Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:47, 6 April 2023

Salvio giuliano is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

Archives
Archives (Index) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 30 32 34 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 49 48 51 52 50 54 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Request for Undeletion of U-Con article

Hi. I'm a member of the Science Fiction project and was planning to weigh in on the U-Con deletion discussion after I got word it was nominated for deletion, but then my dad fell and broke his knee and, well, there went my week. And then you called it even though very few people participated in the discussion. I was surprised the discussion went the way it did. That article had been there for a long time with many editors and I just spent about an hour looking for independent references and found a whole bunch, so the assertions that there are none are just bizarre to me. It's an influential event where many nationally and internationally famous games have been play tested as part of their development.

The request for deletion review process instructions say to start by asking the admin who deleted the article to reconsider, so here I am. Obviously since the page is deleted I can't see what the state of the article was at the time of the deletion, but I would like to do so and have the chance to invite the rest of the Science Fiction Project members to improve the article.

Thanks for your time and consideration. Netmouse (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

When the article was deleted, it was almost entirely unreferenced. It only had one source, this one. As such I am not simply going to undelete it; however, I can userfy the article o draftify it, if you prefer, so that you (and the other members of the Science Fiction Wikiproject) can work on it. —  Salvio 15:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Would either of those options preserve the History of edits others did? I would also like to see when the article was established, and who worked on the article previously, and notify them of the opportunity to preserve/restore it through improvement. Sometimes when I have had articles that include my own work nominated for deletion, I have been notified, while other times I have not. I don't know what was the case here. I'd also like to see what edits were made shortly before the nomination for deletion.

One article I had nominated for deletion had been mangled between when I created it and when it was nominated for deletion, so that the version nominated for deletion was clearly inferior. It's possible this article, similarly, had more references or stronger content in a previous version.

I've seen Misplaced Pages editors delete references if links are dead, even when the references were for a publication that once/also appeared in print as a paper publication. Editors in the deletion discussion I mentioned above clearly didn't believe a substantial printed article that had been cited even existed, because it was no longer available online for them to confirm; the magazine had gone out of business and was no longer maintaining the website. The Wayback machine confirmed the website used to exist, but didn't have the article in question archived. To delete or ignore a reference because it is not accessible online for free goes against WP:SOURCEACCESS but there is no requirement that editors engaged in a deletion discussion actually be familiar with policy, is there?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure draftifying an article preserves its history, so if you would do that, I'd be much obliged. Thanks for listening. Netmouse (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Netmouse, I have draftified the article; you can now find it at Draft:U-Con. Both userfying and draftifying preserve the history of the article, which is required for attribution, so you can notify those who have already worked on the article. I hope that with the new sources you find you can show notability. Best. —  Salvio 08:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Netmouse (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

aha, see, for instance, back in 2009 it had these three references:

1. Carmen Tugulan, Michigan Union Attracts Gamers The Michigan Journal, November 8, 2005
2. Gamers skip football, head to Union convention instead, The Michigan Daily, November 23, 1998
3. Jenni Yachnin, Meeting builds gamers' abilities, The Michigan Daily, October 28, 1996

... even though they had suffered from linkrot, they were all still valid print publication references. But you can't see which content the citations support. Huh. I wonder if it would make sense to start using Wikimedia space to archive reference documents like this. I mean, you have the info storage bloat argument vs the info rot loss problem. It's tricky. But if other editors and admins are going to treat citations as non-existent because they aren't instantaneously available, that's an issue too.

And then, of course, there's the fact that someone deleted the entire Guest of Honor History, which had all the gaming industry connections in it and wikilinks that demonstrated those guests were notable (meaning they have their own articles), shortly before the convention article was nominated for deletion. That list was built over years by multiple editors per the article revision history. It's going to take some work to reconstruct this. Hmm.

Hey, question for you. From my perspective, the 19:48, 10 March 2023 edit by‎ Galobtter just looks like vandalism. Is there a way to complain about that behavior, above and beyond posting on their talk page?

A lot of work went into the article, and then they deleted that guest of honor list, which is a list that's very typical for convention articles, and not usually with individual citations for each line, though every year publications are produced that documented at the time who were the guests at any particular con (see also, List of Worldcon Guests of Honor. That guest list captures a lot about a convention's focus and history and significance, and before it was deleted the list in this article had a lot of wikilinks in it of value. And it looks like Galobtter just deleted it, with an illogical call to WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE as their excuse. Illogical in that the Guest of Honor list for a convention is not an indiscriminate list of random info - it is very relevant contextual history and often one of the main reasons people would pull up a convention article or website -- in order to be reminded who were the guests, so they can seek out the work they admired during a past event, or learn more about people who were at events they were unable to attend, and about their works.

