User talk:Korny O'Near

I warned you about the slow edit warring on Libs of TikTok and the behavior continued. continuing an editing dispute from before the protection without affirmative consensus, continuing annother editing dispute from before the protection without affirmative consensus, reverting another editor, continuing the same dispute from the last diff, another revert with no discussion. I thought the warning was clear, but it seems not. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Korny O'Near (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you for the additional explanation. You linked to 4 reverts I made; the 2nd one, I would argue, did in fact have consensus on my side, and the 4th one was a revert of a new and unexplained change. But I'll grant that the other two edits were contentious. Whether that's enough to justify a block, I would dispute. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is enough to justify a block. Yamla (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You can still edit the talk page, and if consensus for your proposals exist then another editor can make the edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion at ANI, you are now indefinitely topic banned from all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, as well as post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. You can appeal these topic bans after six months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the Tranarchist, Newimpartial, and your ANI are any indication of the atmosphere in the topic area, I recommend not appealing in six months. I'd give it a few years, as I know I'm less inclined to enforce content policy, and BLP policy there. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we haven't interacted before, but when I got dragged to ANI for my talk-page brainstorming, I couldn't help but notice your situation next-door. As I'm sure you've realized, WP has a leftist/establishment bias which permeates controversial articles here. You seem to be "fighting the good fight" by trying to "restore balance" and fairly represent the other side. However, I assure you that this is an exercise in futility, a losing battle, like running up a down escalator or bailing out the Titanic. This is because of the RS policy: WP simply summarizes what the "Reliable Sources" have to say, and treats them as authoritative. Of course, the sources accepted as RS tend to be establishment/leftist, which means the bias is hard-coded into this project. There's really no way around this without rebooting the whole thing from a content mirror with a new community & policies.

I realize that you're currently blocked, and when that wears off, you can't discuss current politics without violating the ban. However, I thought this insight would be of use to you. take it e-z. Xcalibur (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly, we all know that

Reality has a well known liberal bias. Wes sideman (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure your 2cents is helpful here, @Wes sideman. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, perhaps I shouldn't try to be slightly humorous, you're right. I'm probably better off sticking to statements like BigDan201 or Xcalibur made below, such as "'Neutral Point of View' is leftist". Wes sideman (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're better off just staying away from the user talk of someone who just got blocked/t-banned after complaining about you. It might be seen as gravedancing or trolling. Valereee (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the well-wishes. Whatever the problems are with the current RS policy, I don't think it applies to me, because I'm not aware of any case when I didn't cite reliable sources when making edits to politics- or gender-related pages. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. That always helps, but it can still be like swimming upstream. Ultimately some problems are too large and entrenched to be solved. Xcalibur (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not RS it is NPOV. If you didn't know that before, now you do. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People had all sorts of chances during the discussion to point to an edit of mine that introduced bias, but in my opinion no one ever did. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should've mentioned that the "Neutral Point of View" is establishment/leftist, which makes it impossible to represent the other side. RS are relevant in that the majority of them tend to shape NPOV. Xcalibur (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be both establishment/leftist when the prevailing establishment view is right of center? Wikipedia's problem with the dominance of the establishment view (that of wealthy white men in the global north) is a completely different problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish: what diffs in the ban proposal are AMPOL2 and not GENSEX? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question - I never thought to do a count, but I just did, and it looks like, in the original discussion, 32 people weighed in with some sort of opinion, and of those, 14 (one of which was an IP address) thought I should be banned from editing American politics-related topics. ScottishFinnishRadish considered this "clear consensus" for an American politics topic ban. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing on a brief run-through at that discussion is that pretty much everyone who specified added AmPol to the mix. Some folks simply !voted support, but if they mentioned GENSEX they were highly likely to also mention AmPol. I think this close was justifiable. Valereee (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that how votes on Wikipedia work now - you can just sort of guess at what people were thinking? Besides the strangeness of that argument, one obvious counter-argument is that the people who didn't support it had no reason to specify anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person closing doesn't count. They assess. Valereee (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go back to responding here, as I misunderstood the question initially. As I explained in the close, with the type of disruption that there was consensus was happening there are generally not a lot of smoking gun style diffs. The editing on Libs of TikTok, which sits at a confluence of GENSEX and AP was cited by a number of editors. Googleguy007 provided a number of diffs dealing with American Politics, with Aquillion providing a couple more for context, and more later. As this wasn't at AE, where it should have been, the closer has to assess the consensus of editors taking part in the discussion, and how participants viewed the diffs and other evidence presented, not their own views, as an admin would at AE. This is also why the tbans are logged at

WP:RESTRICTIONS

, rather than the arb enforcement log.

