Jump to content

User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47→Archive 50

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter helper on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Ponniyin Selvan: II

The film is out now (https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/tamil/ponniyin-selvan-2-review-release-live-updates-aishwarya-rai-mani-ratnam-box-office-collection-8579283/), please is it possible to move it to the mainspace? It satisfies WP:NFF. But I might get blocked if I tag Ponniyin Selvan: II for deletion since I previously tagged it and Lourdes reverted it saying, "Let me know why you wish this page to be deleted when the draft has been rejected" and has not made any further edit since. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Kailash29792 - The draft is not ready for article space, because it lacks a Reception section. Write a Reception section and then submit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Please check now. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Just a gentle reminder . Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Belarus Section of Coat of Arms of Lithuania

Hi, can you invite a neutral administrator to have a look at this RFC you started (see: Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania#RFC on Belarus Section of Coat of Arms of Lithuania) and possibly close it as it was running since 1 March 2023, so for more than 1 month already? I think it requires attentive analysis of arguments (not only voting numbers) to ensure WP:NPOV decision. -- Pofka (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Pofka I just closed the RFC. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 15:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Isn't it too early to implement it (edit) without evaluation of the RFC by an administrator, especially since it is a contentious topic? This could led to situations that a group of people will reach a RFC that earth is flat. I remember that previously RFCs related with dispute resolutions noticeboard were reviewed by administrators to confirm the final decision and RFC voting result only was a non-obligatory suggestion for an administrator. I remind that this RFC was started due to discussion which you moderated at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Can you please restore status quo until such a review by an administrator is performed? -- Pofka (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Pofka - No as to the question and the request. See Non-Admin Closes and Non-Admin Closes of RFCs. Non-administrative closes of RFCs are the same as closes by administrators. If you have questions about the closure, you should first ask the closer, User:Shadow of the Starlit Sky, on their talk page, User talk:Shadow of the Starlit Sky. If you are not satisfied, or simply disagree and want the closure reviewed, you may then request a closure review at WP:AN (Administrators' Noticeboard). I do not recall any specific case where a non-administrative closure has been reviewed by an administrator; in fact, the guideline states that a close will not be overturned specifically because the closer was not an administrator (and normally should not be overturned by one administrator, but rather at WP:AN). I think that this answers your questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying @Robert McClenon about the RfC closure process. I have simply closed the RFC myself despite it being contentious per WP:BEBOLD and because it was left open for all too long. @Pofka if you wish to review my RfC closure feel free to post at WP:AN or my talk page as Robert McClenon said. Best regards -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 02:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Gonzalo Lira

I'm interested in improving Draft:Gonzalo Lira and submitting it. I see it has a lot of issues and a past AFD. He was arrested again and may be charged soon so I think he is a bit more notable now. Thoughts on this? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Immanuelle - I have looked at it once today, and have not reviewed the current version in detail. I think that you should go ahead and improve it and submit it for review. There have been three AFDs, the last two of which have been inconclusive, so improvement to it may improve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Vurg

Hello i just noticed that the case of Vurg has been removed from the Wikipedia Resolution Noticeboard. Did that happen by mistake? Is the discussion still on progress?RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:RoyalHeritageAlb - That was not so much a mistake as a misfeature. The bot thought that we were finished discussing it, and archived it. (It's a bot. It isn't very smart.) I have unarchived it, and have extended the expiration date. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Roberto Rivera (businessman)

I seen something under the name Draft:Roberto Rivera (businessman). I seen something that said {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help) May I please try to help. Please give yourself some time to think. Now I vanish! CouchPotato0209 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

List of cargo airlines

What sort of citations are you looking for here? The fact that a cargo airline is indeed a cargo airline is believable just from the fact that the article exists, no? If it’s information such as the location of an airline, that can be verified by simply clicking on the article. SurferSquall (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) on a "Society, sports, and culture" 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:NumFOCUS

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "NumFOCUS".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Liz - This is strange. Neither I nor the visible logs have any record that I touched this deleted draft. None of Draft:NumFOCUS, Draft:NumFocus, NumFOCUS, or NumFocus show any record of my having done anything with that title, and I don't have a record of having seen that title, only 3457 other titles. Oh well. It doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2001 insurgency in Macedonia on a "History and geography" 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Why the Writers Barnstar?