As an historian, I lament every time a convention changes management and the new people in charge don't bother to maintain an historical record like that. That Misplaced Pages has been a place for such info has been a boon to history and the community alike. I'm really concerned that this editor might repeat this sort of action on other articles. I'm also concerned that Red-tailed hawk's copyvio revdel came just hours later -- and what is with the " 11:42, 10 March 2023‎ Intrepidgm" edit that is just gray and struck out? What action did that, and what user did that action? How can you tell? It looks like Intrepidgm was filling out the Guest list from right before the pandemic, a totally valid thing to have done, plus some other edits according to their revision comment. In their user:talk page I see they asked for help when their content was wiped, but clearly didn't get it from someone who understands that copying Guest names off a website to construct a guest list is totally standard practice. Or maybe because their revision was no longer available, so it was hard for anyone to give informed advice as to what was wrong with it.

It takes copying a whole phrase or sentence to have a copyright violation. Maybe Intrepidgm did that? I can't tell. Copyvio report says 53% of the edit (88 words) came from https://www.ucon-gaming.org/guest-of-honor. That's not too many words to be more or less just names and affiliations. But I can't assess the supposed violation because the revision is gray and struck out instead of available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=prev&oldid=1143907861 says it has been removed from public archives. What's up with that? I thought the whole point of having a public history of revisions was, er, maintaining a public history of revisions. And thus the appearance, at least, of the stance that if someone puts time and energy into editing an article, their work cannot be arbitrarily erased into oblivion. Netmouse (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Netmouse, I have checked the NewspaperArchive, available through the WP:Misplaced Pages Library, to see if there were archived copies of those articles, but I had no success; also, the The Michigan Daily seems to be a student publication, so I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable sources. In addition to that, I ran a quick check to see if there were other articles about U-Con indexed in that archive but could find none. So I'm still unconvinced that WP:GNG is met. I agree that a source should not be discounted entirely simply because it's no longer easily accessible, then again if the only sources talking about this conference are those that were already there, then I'm afraid it does not bode well for the notability of the conference... Fortunately, however, draft space is a place where an article can be worked on for a while, without fear of deletion, so if there are sources they can be found without too much urgency.
Also, as far as the removal of the list of the guests of honour is concerned, it's not really vandalism. You may disagree that it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE to add such a list, you may even think it's incredibly misguided to remove it, but it's a content matter, not a behavioural one and, also, I'm not really sure that list could be used to argue in favour of the conference's notability, per WP:NOTINHERITED.
Finally, Intrepidgm's edit was struck through per WP:REVDEL#1, as a blatant copyright violation. You can see who did it here. If you read WP:REVDEL you will see that there are limited circumstances where we will hide a revision, because leaving it visible could be problematic to the point that the cons of far outweigh the pros of transparency in that specific case (in certain cases, information can even be hidden from administrators as well, per WP:OS). —  Salvio 10:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No, of course those old references are not the only references available. As I mentioned when I requested the undeletion, I had already found others, and had only spent a small amount of time doing so. I will add them when I get to rebuilding the article. Right now I'm still investigating the edit history to see what was deleted that should first be manually restored.

I'm still dubious that Intrepidgm's entire edit was a copyright violation. Especially given it is so strongly in U-Con's favor to have an up-to-date wikipedia article - There's really no reason to suppose having a copyright violation of 88 words in the edit history of an article would create a liability issue on Misplaced Pages's part that U-Con would be motivated to pursue. The motivation for striking the record is thus suspect.

I didn't mean to assert the notability of Guests of Honor is an argument for the notability of the convention itself. I totally agree with WP:NOTINHERITED. My comment about deleting the Guests list stems from my belief that Wikilinking across related notable topics in a contextually appropriate way is part of what makes a Misplaced Pages article useful.

Do you disagree?

Netmouse (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I don't disagree in principle. Looking at this version of the article, the list seems a tad too long, especially considering the introduction is somewhat short and does not really explain how this conference is important or significant in the gaming community, but that's certainly subjective. That's probably where the article should be improved, in my opinion: showing this convention's significance, because at the moment it looks like one of many unremarkable events.
As far as Intrepidgm's edit is concerned, I suggest you ask Nthep. Intrepidgm seems to have copied some content from https://www.ucon-gaming.org/guest-of-honor/, but copyright enforcement is not exactly my area of expertise and don't know if in this case simply undoing the edit would have been enough. I can tell you that revdeletion is supported by policy, but I can't tell you if it is in keeping with current practice, because that's an area I don't usually get involved in. —  Salvio 07:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Help, or suggestions needed

Hi Salvio, A few months ago , you worked on a report I filed, where I suspected that anothe ruser had been using multiple accounts to edit war their favored version into an article- .

