropriate to notify Wikiproject Cambodia or Wikiproject Rwanda for genocide accusation related RfCs? I have no idea. Either way, I would like to commend Starship.paint's efforts to increase the community population sample size for the RfC. Low participation numbers for ARBPIA related RfCs etc. seems to be quite a common issue. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I notified even more after South Africa. Trying to figure out how to note that in the RFC.  starship .paint  (RUN) 06:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the other notifications. It made me think about objective or different ways to decide who to notify and increase participation. What got my attention is that you and BilledMammal seem to be using quite different methods. I guess you are both doing some kind of distance estimation, how close is A to B, but with different (conceptual) landscapes and yardsticks e.g. for you, apartheid to SA is a short distance, but for BilledMammal it's Israel to SA, and that is a large distance, too far. Maybe there should be some random Wikiprojects for every RfC, who knows. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I appreciate that this is a grey area, and I do not begrudge BilledMammal for thinking that way. One more thing to note is that Israel and apartheid has over 60 mentions of either "South Africa" or "South African" in article text, so it seems that South African certainly isn't independent of this topic.  starship .paint  (RUN) 08:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That was one of the ways I was thinking about. Get all internal wiki links in an article with counts, then get all the Wikiprojects for those linked articles, and rank them by count. Could be wildly misleading, or useful. Hard to tell without trying. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since FortunateSons notified the Judaism project, I see no reason not to do same for the Islam, Christianity and Arab projects. M.Bitton (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The purpose was counterweight for any alleged issues with the SA notification. I could have also gone for USA/Germany, but the idea was not having every single project notified. FortunateSons (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Now that said notifications have happened, I believe that the appropriate neutrality of notification is no longer given. In addition, the issue with the SA vote is no longer appropriately addressed. FortunateSons (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is more relevant to the RfC, Judaism or the others (Islam, Christianity and Arabs)? As for South Africa, as well as being associated with the word "apartheid", there is also what the South Africans think of this. M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say Judaism definitely is closer than Christianity and arguably closer than Islam, with about equivalent proximity between SA and Judaism. I would say that Arab is definitely too far away.
 * However, the primary issue here is balance within the notifications. FortunateSons (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Closer" how? Is Israel's Apartheid against them or against the Palestinians (who are Arabs, Christians and Muslims)? M.Bitton (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m basing it on the proximity between this issue and every other issue (basically: would it be unreasonable to inform the group of every other comparable or closer issue.) To make it simple: if this was the standard, we would have to notify Christianity of every single case where a prosecuted group is partially Christian, and that would be disproportionate.
 * Israels alleged apartheid would be directed against Palestinians (as in: people who are not Israelis), the claims of that group including Arab citizens of Israel (which would then be based on religious/ethnic membership instead of nationality) is a lot more dubious. FortunateSons (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained how Judaism is "closer". M.Bitton (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s always an intuitive measure, however (data is slightly old):
 * 40% of Jews life in Israel
 * in the USA (where about the other 40% live), Eight-in-ten U.S. Jews say caring about Israel is an essential or important part of what being Jewish means to them
 * 76 % of people in Israel are Jewish
 * Therefore, I would say it’s reasonable that there is a close connection between many Jews and Israel. FortunateSons (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not buying it. The close connection between the word apartheid and the ones who are subjected to it (based on their religions and ethnicity) is way more important than the religion of those who are perpetrating it, but since one may argue that they are interlinked and you already notified the latter, then there is no reason not to notify the former. M.Bitton (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is about the point in time where we need third-party input:
 * a) was my notification appropriate?
 * b) were @M.Bittons notifications appropriate?
 * c) would notifying one or more adequate projects be inappropriate to counterbalance any potential bias-issue due to b (regardless of the outcome of b)?