Why did I get the writer Barnstar for creating many species of grasses? Isn't the writer's barnstar for those who have made an article about a writer? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:BloxyColaSweet The Writer's Barnstar is awarded to any user who has written a large number of articles or has contributed a large number of edits. It is for writing articles. They could be articles about authors, or anything. When I have awarded it, it is because I was looking at the New Pages Feed and saw a large number of articles on different species in a biological family or biological order. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. Again, thank you so much for the award. I couldnt have been more motivated without you. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

"History merge" tag on "Ulrich L. Rohde" article

Hello Robert,

you recently placed a "History merge" tag on the Ulrich L. Rohde article I created during the last few days, suggesting that copy-and-past were performed from Draft:Ulrich L. Rohde. However, I independently created the article from scratch, loosely inspired from the German article; I did only got to know the draft space article when I first attempted to move my article from my user space into the draft space, which failed because the draft article already existed there – I then published my article to the mainspace instead. So I never copied anything from this draft space article.

The latter, on the contrary, seems to be a mixture of word-by-word translation from the German article and copy-and-paste from this Web page which I, on my part, used as a cource and cited it properly, in contrast to the draft space article, which is citing no sources at all in its first section.

So I think, therefore, the "History merge" tag on the mainspace article shall be removed, and the draft article shall be deleted due to copyright infringement.

— Anton Maienfeldt (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Anton Maienfeldt - I was mistaken in placing the history merge tag on the article, and it appears that I meant to apply the merge tag to the article. I see that the content of the draft and the article are different. I will take a look at the draft with regard to whether it is a copyvio, but I haven't read or written German in decades. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
User:Anton Maienfeldt - I have changed the history merge tag to a merge tag, which is what I should have applied last night. The copyright violation detector says that there is an 81% match between the draft and a web page, so I have tagged the draft for G12, and we will wait to see whether an admin agrees with us. I apologize for putting the wrong tag on. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
OK, thank you. — Anton Maienfeldt (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Rock in Rio discussion - I'm out

Robert, proceed with that issue as you wish. I'm no longer following the topic. Frankly, I'm disillusioned with Wikipedia on this regard and sad for that silly issue had some importance to me. I really thought reestablishing truth would be much easier once I had brought actually reliable sources to the attention of all (as opposed to sources with a good general reputation but which have been equally deceived over the years, which is at the heart of this whole discussion).

Never imagined we'd get to ninth statement on this. Unfortunately, the whole system and its multiple forums is too complicated for me to navigate. I'm not that tech-savvy. Also, dealing with Mortyman's dishonesty has really taken a toll on me.

I have given you my suggestions already. I thank you for your patience and wish you good luck. JimboB (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:DRN

Hi--Regarding this: [1] The ongoing RfC you referenced in your closing remark is on the first sentence of the article lede and is effectively done. The dispute described at WP:DRN has to do with the "Accession and coronation plans" section, halfway down the article. The RfC and the dispute that requires outside input/assistance are two different things. Also, which other dispute resolution forum is this dispute pending on? None of the other involved editors notified me of such a thing... ₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal - I prefer not to moderate discussion about any part of an article when any part of the article is being discussed in another forum, unless I can see that the two subtopics are completely unrelated. I can see that the two topics are different but interrelated. Sometimes what initially look like two unrelated disputes can spill over into each other. I will add that I don't think that moderated discussion can resolve any issues in three days. If you ask me to reopen your request, I will reopen it and leave it to see if a volunteer accepts it, but I think that it is unlikely that anyone will accept it within three days, because we have been having a shortage of volunteers at DRN. I think that you are unlikely to get either of the disputes resolved within three days. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I understand; thanks for explaining. I'd elaborate on what the intention of the presently open RfC is and clarfiy a few other matters; but, after another failed attempt to get cooperation from the main disputing editor last night, I realised there's most likely nothing you or any other mediator could do to move us past the impasse; as far as I understand it, it's not your role to declare a winner in a debate or disqualify one of the parties for failing to present a rational argument. We'll see what else we can do or, who knows, just happens to happen. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not ask an administrator to check for anything, let alone sockpuppetry. I never stated I want or hinted at wanting an investigation into anything. This is the second time you've falsely accused me of something based on a misinterpretation of my words. I won't ask you to reopen the request for moderated discussion, as ScienceMan123 did indeed bring personal matters directly into it. But, I think you ought to edit your closing remark to better reflect reality. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal - You certainly asked Anachronist to check on something, and to check on certain IPs. You did word your request so that you avoided mentioning sockpuppetry, but you did state that you wondered whether the IPs were ScienceMan. You certainly did ask Anachronist to do something, and we know why a Wikipedia editor mentions IPs in the same paragraph as a registered user. Maybe you were only casting aspersions, but we know that casting aspersions is strongly discouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Clarification request: Contentious topics procedures archived