You confirmed my suspicion and the user was warned, but you also noted that I was not blameless either, for edit warring with them.

That user is now back to that same article, repeatedly inserting material that I think is improper (as I explained in the talk page), and does not engage on the article's talk page. what should I do here, instead of reverting them and asking them to discuss it? Red Slapper (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Red Slapper, I have read your edit and Pirolam's and, at first glance, I see some problems with both versions. First of all, this is a WP:BLP and Misplaced Pages has strict rules about biographical content, so as not to do harm to living people. From a cursory examination, some of Pirolam's additions seem appropriate from a BLP standpoint.
For instance, where he changes "n 2020, Yale University fired Lee from her voluntary medical faculty position for breaking the Goldwater rule in her evaluations of Alan Dershowitz and Trump" to "n 2020, Yale University fired Lee from her voluntary medical faculty position for allegedly breaking the Goldwater rule in her speech regrading Alan Dershowitz and Trump", to me his version seems more in keeping with policy.
Then again, I think that writing "n April 2017, Lee hosted a meeting at Yale University medical school to discuss the ethics of speaking about the dangers of Donald Trump" instead of "n April 2017, Lee hosted a meeting at Yale University medical school to discuss the ethics of speaking about the mental health of Donald Trump" is less appropriate.
He also seems to be an WP:SPA, which you do not seem to be. He does not engage in discussions, you try to. What I find strange is that nobody else has edited the article in a while and, so, the recent edit history is basically you and he reverting each other... My suggestion, therefore, would be to try and follow WP:DR. Pick one of the possible methods and try to follow it. I confess that I was tempted to impose a partial block on Pirolam, to force him to discuss the issue, but I can't really justify blocking him and not you. Yes, you are trying to discuss the issue, but blocking only one party to an edit war risks being perceived as taking sides. —  Salvio 10:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks you, Salvio. I tried following your advice, went to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution and posted a request for a 3rd opinion which was the first option suggested there. It was promptly removed by someone who pointed out that such an opinion can only be given if a thorough discussion has already taken place (). Moving on to the next step, Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard - it also states that "The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN."

So when the other party refuses to engage on the talk page - this seems to be a catch-22 situation.

What do you suggest? Red Slapper (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Red Slapper, you are correct that when the other user does not discuss the issue with you it's more difficult to solve the content dispute, because our DR methods rest on the premise that all parties to a dispute will cooperate and try and hammer out a solution.
That said, first, you need to continue trying to discuss the issue. My advice would be to explain clearly on the talk page what your objections are to Pirolam's version, even if he doesn't engage. That is useful both because it shows you are trying to follow WP:DR and because it may be help those who are unfamiliar with the dispute to understand where you're coming from and what the issue may be. After all, failing to take part in dispute resolution – resorting to edit warring instead – is a behavioural matter and can lead to restrictions, which means that if you can prove that you have tried to discuss the edits and Pirolam ignored you, you can report him to WP:ANI or WP:ANEW, depending on the case, asking for a block. But to do so, you should have clean hands, so to speak, or you risk to be sanctioned as well per WP:BOOMERANG.
In addition to that, if you can make a cogent case that Pirolam's version violates WP:BLP, you can start a thread at WP:BLPN, but as I said before, I'm not sure his version is necessarily worse than yours, in certain parts it seems to be at first glance, but in others it might be better. You can also try to leave a note on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography or alternatively on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics, asking for input. But first you have to explain why you think your version is better or, at the very least, the other version is wrong. Then you can call attention to the dispute and hope that other editors will discuss the issue on the article's talk page, so that you can achieve a consensus even if the other editor does not want to discuss. —  Salvio 07:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't appreciate your close at all (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Close review of Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022)