 * @BilledMammal@Sean.hoyland@Starship.paint FortunateSons (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I justified the notifications based on yours (using the exact words). I'm done here, so please don't ping me again. M.Bitton (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think looking at this in terms of two other persecutions would be helpful. Would you describe The Holocaust as relating more to Judaism or Christianity? The Crusades as relating more to Christianity or Islam? In the first example, most people would associate The Holocaust with Judaism, the religion being persecuted. In the second example, I think most Westerners at least would associate the Crusades with Christianity, those doing the persecuting. In a sense, you're both correct. Just because we think ourselves that one group is more significantly attached to an event, policy, idea, conflict, etc. doesn't mean it isn't relevant to something else. Not that I think notifying all of these groups is particularly helpful, but I can see some merit in both sides of this argument. I think now may be the time to just disengage and continue making useful contributions to the encyclopaedia elsewhere. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 16:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thoughtful contribution. You’re probably right about a) and b) (from which I intend to disengage). However, I would appreciate a response to c), if you are willing to give one? :) FortunateSons (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, notifying as many relevant projects as possible is never a bad thing. Including all sides of an argument is important, there are enough accusations of bias against Wikipedia as it is. As long as you can reasonably justify the notifications which I think has been done here. For example, notifying WP:WikiProject Mammals would be inappropriate as, even though everyone involved is a mammal, it's hardly relevant to that project's aims. Judaism and Israel and inexorably linked; accusations of Israeli apartheid are relevant to Islam, Christianity and Arabs. So, I see no real harm in these notifications, other than perhaps it going a little overboard. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 17:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I certainly didn’t expect all of this! - sorry to notify you again. I’m now willing to undo my WT:ZA notification if both of you can also agree to undo your notification(s). How does that sound? Shall we all undo, or all leave the notifications as is? Offer’s on the table.  starship .paint  (RUN) 00:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @BilledMammal I think South Africa is fine? My understanding is that it is really not South Africa as a country making the apartheid accusation, it is the African National Congress, which just lost its majority in parliament for the first time in democratic history. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you maybe confusing the apartheid accusation (which is a long-standing characterization that I don't think is associated with any particular country as its author) with the genocide accusation (which the ANC has brought to an international court)? Zanahary (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 😞 Yes, I am very confused now. Some sources mention South Africa accusing Israel of apartheid in the UN court. I think some people in South Africa may think Israel is committing apartheid, and others not, based on video interviews I have seen. Seems the citizens of South Africa have pretty divided opinions on this too, which is why I didn’t think notifying the Wikipedia South Africa project is necessarily a biased action. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like it was mentioned in South Africa's case at the ICJ. See South Africa's genocide case against Israel. Second paragraph in the lead, including what South Africa described as Israel's 75-year apartheid (reference 1 includes a relevant quote). Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 04:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With respect, I'm sure it's been mentioned in national resolutions or statements by the governments of Syria, Iran, and Russia, too. That is not a reason to notify their Projects. Zanahary (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My latest comment wasn't an endorsement of notifying WikiProject South Africa, it was simply a reply to your comment about confusing the apartheid accusations and the genocide case (apartheid was mentioned in the case) and Wafflefrites' response to that comment, providing a little extra context. Anyway, like I said to the other editors above, I think it's time to disengage. Everyone has made their opinions clear, it's done now, what is to be gained by debating the merits of this notification ad nauseum? Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 04:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This "Seems the citizens of South Africa have pretty divided opinions on this too" is one of the ways I thought about the SA project notification too, as a kind of sanity check, like notifying WikiProject Thailand for an RfC about a Thai food festival or whatever in Idaho. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m happy undo my notifications if everyone else is willing, and thank you for your offer :) FortunateSons (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, so, if M.Bitton can agree to undo, we'll all undo, but if M.Bitton does not agree, then we'll leave them as is.  starship  .paint  (RUN) 07:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good FortunateSons (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Leave them. With a bit of luck, they might attract much needed input to the RfC that was previously closed for lack of participation, among other things. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - ^ we are leaving the notifications there.  starship .paint  (RUN) 01:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you for your suggestion anyway :) FortunateSons (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

<- It's quite tempting to notify WP:WikiProject Mammals just to see what would happen...foiled by the pesky WP:NOTLAB policy again. There might be arguments in favor of doing random things like that sometimes for potentially contentious RfCs in polarized topic areas. Borrow one of evolution's tricks to randomize the sampling of a search space a bit via mutation (of the guidelines in this case). Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Clearly, this is a job for BilledMammal!  starship .paint  (RUN) 01:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Out of line
You are taking an extreme action for which there is no consensus. You cannot do this. At the very least, ask ScottishFinnishRadish who closed the discussion about the best next steps. There is the alternative simpler approach of re-closing my RfC by another editor; this is a position many people endorsed.