Hello Robert McClenon,

the clarification request about the contentious topics procedures at WP:ARCA has been archived to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 124 § Clarification request: Contentious topics procedures.

It had been closed with a "rough consensus that DRN counts for the purpose of footnote m" (permanent link to the footnote).

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree - Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of noticeboard notices

I disagree with your commentary [2]. "Unfriendly" downplays the DRN request and the comments leading up to it. I chose to minimize my engagement with such disruptive behavior. I hope you understand. Hipal (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Fibro

Hear, hear. One of my many maladies. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra - My sympathies. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I just thought it was great advice to but selfcare ahead of Wikipedia. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:White nationalism 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

May I suggest ...

Hi, Robert! May I suggest that instead of moving things out of the way (like this), you just tag the redirect with G6 in the normal way? Or perhaps complete a round-robin move by moving the former redirect over the title of the source draft (i.e., this in this case)? I think either would work better than creating a new page at a surprising title. Regards, and many thanks for all you do, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Justlettersandnumbers - I am not entirely sure that I understand. I am aware that I could tag the redirect for G6. That would mean that I would then have to wait for an admin to come along and delete the blocking redirect, and then the admin moves the draft into article space, and I have to clean up. If I tag the redirect for {{db-afc-move}}, then either the admin will leave the redirect open so that I can accept the article, or the admin will accept the article if the admin uses the AFC script. Either of those is all right, but requires that I remember what I was doing a few hours ago. I think that I understand what you are saying about a round-robin move, but the draft title has a redirect pointing to the article, left from the AFC script, and sometimes I have difficulty in moving the former redirect over the new redirect. I will study this further, and probably ask more detailed technical questions Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I sort of understand, with what I think I have done at Tympanella galanthina. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's just what I meant with my second suggestion. I don't know what others do, but I don't move a draft after deleting a blocking redirect – I prefer to leave it to the AfC reviewer to do that with the script. Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Durham special counsel investigation 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Closed the discussion on #Marriage_in_ancient_Rome in Dispute resolution noticeboard

You have closed the discussion on #Marriage_in_ancient_Rome in Dispute resolution noticeboard citing the editor is partially blocked(blocked on the aforementioned article) because of edit warring. Edit Warring occurred because no resolution has reached from the talk page in the first place. The first block which was a complete block from every article, was on breaking 3 rivert rule which I wasn't aware of the rule at that time, after the expiration of block, started a discussion on the issue on the article's talk page, and other editors failed to refute my claim, consequently proceeded with my edit, for which instead of replying/refuting my valid claim on the talk page the editor reverted the edits and recommended for another 2 month period of block for me(which is the current I am on) from this article, and till date nothing fruitful or no replies have made on my comments at the article's talk page. That is why I raised this issue on the dispute resolution noticeboard to resolve the issue. But then too, you have closed that discussion citing the editor is blocked. What is this? So no resolution should happen on a valid point I made, and keep the disputed issue on the Wikipedia article and conveying a bogus knowledge to the public? Keep the discussion open if you find the matter genuine, or else do the necessary edits on the aforementioned Wikipedia article after seeing yourself the issue. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

(If I may note something, I'm perfectly fine with അദ്വൈതൻ discussing the article's content with other users. The block is meant to enforce discussion, not to prevent it.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
User:അദ്വൈതൻ, User:ToBeFree - As per the advice of ToBeFree, I will reopen the DRN thread, and will note that the filing editor has not yet notified the other editors. If they want moderated discussion, they will have to notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I highly appreciate your work at DRN; of course it only works if there is an actual interest from all sides to find a solution. Perhaps that's the case here; we'll see... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Julian Assange 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Scottywong case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Quick comment