Discussion was started yesterday, and is active and ongoing. Your closure provided literally no examination of the discussion whatsoever - all it did was stop an ongoing, active discussion. You really shouldn't have done that. Toa Nidhiki05 17:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, you need consensus to overturn a close; if there is no consensus, then the original close stands, which is the result in this case. There was very little examination to add to that: there are many editors who feel very strongly that the original close was wrong and many editors who endorsed it or who thought that the discussion should not be reopened. And while it's true that the discussion was started yesterday, the way the discussion was going, it was highly unlikely that giving it more time would have led to a consensus, because that would have required a sudden influx of people voting to overturn the close to appear with nobody endorsing the close and I saw no indication that was going to happen. —  Salvio 17:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, there’s no way to know now. Toa Nidhiki05 17:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I also object to the closing of the request for review. It has been only a day and a half since it was opened. Various editors spent about ten days discussing and writing that appeal, and it concerns an issue widely felt by the community. Æo (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't doubt that there is a portion of the community that feels very strongly about this and that the appeal was crafted carefully, but – and I apologise for being blunt – it's time to let go. The discussion was going nowhere, people were rehashing the same arguments that had been put forth during the original discussion, there was badgering and the process was being bludgeoned to death. More than that, really, it was being bludgeoned to a bloody pulp... Leaving the discussion open would not have changed that and would only have led to more heat for a negligible amount of light, because however you look at it, no side has a majority big enough to form a consensus. —  Salvio 19:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"however you look at it, no side has a majority big enough to form a consensus" that in and of itself is a point of contention, but whatever. Expecting the majority to just sit down and shut up is not going to go work, though, and the last months of backlash should be more than enough to demonstrate that. Toa Nidhiki05 19:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think your close was a little hasty, and the discussion should have been allowed to proceed for longer than 35 hours. However, if you are unwilling to reopen the discussion, I would ask that you provide a longer explanation for why you see no consensus on the strength of the arguments, given that very few editors endorsing the close made an argument. BilledMammal (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a reasonable request. Toa Nidhiki05 19:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I will provide a longer explanation, just give me a few minutes. —  Salvio 19:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I liked the shorter close better. I demand you shorten it! --Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Now don't start or the next time I'll demand you do the closing —  Salvio 20:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Move on

I really think it is time that we move on from this matter. We are at the point of WP:CARCASS where the issue about V22 has become entirely moot. People want to move on from this. Y'all save yourself the headaches. No point in beating a dead horse. We can go on and on about the flaws with Vector 2022, with the Vector 2022 close, with the close of the close review, etc. etc. but it is not a productive use of our time. We can revisit this issue in several months to a year. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 03:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for deleted article to be moved to draft space.

Hi @Salvio giuliano! I'd like to request for the article you deleted yesterday, 'Adam El Hagar' be moved back to draft space as I believe the subject is likely to become notable, so I would like to work on it/improve it for when the time comes. Thanks! Adamkel17 (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Adamkel17,  Done. The article is now at Draft:Adam El Hagar. Best. —  Salvio 15:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You're too fast for me. I've filed Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yosh2006.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Salvio giulianoThank you so much! Really appreciate it. Adamkel17 (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to drop by and say thanks a lot for watching those two pages you deleted, and re-G4'ing when needed. The user has always appeared to be here with an WP:ICHY mentality. Silikonz💬 13:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all thanks to the watchlist, wonderful invention that one. I have also left a warning on Гриша Андреасяан's talk page; if they persist, a block is next... —  Salvio 18:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noticed they've received two other handwritten messages too. Silikonz💬 18:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:War

Salvio, could you restore the selected anniversaries into my user space? We will use them with our project newsletter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

 Doing...—  Salvio 20:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, I think I got them all. If I missed any, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. Best. —  Salvio 20:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Salvio. Hope you are feeling better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

• From the editor: Some long-overdue retractions

• News and notes: Sounding out, a universal code of conduct, and dealing with AI

• In the media: Twiddling Misplaced Pages during an online contest, and other news

• Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" case is ongoing

• Featured content: Hail, poetry! Thou heav'n-born maid

• Recent research: Language bias: Misplaced Pages captures at least the "silhouette of the elephant", unlike ChatGPT

• From the archives: April Fools' through the ages

• Disinformation report: Sus socks support suits, seems systemic

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Administrator changes Aoidh KillerChihuahua

CheckUser changes Ferret

Guideline and policy news

• A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Technical news

• Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
• The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
• A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

Arbitration

• The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
• A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Deletion of 'Akhilesh Sheshmani Dubey'

Hello,

This is regarding the deletion of the page 'Akhilesh Sheshmani Dubey.' I had been monitoring the discussion page and there were not comments regarding the same over there. I also had a discussion with @Onel5969 who had nominated the page for deletion and asked if I could move the page again before it gets deleted if that was ever to happen.

Can you suggest me the path I can take here as I do not wish for my edit history to be lost. Hope you can help me out in this case.

thanks in advance.