This is a significant drawback of ANI, and unfortunately I'm not in a position to change how that works. You may have noticed that I mentioned in the middle of the discussion that it should have been at AE, and brought that up again in the close. I think we've lost too many editors recently that should have just been put "on notice," or otherwise warned, so they would have an opportunity to address community concerns, and grow as editors. That outcome is better for everyone because we'll have more editors doing better work in contentious topic areas. Again, I can't unilaterally decide "although consensus is X, I don't think that is the best way forward, so I'm not doing it." There are currently some discussions about how to possibly help the issues around CTOP and ANI, but as usual change is hard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back from discussing it on my talk page. The clarified question is "what diffs, supplied by the AMPOL2 accusers, in the ban proposal, are AMPOL2 and not GENSEX?" The diffs in the lists you mention (from 17:59, 8 March 2023 and 23:30, 8 March 2023) would all fit in GENSEX broadly construed, except these two talk-page comments re Jordan Peterson 7 July 2022 and 7 October 2022. So those are the

Diffs that answer my question? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Many are diffs that cover both. As I'm sure you're aware, there is a significant overlap in gensex and AP topics. [10][11][12][13] There's a few that clearly apply to AP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is precisely because I am aware that I asked repeatedly about diffs that are AMPOL2 and not GENSEX because any item that is both AMPOL2 and GENSEX is covered by a GENSEX topic ban and so doesn't add any justification of an additional AMPOL2 topic ban. And three of the four diffs you're listing now are Libs Of Tik Tok i.e. part of GENSEX broadly construed, which leaves only the talk page comments re Jordan Peterson. Although he is Canadian and the disputed article of the July 7 talk page comment was "Jordan's Gospel of Masculinity", I'd accept a claim that's American politics and not about gender|sex. So, okay, the talk page comments re Jordan Peterson are the relevant part of your answer, I thank you for answering. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree here - I don't see how discussion of Jordan Peterson relates to American politics, since, as noted, he's Canadian - and he's also not a politician. @ScottishFinnishRadish: you linked to this diff, which is about Jordan Peterson's comments on Elliot Page, i.e. a Canadian psychologist criticizing a Canadian actor. How that's actually about American politics, I don't know.

All the rest of the diffs you cited are from the Libs of TikTok article - which factors in to my theory that ultimately that page is the sum total, or nearly so, of the issue. Again, only a minority of people in that vote thought I should be banned from writing about American politics. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just had another opportunity to go over the close in the course of warning another editor in hopes to avoid yet another topic ban, and I should have specified the AP topic ban had a rough consensus, rather than the clear consensus that the gensex ban had. I'm trying to be more proactive with the warnings and early interventions to avoid more of these topic bans, as the community seems to be running short on patience at ANI. That's why I made the initial 2 week partial block, in hopes of getting the point across before you ended up topic banned. Three block coinciding with your ANI thread was just bad timing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CBAN requires "a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute", which critics (if any) did you decide could not be used for assessing "rough consensus"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

On a technical level wasn't the only editor besides Korny involved in the underlying dispute Wes sideman? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Wikipedia:Closure review. I personally do not agree with your assessment, but neither of our personal opinions matters. And keep in mind, Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.

A consensus of independent input is what actually decides keeping or overturning a closure. You're supposed to go to SFR's talk page, and then if you can't resolve it but still want it overturned, to closure review. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The page you're pointing to says "A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached.", which is what I'm trying to find out. Only ScottishFinnishRadish can explain. And this is the page where the discussion began, and even if

Wikipedia:Closure review were appropriate (which I doubt) the advice there is "contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion", not "switch to a different forum". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