Hi, I have no problem with this, as long as it's done across the board for all parties. Thanks - wolf 00:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild - First, please communicate with me about a DRN case in DRN. Messages on my user talk page can be read by other editors as running around on the side. Second, I have a problem with editors discussing other editors or their conduct while I am mediating. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Not hiding anything Robert, I just think the drn should be about the actual content dispute, not how you choose to moderate it (eg: editor A calls editor B a jerk, you do nothing, but then editor B objects to the jerk comment, and they are immediately bowdlerized? If you're gonna censor comments, please do it equitably, (or let them all stand). Thank you - wolf 03:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

So, it's been at least a day, and though you've been actively editing since, but you've not responded here, nor taken any action there. Why is that multiple insults and accusations are permitted;

examples
  • "But thewolfchild didn't accept the dispute template and removed it without consensus two times."
  • "I endured thewolfchild's arbitrary action..."
  • "I felt that thewolfchild used knowledge about Wikipedia Rule in order to nitpick."
  • "Thewolfchild's this statement is the Original Research."
  • "Because When I left a message on thewolfchild's talk page, he looked angry and..." (1)
  • "To discusssion start, When I left a message on thewolfchild at's talk page in May, He seems to be angry." (2)
  • "I just don't want to make him angry..." (3)
  • "But thewolfchild didn't accept the dispute template and removed it without consensus two times. (repeat)
  • "Thewolfchild presented some fake sources...

...but one comment protesting against any insults and accusations is censored? This isn't about the issues being debated at the drn, just a question about an action you took there. I'm just looking for impartial and uniform moderation, or clarification when there appears to be an imbalance. - wolf 00:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild - I have collapsed the comments on contributors that were made after the editors were told to read the rules, and have posted a warning. Opening statements were not subject to the rule to comment on content, not contributors, because I hadn't invoked the rules yet.
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Wow. Ok... so in my next drn when I post my opening comments, I'm just gonna come out blastin' with both barrels, cuz that's allowed, right? (rhertorical question) No need to reply, I don't think anything else is going to accomplished here. Thank you for your time and have a nice day. - wolf 02:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
User:thewolfchild - No. The rule against personal attacks is an existing policy, and even new editors are required to know and follow that rule. The policies that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia are existing, and everyone is expected to know them. The rule to comment on content and not contributors is a rule for DRN. There is a difference between conduct that is not acceptable in Wikipedia and conduct that is not acceptable at DRN. Yes, it is a judgment call by the DRN volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

One other thing...

Not sure where to address this, but in your close, you stated: "Third, they can agree on the compromise that I suggested and they rejected." I don't believe I rejected any compromise suggested by you, so would you correct that? Ftr, I had also suggested a compromise, which was also rejected, so it's important going forward, should this be reviewed or even arbitrated by other parties, that they be aware that, when it came to trying to find a middle ground, who was willing to cooperative and who wasn't. Thank you. - wolf 20:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

User:thewolfchild - I was a mediator, not an arbitrator, and I was trying to facilitate resolution in any of several ways that did not happen. I do not intend to assign blame; my involvement was intended to try to get a resolution so that blame would be unnecessary. I proposed a compromise, and it was rejected. One of the editors in the dispute rejected it, and it required agreement by editors on both sides. 'They' includes any member of a group. If this goes to WP:ANI or WP:AN, I am willing to specify who accepted and who rejected. My closing statement does not need correction. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I never said you were an arbitator. And the "they" in "they rejected" includes me, and since I didn't "reject" your compromise, your closing statememt is incorrect. I shouldn't have to wait for a possible ANI to see if you might correct yourself at some point. Why not fix this now and be done with it? - wolf 15:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
(also, no need to ping, I am subscribed. thanks - wolf 15:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC))

Draft:South Africa women's cricket team in Pakistan in 2023–24

The reason of decline or rejection of moving of this draft page from Draft space to article space. MPLS SUD JIT (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft talk:Letitia Mumford Geer (2)

Hello, Robert,

I don't think you finished this round-robin set of page moves. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Liz - I think I have finished. Letitia Mumford Geer is now in article space, because I moved the blocking redirect, which has a minor page history. Did I forget something? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Robert McClenon,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Question