Taking the step of creating a new nearly-identical RfC is a massive waste of time, and I'm also concerned that the new artificial wording you proposed is basically designed to make things more favourable for the pro-Israel POV. It is a very unnatural wording. JDiala (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * - SFR literally said . The wording I proposed was based on the discussion section of your RfC. I checked the sources and indeed, HRW, Amnesty and B'tselem have said that it amounts to apartheid.  starship .paint  (RUN) 08:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * - I would advise you to tread carefully in the topic area, if you continue actions like nuking the RfC, you'll probably be taken to WP:AE by another editor, it won't need to be me.  starship .paint  (RUN) 08:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a threat. The only one who "nuked" anything was you. I refer you to WP:ASPERSIONS. There was absolutely no consensus in the discussion for a new RfC, and in the closing statement of that discussion there was no mention of closing the RfC. Even if SFR said that separately on Talk:Israel, he has no authority to unilaterally make these calls. You need to take next steps via consensus. JDiala (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there is consensus that there are significant concerns about the last RfC, and that opening a new one would be an effective remedy. Particularly on this topic, a ‘clean’ RfC with a high amount of proper participation is almost mandatory, and there is no reason to be this critical of @Starship.paint.
 * I would kindly ask you to make an effort to be nicer to your fellow editors, as was asked by both @ScottishFinnishRadish and me before. FortunateSons (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to create a new RfC. This is incorrect. You can read the closing statement and the opinions of the editors there. There were several people of the view that it could be simply be re-closed by another uninvolved editor. It is ironic that you are accusing others of being "not nice" while you falsely accused editors of being antisemetic. JDiala (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * , no, it's not a threat, I don't intend to take you to WP:AE, and I'm not talking on behalf on anyone else, so I am not threatening you on behalf of others. I simply want to impress upon you the precarious position that you are in, which literally anyone could report. You closed your own RFC in favour of your favoured position, and then you deleted the replacement RFC. That's two controversial actions. Now you're finding conflict with FortunateSons as well. I just wouldn't do all of that. You're in a controversial topic area.  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a threat. How would you describe saying to a woman "don't wear that skirt, someone might rape you". This is how I feel. I feel attacked and vulnerable. You also haven't engaged with my arguments. There simply was not consensus for your particular action. The closer on WP:AN is also at fault as he should have ideally clearly indicated next steps. JDiala (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ???? FortunateSons (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - well, if you feel you haven't done anything wrong, please proceed however you please. I'm sorry for having contributed to your negative feelings. The way I see it, SFR gave several avenues to proceed. Since no one re-closed the original RFC, and no one modified the original RFC, I decided to start a new one. In my view, I took one of several valid avenues.  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As a matter of courtesy, you could have discussed the matter briefly with others before taking the radical step. I note that the decision to eliminate the prior RfC wastes not only my time, but also that of every voter in the prior RfC who took the time. JDiala (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - acknowledged and I will try to remember that for the future. Though, I did ping everyone (I think) from the previous RFC, and past comments can still be copied.  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, me describing that comment as  I perceived as misguided at best and that I believe a reasonable person can interpret as antisemitic at worst.  is reasonable, and considering I said it on an admin talk page, I don’t think that it was a significant policy violation.