Regards,

Jae Yumeko1 (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yumeko1, I have restored the page, since it was only soft deleted. —  Salvio 07:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

thank you so much! I can't seem to move the page though. Is that only possible for a title change? Yumeko1 (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That is strange, you should be able to move the page: it's not move protected and you are autoconfirmed, so you should have the technical ability.
If you want, I can move it myself for you, but it's not necessary. As I said, the deletion discussion only resulted in soft deletion, which means that the article can be undeleted on request, so you do not have to userfy it. Of course, the page can be nominated for deletion again – and I will be honest with you, I would not be surprised if it were, because Mr Dubey doesn't strike me as notable under Misplaced Pages's definition of the term –. —  Salvio 07:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

yeah well I do understand those terms and that is why I myself thought of moving it back and working upon those aspects as there still are chances for the article to get deleted again in the future. Moreover, I really am not able to move it and I have no idea why. I'd be grateful if you'd do that but is that the right way to go forth with this? Yumeko1 (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what you want to do with the article once it is in your userspace. Userfication is supposed to be done to help you improve the article, find new sources etc., so that it can meet out policies and guidelines. Userspace is not supposed to be used as a web hosting service to host pages that look like articles. So userfication is not going to guarantee that the article won't be deleted or blanked. It will not as long as you reasonably appear to be working on it – although that doesn't necessarily means you need to be working on it continuously – per WP:STALEDRAFT.
So, basically, it depends on you. The offer to userfy is still valid, but the article can also be left in article space, where it is now. However, regardless of where the article is, you should be trying to find sources to prove Mr Dubey's notability. For that purpose, having the article in your userspace is probably better, in that it gives you more time to work on the page, but, as I said, it's entirely your choice. —  Salvio 08:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay noted. I might need some time to figure out what to do and will surely reach out to you once I've thought about it. Thank you so much for helping me out.

Hope you have a wonderful day ahead.

Regards,

Jae Yumeko1 (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

List of Joe Biden gaffes

i would like to request the deleted list of Joe Biden gaffes article be restored to my sandbox if possible. the deletion discussion was interesting, and suggestions were made that this material could be selectively merged into a couple of articles i did not know existed. if it is possible, would you also please restore its talk page too. .usarnamechoice (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

.usarnamechoice,  Done and  Done. —  Salvio 07:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for amendment of ANI remedy

I have an amendment request concerning the ANI remedy you imposed here. I have reviewed the procedures set out at WP:AC/P in the section Contentious Topics#Appeals and amendments, and the equivalent section of WP:BANNING, Review and reversal of bans#Arbitration enforcement bans, and both suggest that for an amendment/clarification the first step is to make a request to the administrator placing the sanction. My sense is that for an ammendment to a non-CT community sanction at AN, the first step in requesting an amendment to the close is the same. If you believe that the best place to start us another venue, such as WP:AN or WP:ARCA, please let me know.

Anyway, I am inspired to make my request by the policy language at WP:BMB: On very rare occasions, a limited exception may be requested; for example, to participate in a particular discussion. I would like to request a limited exception to my GENSEX TBAN only, while the bludgeoning restriction would remain entirely in place. I would like to be able to edit two policy pages: MOS:BIO (notably, its Talk page) and MOS:GIDINFO (notably, the section "Discussion timeline"), including within the contentious topic of gender and sexuality.

On MOS:BIO, I have observed recent discussions that involve a "blue sky" aspect in terms of policy development on the former names of trans people; I have contributed constructively in prior discussions of these issues (and my participation on that topic was not cited by anyone to my knowledge as disruptive at ANI), and I would like to participate in this fundamental discussion - with a respectful tone, and within the framework of my anti-bludgeon restriction. On GIDINFO, the page history will show that I have had an important role in developing and gnoming that page, and I think some additional development and gnoming of that section would be beneficial to the project.

I do not believe that anything in the ANI discussion that led to your close would suggest that this "limited exception" would be contrary to the objectives of the sanction (i.e., preventing disruption) or contrary to the will of the community that you expressed in your close. And this is a one-time request for amendment to the close; I would not try to "chip away" at the TBAN with any other amendments - my contribution to P&G pages has been one of my consistent areas of quality contribution to Misplaced Pages (for a recent examole, see these non-GENSEX related discussions at MOS:BIO), and I feel that being able to comment judiciously on GENSEX discussions at that page would be an obvious benefit to the project. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Newimpartial, this is not really a sanction imposed by me, rather it's a sanction imposed by the community. I simply closed the discussion and enacted the consensus emerging from it, so I don't think I am empowered to amend it as I would be if this was a CT sanction. So, I fear you will need to ask at WP:AN. I am sorry I can't be of more help here. —  Salvio 19:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests
• Misplaced Pages administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks
• Misplaced Pages administrators willing to make difficult blocks