Hi, Firstly thanks for your service at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#List of military special forces units. I have something to tell you about DRN. Can I talk to you here? or Do I have to comment on only DRN? Footwiks (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Footwiks - Well, it looks as though we will have a rehash of the proceeding here, at least until I stop it. So if one party is posting here, I will respond to other parties posting here, until I stop the rehash. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Robert, Case on DRN is failed. It' OK. After a break, according to your advice, I'll go to RSN.
I think that this dispute is more suitable for RSN. Opening a case in DRN. It seems to be my mistake. I am really sorry to take up your time.
By the way, I have just only one question.
I understand that you have to deal with many cases on DRN. So you are very busy and don't have the time to check out thoroughly and I also understand trend of TL;DR in Wikipedia.
But When I commented that User:thewolfchild presented fake sources, You hided my comment. It's OK But have you really checked out User:thewolfchild' sources
This was one of the key factors on DRN.
Let's check out below 2 sources attached User:thewolfchild on DRN.
(1) Telegraph source (2016-03-21) - Telegraph source have a follow sentence: "South Korea has formed an elite force of 3,000 marines which is poised to carry out raids inside North Korea (in 2016)
(2) New York Times (2017-09-12) - NY Times source have a follow sentence: the South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade defense officials described as a decapitation unit" would be established by the end of the year (end of the 2017)."
If NY Times article is really about ROK Marine Corps "Spartan 3000" unit, How can ROKMC establish the unit (brigade-level) with by the end of 2017?, "Spartan 3000" was already fully formed in March 2016 (based on Telegraph). Actually, South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo told creation of Decapitation Unit (참수부대) on 4 September 2017 ([source]) and 13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대) was really formed in December 2017 ([source]
In chronological order, two sources are saying contradicting facts, also, Please find the term "Spartan 3000" in the whole prose from NY Times sourse.
NY Times source didn't have the term "Spartan 3000" or ROK Marine Corps.
This don't need good editorial judgment. This is about just reading of English newspaper article. I'm not an English native speaker. But I founded flows.
I think that providing appropriate sources is duty of participants in the case on DRN. I pointed out providing of irrelevant source. But you didn't have any actions, rather You hide my comment. Honestly, I'm so bummed.
Lastly, I have something to tell you, I really sorry that I didn't accept your first compromise. But as you know, User:thewolfchild want to retain "Spartan 3000", I want to remove "Spartan 3000" on the list.
But your compromise: retain but adding note. I think that this is not a fair compromise.
When two editors describe about something, If there is a disagreement of description view in the prose, Compromise will be a good solution.
In my opinion, there are not fair compromises in the Issue of retain or removal on the list. I know that you did your very best.
Anyways, case on DRN is failed. I'll open the case RSN in the near future.
If you have a spare time, I hope to you participate in discussion at RSN. That's all
Thank you for everything you've done for me on DRN.
Take care.
Footwiks (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Durham third opinion

Hi Robert, I'm just wondering if you're still planning on giving a third opinion over at County Palatine of Durham. The other party clearly feels like they've been driven away from the article, so an impartial assessment of the situation might help us reconcile (which I'd welcome) or at least provide a satisfactory conclusion. An opinion on my edits would also be welcome, so if you can spare the time I'd appreciate it. Your call though. Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