A discussion on a user talk isn't actually a forum. It's more of an opening bid; if you aren't satisfied at a user talk, it's better to try to get additional input. Broad input can't be had on a typical user talk, which tends to include the user's friends, people who've complained to or warned the user, admins who've responded to warnings, a few random nosy parkers like myself, and probably not many others. I'm not sure whether closure review or XRV or AN would be the best place, but the advice to contact the editor and try to resolve the issue through discussion, while excellent, doesn't mean "and keep continuing that discussion there forever". If you aren't satisfied at a user talk, you go to a forum. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not let ScottishFinnishRadish answer or declare an unwillingness to answer? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, they've answered three times here and three times at their own talk. Valereee (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you'd have to define the underlying dispute as you see it to see if I can get all the way to 100% of editors in the discussion involved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only your definition matters. This is only my second question, but if you don't intend to allow more just say so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: - I too would like to hear the answers to the questions posed by Peter Gulutzan and Horse Eye's Back, but in addition to those technical questions, I have a general comment. You lamented that, because of the special circumstances of the discussion, the closer has to assess the consensus of editors taking part in the discussion, and how participants viewed the diffs and other evidence presented, not their own views. I don't mean to sound rude, but I believe you didn't look at the views expressed, or the evidence presented, closely enough, and sometimes did substitute your own views. Here's the evidence I see:

1. You wrote in the closing summary that there was a "clear consensus" to topic ban me, before later admitting that there was just a "rough consensus" (I'd argue that there was no real consensus at all).
2. You also wrote in the admin summary that the "general consensus" was that I've had consistently sub-par editing and discussion. In fact, I don't think anyone criticized the quality of my editing per se - just its supposed overall bias. Googleguy007, who listed some of my supposedly ban-worthy edits, even followed up his list by admitting, pretty shockingly, I do not disagree with all of these edits.
3. Most recently, you pointed to this talk page edit of mine as evidence that people wanted to see me out of the topic of American politics - even though what I wrote there is about Canadians, and arguably doesn't really relate to politics either.

To be fair, your views are a lot more coherent than those of the people who opposed me in the discussion. After all, if I'm consistently making subpar edits and talk page comments across a range of articles, then these kinds of topic bans make perfect sense. But if any specific edit of mine is fine, and the only place I've really antagonized people is in the "Libs of TikTok" article, then wide-ranging topic bans are a lot harder to justify. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The GENSEX ban was a clear an obvious consensus. The AP ban was rougher, although a majority of those in favor of sanctions specifically called out an additional AP ban. As far as the sub-par editing and discussion, it's clear that this was the general consensus, or there would not have been such a degree of support for topic bans. I specifically mentioned in my close that CPUSH issues seldom have singular diffs that prove a case, but it is the pattern of edits together that is being taken into consideration. Individual edits taken in a vacuum can be fine, but as part of a larger pattern can indicate an issue. The consensus was that, in this case, that pattern was disruptive. To your third point, I pointed to a list of diffs from the discussion that can apply to the AP topic space. Yes, a Canadian who calls himself a British Liberal and is chancellor of an American college talking about a Canadian covered in American, Canadian, and British media about comments they made on an American-owned social media platform about an interview the other Canadian gave on an American television program and a post they made on another American-owned social media platform can be part of the AP topic. As I said above there is a significant overlap in gensex and AP topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing - it seems to me that you think people were arguing that my edits were sub-par, because that would have been the rational argument to make: I'm an incompetent editor, thus I should be banned. But the evidence doesn't point to that: as I noted, no one accused me of incompetent editing. Rather, the criticism of me was, overall, pretty blatantly ideological. Two users (LilianaUwU and Thebiguglyalien) specifically said I should be banned for having written this in support of another editor. Another editor said I should be banned because of my disagreement with the essay

WP:NONAZIS

. Reading between the lines, other editors seemed to share that view as well, like the one who accused me of issuing "dog whistles" (to whom?), which are "a hallmark of the extremist right". And even the few editors who specifically listed actual edits I had made noted that they did not disagree with all of these edits - quite literally, they were saying that I should be banned for improving articles in a way that was not to their (political) liking.

Maybe there's no point trying to relitigate a past discussion, but if your goal is to try to capture the will of the crowd, then I think it's important to understand what people were actually saying - on both sides.

As to the Jordan Peterson edit: if that kind of (no offense) tenuous connection is all that's needed to establish that something relates to American politics, then I dare say that a ban on editing about American politics is really a ban on editing about recent events happening anywhere in the world. Perhaps that's the case. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make this my last reply here, because at this point I don't think we're really having a productive dialog. Sub-par does not imply that you're incompetent, and there are many reasons why edits may be sub-par. For instance, when they are part of a long-term pattern of civil POV pushing, as was the consensus at ANI. Further, to act as if the connection between Peterson and American politics in tenuous doesn't pass the sniff test. Here is Politico interviewing him as part of their series on 50 people reshaping American politics, discussing American politics. Here's The Hill covering his speaking engagement with a group of republican lawmakers. He's done numerous videos on American politics, and he even has a C-Span profile with a few appearances. There are plenty of recent events and public people who are not related to the AP topic, but someone who is a public speaker speaking publicly about politics in the US certainly falls under that umbrella.