 * I’m don’t particularly care that you’re reacting like that to me, I understand that me being the (indirect) cause of you having to remove that content from your user page probably doesn’t feel great. However, this is both becoming a pattern and affecting other users in a way that seems disproportional, and that’s the point in time where it stops being unpleasant and starts being disruptive. FortunateSons (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * False allegations of antisemitism are far more serious than anything I have said or done. I'd suggest looking in the mirror before faulting others. JDiala (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m honestly not sure how to even respond to this FortunateSons (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * - I'm not saying you have done anything wrong, I'm just suggesting you disengage.  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that’s probably a good idea. Thanks FortunateSons (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there was no clear need to close the original RfC, and I can't think of a supporting policy. Ongoing RfCs are not normally closed by third parties on a whim. There will always be editors who dislike specific RfC options, and the best course of action is to propose alternative wording. Now, however, there's no point to relitigate – the RfC has been closed and a new one opened with good participation., feel free to propose a better wording in this RfC – you're welcome to add it as another option if you like. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  11:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * - I appreciate your kind words! It is nice to hear them, after receiving several criticisms (which may be warranted! I am not perfect!) Indeed, a fair result is what I wish will happen. I hope that there will not be complaints of insufficient advertising or a non-neutral opening.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I had noticed the criticism, which was why I felt you should get a little recognition. You're never going to be popular with everyone on Wikipedia, but editors shouldn't be afraid to act in good faith and in the best interests of the project just because someone else might not like it. If it turns out to be a mistake, that's what the revert feature is for! To be fair, I don't think there was any real impropriety in the previous RfC (the closing was unwise but doesn't seem to have been in bad faith), more a lack of awareness of the importance of advertising something so controversial.
 * Nobody's perfect, but as long as you're trying to make Wikipedia better you're a damn fine editor in my opinion. Keep up the good work! Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 14:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned you in an AE report
The thread is '''JDiala.

Thank you.

Editor was not directly named, that was a stylistic and not a policy choice, so is being notified later FortunateSons (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Antioch churches
What’s is your affiliation with Antioch or All Peoples Church? You clearly have a connection. 2600:1011:B068:385C:CA3:E51F:4EF1:9A53 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No affiliation at all, I am not even a Christian, and have never been. To my knowledge, I have never communicated with any people from these churches.  starship .paint  (RUN) 03:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Archive
Hi, was this the correct archive to use? Why level 2? Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * - sorry, there was an error in the page that is now corrected. . I didn’t notice as I was using the automatic archive system. Thanks for bringing this up.  starship .paint  (RUN) 10:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Curious...
...how you made the decision to not include [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Defense_for_Children_International_%E2%80%93_Palestine_et_al_v._Biden_et_al#Why_is_a_dismissed_case_of_particular_encyclopedic_value_to_Wikipedia? this observation] in your AE report? Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * - there's a chance that it is not the same person. Plus, no doxxing. Plus plus, my past indefinite block was regarding linking a Wikipedia account to an offsite account.  starship .paint  (RUN) 12:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks. So, is my understanding correct that from a Wiki-perspective, linking 2 anonymized account names is doxxing when one of them is a Wiki account and the other an offsite account, whereas linking 2 anonymized account names when they are both Wiki accounts is the basis of an SPI report? Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * - I am not sure if doxxing was the right word, but I can discuss what I remember happened with my indefinite block during WP:FRAM. The editors, which I believe were from the WMF, had similarly named accounts (maybe the real name?) on Wikipedia and a social media website, probably Twitter. I asked the editors if that was their Twitter account. Boom, indefinitely blocked. Perhaps the right word and policy is WP:OUTING. You can read that policy. I don't really wish to review the situation again, you can check if you want. The experience was quite traumatic.  starship .paint  (RUN) 12:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for taking the time to respond and I'm sorry to bring back some bad memories. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * - oh, no worries about that! I am alright today even after this discussion! It was painful previously. It's better now.  starship .paint  (RUN) 13:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)