User:A.D.Hope - I will look at it within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, there's no particular rush but I just wanted to check what was happening. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt only: I am not a party to this. There is no active disagreement within the meaning of WP:3O. This has already concluded, and the conclusion is that I refuse to be a party to an active disagreement. In order to make this absolutely clear, I am now going to strike all of the comments that I have made on the article talk page, and then leave the talk page. James500 (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, well. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
What do you think is the best course of action now? I would still like an opinion, but... A.D.Hope (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
User:A.D.Hope - I am not sure what you are asking at this point. A week ago, there was a request for a Third Opinion. The back-and-forth was long, and I could not tell what the question was,and I asked for concise summaries. You said that you would still like a Third Opinion, and I said that I would take a look, but then you reported that the other editor said that they had been driven off from the article, and they actually struck through everything that they had written, a public tantrum. I then said, "Well, well". Now what are you asking? When I first looked at it, there were too many words on both sides to know what the issue was. There are still too many words, regardless of whether I include the cancelled words or don't include them. Is there a specific question? I don't plan to start reading the exchange from the beginning. What are you asking? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm asking for a third opinion on the edits I made to the article. You asked for a summary of the issue six days ago, which I provided, but you've still not given the opinion. If you always considered the discussion too lengthy to engage with I'm not sure why you took it on, but if you feel unable to give an opinion the polite thing to do would be to step aside so I can re-list the request and see if another editor will. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
User:A.D.Hope - I think that you are really asking for a second opinion on your edits, because the other editor flounced off. I will comment at this time that your rewrite of the lede paragraph is an improvement, because it explains more clearly to the reader what the significance of the special jurisdiction was. I don't think that it would be appropriate to relist the request for a Third Opinion because the other editor is no longer involved. However, I may have misunderstood something. If you have any remaining questions, what are they? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The dispute between myself and James500 is over the content and sourcing of my edits, so I was expecting a third opinion on them as part of the third opinion process. The fact James500 has left the discussion (I wouldn't say 'flounced') is unfortunate, but doesn't rule out a second opinion; the third opinion page states 'If the second editor disagrees with this process, the first editor still has the right to receive a third opinion'.
It was my hope that the opinion would assess how far James500s criticisms were valid, which would in turn help us find common ground so that we could reconcile and both work on the article. James500 is very good at finding sources and creating references, so it's a shame to lose them.
Instead, the process has made the situation worse. I listed the dispute on the 8 June, and on the 12 June you asked for a summary, which I gave on the same day. Four days passed and you were yet to give an opinion, so I had to chase you up and was promised an opinion within 24 hours, which didn't happen. You then said that you could not give an opinion as there were 'too many words' and publicly expressed bias against one of the parties in the dispute. I can see that you're an active editor who helps productively in a lot of disputes, but in this case I'm disappointed. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
User:A.D.Hope - I didn't provide an opinion within 24 hours because you said that there wasn't a hurry, which I thought meant that you didn't need an opinion. My own opinion is that you have, in good faith, been changing the priority of your questions, and have given unclear answers. I still am sort of confused as to what you are now asking. If you want another editor to offer an opinion, I suggest that you ask at WikiProject North East England. If there is a specific question, I will try to answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I told you there was 'no particular rush' because I didn't want you to feel pressured if you couldn't give an opinion within 24 hours. Misunderstandings happen, but I don't know how you reached the conclusion that I no longer wanted an opinion — in my first message I wrote that I still wanted one.
When you asked for a summary of the issue I wrote this: "The question is simply whether the article is better as it currently is (i.e in the form it's taken since my edit on 7 June), or whether it was better as it was (i.e. at this edit on 4 June)." When you asked again here, I wrote "I'm asking for a third opinion on the edits I made to the article." From my perspective that's not a complicated request; you didn't really even need to engage with the discussion, just look at the two edits I linked to and comment on them.
I'm well aware that we're all just volunteers doing our best, and I've no reason to think you're not acting in good faith, but I hope you can see why this has been a frustrating experience. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
User:A.D.Hope - I did give you an opinion, once I understood the question. I said that the change that you had made to the lede was an improvement. Maybe you missed that, or maybe that wasn't enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
No, it wasn't enough as it only addressed one aspect of the question. I'm sorry we haven't been able to resolve things, but thank you for responding and for your time. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there. I just wanted to say hi, it's been quite a while. Cwater1 (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:WandaVision 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Russia 1985–1999: TraumaZone 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Creep (Radiohead song) 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

DRN: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

Hi Robert, Sorry I was not able to respond in the last few days. I was off the grid last few days and had limited internet access. However, I think had already given the information you requested. Hope you can reopen this DRN. Cossde (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Cossde - I am reopening the DRN as you are requesting, but I am asking you to notify the other editors on their user talk pages that I have reopened it. Otherwise they will likely not be following the case. I don't know how likely this is to get moderated discussion restarted, but I am responding to your request. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Robert, appreciate it. Cossde (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