If you believe that my close was not a reasonable reading of the consensus, then we've already completed the first part of

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, so you're free to proceed as you wish. I know that you wrote above that you don't plan on returning to editing, but I hope that isn't the case. I hope that, instead, you edit in other topic areas for six months, then request that your topic bans be lifted and return to the topic areas with a bit more awareness of where the line is, and how not to cross it. I don't believe your behavior was nearly disruptive enough that productive editing in other topics wouldn't be enough for the community to AGF and repeal the topic ban. If you're looking for something to edit that will likely keep you out of the spotlight, I've found that there are many declined drafts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Drafts that are fairly quick and easy to rescue for an experienced editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the response. You make a fair point about Jordan Peterson (and well done with the research), though I still think a perversely-motivated editor could make my life difficult if I were to ever edit anything about, say, the government of China, to take one of thousands of examples. Yes, I'm still planning to stop editing Wikipedia no matter what, though something about the indignity of being banned from writing about anything that relates to American politics, when only a minority of people even recommended that, upset my sense of fairness, I suppose. I don't know why you specifically recommended editing articles about women - that seems like it would be an odd choice if I were trying to avoid anything relating to politics, gender or sexuality - but maybe there was some reason for it. I also don't see why anyone who earns a lifetime ban from Wikipedia editing on some topic should ever be reinstated, let alone just six months later, given that a short-term ban was a different option. Anyway, thanks for your patience, and responses. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm going to flip this question, as I feel it's actually kind of important: would writing about men be a problem w/re GENSEX? Valereee (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair question, and I could have been more precise. Writing about a specific man or woman is not in itself a problem; but scrolling through that list of women, I saw a fair number of political figures and activists. Anyway, what I really should have asked is why it makes sense to write about women, as opposed to, say, astronomy - or any of the topics I was already editing about, for that matter. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally makes sense to write about astronomy, including the men and women who work in that field. And yes, I'd avoid articles about people who are activists in gender issues, men or women. I'd avoid articles about trans people or anyone who uses they/them or neopronouns. But, say, a woman astronomer who was assigned female at birth and never identified other than a straight cisgender woman? I'd certainly be arguing on your behalf that wasn't a problem. (Pinging @Tamzin who a while back offered to be a resource for GENSEX-related questions here, and would defer to her thinking vs. mine.) Valereee (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Valereee. Well, as you and I briefly discussed at the Athaenara TBAN thread, the scope of GENSEX is a bit strange. The ArbCom pseudo-case was called "Gender and sexuality", but the authorized sanction is for gender-related disputes and controversies and associated people, and the actual enforcement of the sanction sometimes treats it more like it applies to gender in general or gender and sexuality in general. Before I go on, I'll note that I'm on a break from (most) admin activity, and that extends to comments like these, so nothing I say here should be construed as "an admin said I can do X", because right now I'm only an admin to the extent that policy imposes certain obligations. (Coincidentally, Val, vibing very hard with the situation you said you found yourself in last year regarding perceived obligations, but I digress.)