AlisonW case request accepted

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Mediation Request Help

Hello! I filed for a mediation request and was wondering if I could get some help correcting it? I tried asking the other user involved as they pointed me in this direction but they have said they won't help me file it or file it themself. AevumNova (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User:AevumNova - Done. You and the other editor have been notified. Please make a concise statement in the space for the purpose while I make an opening statement by the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay dokey I posted the statement. What happens now?
Apologies for the million questions, i am very new to Wikipedia and I'm still trying to learn all of the policies. AevumNova (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
User:AevumNova - Make a brief statement saying what you want to change in the article (or what you want to leave alone that another editor wants to change). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Gotcha, and where do I put that? AevumNova (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, I did not mean to cast aspersions. I was more trying to say not to throw stones in a glass house. I was unsure of why they were bringing up my edit count and accusing me of being a single issue editor when they appeared to focus on a single subject matter?
I also do not understand how what they said wasn't casting aspersions?
Apologies if this comes across as arguing against your ruling on that, I am NOT denying that I was casting aspersions I am just confused as to where that line was drawn? AevumNova (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Robert McClenon,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Misleading Titan Sub Info

Hi there, Mr. McClenon,

May I please request your assistance?

I had a Talk page discussion about this concern that was quite active, ("NASA Relation" I believe was the title) but it's been archived already, and the correct information has been reverted back to being misleading.

Under the OceanGate Background section of the Titan Submersible Implosion page, it's implied that OceanGate claimed to work with NASA but that claim is unsubstantiated. In reality, and even according to the precise source cited for that paragraph, NASA collaborated on the design and materials for the Titan submersible.

Not only does the Wiki imply falsehood of the source they used, which provides confirmation from NASA's spokesperson, but it also implies that no collaboration between NASA and OceanGate exists whatsoever. It does this by opening with, 'on their website, OceanGate claims to have collaborated with NASA.' I pointed out on the talk page that this is true - a NASA astronaut is even on their Board of Directors (source: the NASA astronaut shared it on his Twitter, and OceanGate published their board list; both of which I archived in the WayBack machine).

An admin named Drmies was also extremely rude to me without ever having spoken to me before. I was not being rude at all. My concern is merely that the misrepresentation of facts further casts a negative light on OceanGate without merit.

What do you suggest I do?

Thank you so much, your time and advice is very appreciated. Jelly Jelly Garcia (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Importantly, NASA denied testing the sub for safety.* They didn't deny collaboration on the sub nor did they deny collaboration with OceanGate, which is what the Wiki page would leave the reader believing. Jelly Garcia (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Jelly Garcia - Exactly what are you asking? I will ask you my usual question: What part of the article do you want changed, and what do you want it changed to? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I see that you have a complaint that an administrator was rude to you. You can report administrator abuse to WP:ANI, but I don't recommend that, because there has been a lot of discussion at the article talk page and it hasn't been dominated by any one editor.
Do you have a conflict of interest? Do you work for a company or agency that is involved with the Titan? Just asking.
Please be specific about what you want added to the article, removed from the article, or changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Robert! Thanks for your response! I would want the OceanGate Background section to either not mention that [OceanGate 'claimed' to have collaborated with NASA and NASA denied testing Titan] or, if mentioning that they claimed to collaborate, also include that they collaborated on the creation of the sub, but didn't perform testing. I was hoping you could suggest the course of action best to facilitate the accuracy of the paragraph, or if you think nothing should be done, I would trust that judgement.
I tried to discuss in the Talk page and the admin who originally changed it thanked me when I compromised with her and made it accurate by including the information from the source they prefer, but then someone changed it back. I'm hesitant to use the Talk pages for further discussion because a different admin chimed in and was very rude to me so it was an unpleasant experience talking in there, even though me and the original admin had fruitful discussions.
I don't have a conflict of interest or any connection to the company, other than I did speak about this event already in a presentation with no ties to the company, just a briefing on current events at my own company not even in the same industry or with any relation to anyone who would know anyone at OceanGate. This was after the Talk discussions. I wanted to not worry about it again and just forgot the unpleasant attempt at core solving the inaccuracy. There is so much misinformation about this event swirling around (that bodies could be salvageable after an implosion at that depths, that banging on the hull could be heard by sonar, that there would be a chance of them being mid-ocean despite the sub's built-in features that would propel it to the surface by day 2 so it'd have to be either at the surface or tangled in Titanic's wreckage if not imploded). During the presentation, I had to clarify that although the Wikipedia article implies there was no collaboration with NASA, there in fact was, citing their spokesperson for confirmation they collaborated on the design and materials (carbon fiber and titanium) as I went on to explain how a submarine could not survive the supersonic speed of breaking the sound barrier, nor could a carbon fiber submersible (the material used for spaceships) survive these depths consistently.
I don't think Wikipedia should be one of the places we have to clarify inaccurate reporting from. I think it'd be much better to make it factual and either accurately report that they collaborated, or avoid mentioning that they claimed to collaborate coupled with NASA's denial of testing. Jelly Garcia (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Carbon fiber is relevant to my company, which is the only connection I have. :) Jelly Garcia (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Help!