Anyways, in theory a "gender-related disputes" TBAN would not extend to, say, Vi Hart or Angela Zimmerman, to pick two random non-cisgender people whose articles make no mention of gender-related disputes. You also in theory can edit non-biography articles that touch on gender-related disputes, so long as that's not a main focus of the article and your edit in no way pertains to those disputes. In practice, however, I would strongly recommend treatinng such things as safety valves, rather than loopholes. No one wants to wind up at AE for a single copy-edit, even if they eventually "win" the AE thread. I generally recommend that anyone TBANned start as far away as possible from that topic area. That gives them time to familiarize themself with the TBAN's scope and also means that, if there is some de minimis violation, admins will be more likely to AGF that it's an accident. All that said, for broad TBANs like gender-related disputes, there's certainly a bit more leniency than something really narrow like the Shakespeare authorship question, and I can't see how it would be an issue, even in the eyes of the most cynical admin, to edit about a cis woman who is not involved in any gender-related disputes, unless you're adding content that would relate to such a dispute (for instance, "She began working at NASA in 1977 after being initially passed over because she was a woman" or something like that). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just mentioned it because I've found the list useful in the past. You can browse through and find low hanging fruit that needs an experienced editor's hand, fight systemic bias, and maybe encourage a new editor all in one go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds positive (and thanks for the response), though I think it's ironic that you mention systemic bias, since I am myself a victim of systemic bias on Wikipedia - the bias against non-"progressive" viewpoints, which is explicit and relentless. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that we tend to lean progressive here. But as a victim of systemic bias, maybe you can find some empathy for others who've experienced the same. Valereee (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like female astronomers who lack their own article? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like those. :D Do you know the story of Donna Strickland? Valereee (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've definitely heard of her; she's one of the 12 Nobel Prize winners from 2007 to 2018 (10 men and 2 women) who didn't have an English-language Wikipedia article about them when they won. Maybe there have been more since then; I don't know. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer, just when I thought we were maybe going to have a moment of mutual understanding.

Okay, let's get the logical fallacy of Whataboutism out of the way: yes, there are other examples. That twitter thread listed 10 men, including 4 Asians; those Asian men would actually be part of the same systemic bias we have here.

Let's also get out of the way that yes, the notability of academics/research scientists are hard to assess for the average editor who isn't expert in that. We generally have to see if they're a full professor somewhere, which is a strong indication an academic is notable, or if they have been cited often. Generally a quick check for that is if they have a high H-index. But academics and research scholars often do slip through the cracks.

The reason that Donna Strickland is an interesting story isn't so much that she didn't have an article. I'm positive there are hundreds of academics and researchers who don't. It's that two different editors had previously tried to create an article, and those articles were rejected. No one did anything wrong; the first article was a copyvio and the second one was a draft at AfC that expired because no one came back to address issues the reviewer had. The concern is that, in looking at these drafts, no one decided to investigate more closely. Again, no one did anything wrong, even unintentionally. The people doing speedy deletions and AfC reviews don't have time to investigate every case thoroughly.

But the first lines of the expired draft were Donna T. Strickland is an optical physicist and professor at the University of Waterloo working in the fields of ultrafast lasers and nonlinear optics. Strickland, along with her Ph.D. supervisor Dr. Gérard Mourou, co-invented Chirped pulse amplification (CPA), which made it possible to amplify ultrashort pulses to high peak power. That's a plausible claim to notability, and even a brief look at google scholar would have told us she was clearly notable as she's been cited in excess of 300 times a year for the past two decades. The concern, again, is not so much that this eminent academic didn't have an article. It's that someone tried to tell us twice that she should, and provided reasonable evidence, and we still let her fall through the cracks. Valereee (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to respond to there, but I will just say that statistical data is not "whataboutism"; it's an obvious reponse to the use of anecdotal data to try to prove a point. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assumption of good faith. Statistics would actually be something like (white male Nobel prize winners since 2002 didn’t have an article before they won/total white male Nobel prize winners since 2002) as compared to (non-white-male prize winners since 2002 didn’t have an article before they won/total such winners). I suspect the difference could be significant, but sounds like a lot of work to convince one editor there's an actual issue. Valereee (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there's no reason to put in work to convince me, but one would think that all the people routinely bringing up the name of Donna Strickland would themselves want to see that kind of analysis, to know if their assumptions about sexism in Wikipedia are actually valid. But it doesn't seem like anyone is curious about it, which would seem to strengthen my own argument about the ideological bubble that most Wikipedia editors (and admins) reside in. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lol, there's a whole project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. There's plenty of research there and at linked pages. Valereee (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen those pages, and I wasn't that impressed - but maybe the best evidence that the existing research is not too persuasive is that people still bring up the name of Donna Strickland, even five years later. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish: You didn't answer my second question to explain which critics (if any) did you decide could not be used for assessing "rough consensus", and your later statement to Korny O'Near indicates you've made your "last reply here". Unless you say now you will answer questions, I intend to try WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. I am not suggesting Korny O'Near should join. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SFR has already directed this to

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE above, and said they're satisfied that the first step in that process has been attempted to their satisfaction. Valereee (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The post is American Politics Topic Ban by ScottishFinnishRadish. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dogmatic (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks sufficient coverage to pass

WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hello, Korny O'Near. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]