Respected Sir, Kindly review this article draft, Draft:Dargah Ustad E Zaman Trust Wikischolarrr (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi McClenon, could you please review my draft?

Kindly review my draft, Draft: Dargah Ustad E Zaman Trust Wikischolarrr (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

(by talk reader)  Done Chris Troutman (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Black Table

As per your request, I have redacted the revisions of Draft:Black Table containing copyvio material. JIP | Talk 21:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

User:JIP - Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for the AlisonW case

The proposed decision for the AlisonW case has been posted. Statements regarding the proposed decision are welcome at the talk page. Please note that comments must be made in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about wasting your time

That's all. 1TWO3Writer (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

User:1TWO3Writer - No problem. You were just trying too hard to help a paid editor, and they don't need help. We try to be nice to new volunteer editors, but we only need to be polite to paid editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

DNR - Recent discussion

Good morning. I just wanted to clarify your closing comment, you stated "there has not been any recent discussion on the article talk page". I was just wondering how recent, recent needs to be; it was last discussed on the talkpage in March, with both presenting the arguments that have been made elsewhere, and the same points that have been getting copied and pasted into edit summaries. However, I am completely willing to go through that process again as a necessary next step, just wanted to clarify first.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

User:EnigmaMcmxc - That's a good question. I think that the discussion should have been within the past month. What I have mostly seen is disputes that have been discussed within the past week, and disputes that have been left alone for several months and then restarted. Yours is in the second group. After several months, the other editor or editors might have reconsidered, or might have decided that they are no longer interested. So I think that the discussion should have been within the past month. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the advise. Back to the talk page to see what happens then.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Donut holes

I noticed you marked this draft as under review back in June. Do you mind if I take a whack at it? BuySomeApples (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

User:BuySomeApples - Oops. I've unmarked it. Go ahead. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! BuySomeApples (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine on a "Society, sports, and culture" 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Incels.is on a "Society, sports, and culture" 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Moderating 1vmany

Hi! I was wondering what one should do in cases when someone files a moderation request but it is clear upon reading the dispute and the article that it is just a very new editor trying to overturn very strong article consensus. Should it be closed? If so, with what wording? For reference, I'm talking about the falklands case. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Ixtal - First, such a dispute probably should be closed, but exactly how depends on what the responses from the other editors are. A dispute should not be opened unless at least one other editor besides the OP is interested in moderated discussion. If the other editors are not interested in moderated discussion, it can be closed with a statement that moderated discussion is voluntary, and that the OP can accept the consensus or post a Request for Comments. In a case like the Falkland Islands dispute, with multiple other editors, I would generally wait until either the other editors respond or 48 hours have passed. So in that case I recommend waiting to see whether the other editors say no or say nothing, and then say that the OP can use an RFC. By the way, you can ask them to read the one-against-many essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Ixtal - I closed the Falkland Islands dispute. As you can see, the editor in the minority has the choice of accepting that they are in the minority or using an RFC. At least that was an almost reasonable dispute. As you have seen, some of the disputes are doozies, or stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ninne Pelladatha (2022 film)

Dear Robert 

             This is a Indian Telugu language movie which released theatrically on 14 October 2022. And there is sufficient

articles are there so I think you have to look once and do the needfull. Porakuyya (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

DRN Exodus

Hey, sorry to bother you but my brother had a psychotic episode a few days ago and it's all hands on deck until he gets better so I won't be likely to have enough time for myself to look at the Exodus discussion I was moderating until the meds are sorted out Wednesday. I'd appreciate it if you could cover me on this one. If not, could you edit the donotarchive template so the thread stays active until next week? Much appreciated, — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Ixtal - Ugh. I sort of know where you are coming from, because my sister-in-law had a psychotic episode a few months ago, and I saw how it required full-time attention from two of my nieces (her daughters) and from my brother (her husband). Ugh. My sympathies. I will act as a temporary moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:

  • For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_45&oldid=1175503690"