Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive350

See his recent edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.22.180 (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• I would suggest you leave this alone 172.58.22.180. You suggested something bogus on Talk:Eviction , got reverted, then you were rude to General Izatio, and got threatened in return. I suggest you stop aggravating a issue you started off and be constructive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Umm you're defending him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.22.180 (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for personal attacks for 48h Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. ...the error rate (7 / 276 = 2.5%)... - if someone closes correctly 97.5% of the time, I do not think we should TBAN them from closing. Instead, I'd say thanks for closing/relisting almost 1 AfD per day for the last year. Levivich (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
  • A purely symbolic gesture at this point, but I'm striking my oppose because I cannot get on board with someone continuing to edit but not participating in an AN thread about their closes. (Particularly as there has been one close during this discussion.) I agree with NBB's point below that if you NAC AFDs, you take on
    WP:ADMINACCT, and that means responding promptly to good-faith concerns, such as the ones raised here. Also per NBB, I would support some lesser sanction like "must re-open any challenged close", which would also have the benefit of forcing Astig to be damn sure their closes won't be challenged (which is what I think the community wants). Levivich (talk
    ) 16:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I was planning on bringing this here myself, for largely the same reasons as Flatscan. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that Superastig has had more AfD non-admin closes overturned at DRV in the last year or two than any other editor (by quite a wide margin). That's a problem because of
  failure to listen to consensus: Superastig was told nearly two years ago to be more conservative with WP:NAC, but instead the out-of-process closures have continued apace (and indeed advice has been mocked, as noted above). As for the idea that this is an acceptable error rate, non-admin AfD closers should hold themselves to a very high standard of uncontroversialness (back when I did AfD NACs, not a single one of my 393 closures was ever even taken to DRV, much less overturned), and at any rate the 2.5% figure excludes the bad closures that were never taken to DRV. That said, if editors don't feel a full TBAN is warranted, we could also consider a lesser editing restriction, e.g. "if someone makes a good-faith challenge of one of your closures on your talk page, you must re-open the AfD". But in my view, someone who keeps doing the same thing that consensus rejects shouldn't be closing AfDs at all. Extraordinary Writ (talk
  ) 06:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Firstly, the fact that none of your closures were brought to DRV as opposed to 8 of his is irrelevant; there are no minimum requirements to bring them there, and the losing side (the nominator of a failed discussion, or the author of a page deleted per a successful one) could do it with little cause; and a bad closure of a page in an unpopular topic may never be examined. And secondly, there is no way to know, without someone taking a reasonable-sized sample, to rule that any closure he did was wrong without a major case-by-case review - which we only have for 8 closures. Animal lover |666| 08:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't really disagree with any of that, and perhaps I phrased my comment poorly. The main issue for me is that 1) Superastig made controversial and incorrect closures, 2) he was told by numerous editors at DRV to stop doing that, and 3) he hasn't heeded that consensus and keeps doing the same thing. This is a longstanding problem that's consumed countless hours of editors' time, and the problem doesn't go away just because Superastig has also made uncontroversial closures. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. As long as the other 268 closures went unchallenged, they are to be assumed to be correct. Having roughly 1 mistake in 40 does not look so bad. Animal lover |666| 06:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  One more remark, related to below: If an AFD is closed as delete, then any user may create a redirect at the same title; if the closer thinks it's appropriate, is there any reason not to do it immediately in stead of having the page deleted first? And is there any reason not to state this in the closing statement? And, that having been said, would a case with no clear result between delete and redirect, but with those 2 clearly far ahead of keep, be best closed as redirect? Animal lover |666| 17:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Levivich. Apparently, a vast majority of his closes are good. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - If you're a non-admin and you're going to get yourself involved in an area of Wikipedia that already gets quite hot due to the implications involved, then you better get it right all the time. Serious errors which result in DRVs waste everybody's time, and combining this with obstinate behavior is hardly a desired temperament for someone making NACs.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support based on the most recent 15 closures listed below. If you're going to do NACs, they should only be done on very uncontroversial closures and you really need to get them right. My first preference would be for this thread to be closed with a Warning, but based on some of the diffs presented this user doesn't seem very receptive so stronger measures may be necessary. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Switching to Support per this diff, I no longer see any value in a formal warning given the
  WP:IDHT response. I've been convinced the topic ban is necessary. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me}
  16:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support The community has indicated that it prefers admins to make close calls and controversial decisions and, less formally, also recognizes that
  WP:RELISTBIAS exists. If this editor isn't able to make those distinctions - and the analysis below suggests that there's not - there's plenty of ways for them to help out without closing discussions. Barkeep49 (talk
  ) 18:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. As a regular DRV closer, whenever I see Superastig in a DRV it is because they mistakenly closed an AfD. We do not expect perfection from closers, but an ability to learn and communicate, both of which I see no evidence of here. Sandstein 22:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Editors undertaking admin-level tasks should be expected to display admin-level behavior regarding those tasks, and that is definitely not occurring here. Superastig has a poor response rate to problems raised re: his AfD participation, and when he does respond it's often dismissive and incomplete. It also is apparent that he has not listened to the recommendations by several admins that he desist closing marginal AfDs. This is especially an issue given his dismal DRV stats, the numerous issues identified with the closures that aren't taken to DRV, and the quite poor AfD !vote match rate. This is all under circumstances where BADNACs should be extremely rare.

Superastig's seeming agenda of purposely closing discussions leaning delete as redirects or NC, often based on single !votes and against consensus, just to prevent deletion, is completely at odds with deletion policy and NACD. Nowhere does DEL "require" an ATD be considered, much less implemented against a consensus to delete. DEL says A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate.. That's "can", not "must" or even "should". In fact, the only place on DEL that uses any sort of binding language regarding an ATD is in the

WP:ATD-E

, which states If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. "Editing" in this section strictly refers to disputes, vandalism, and stubbification, and obviously not any of the other ATDs, which have their own sections. This distinction is also referenced in DELREASON: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page). So his overriding consensus delete discussions with useless redirects has no policy support. In fact, Rosguill's assessment understates the degree some of the closes go against consensus:

...Radha Jayalakshmi (closed 7 Feb) was 5d:1r:2k, with the first keep being blocked for sockpuppetry on 5 Feb and the second blocked and struck at the same time as their sock. Neither keep made any P&G-based argument anyway and so should have been totally discounted even if they hadn't been blocked.

...S. C. Krishnan (closed 7 Feb) and ...T. R. Mahalingam (closed 6 Feb) were both 3d:1r:1k, with the keep !voter the same as above (blocked 5 Feb)

...Runa Laila (closed 6 Feb) was 2d:1r

...Kanak Chapa (closed 5 Feb 15:00) was 2d:1r:1k, with the keep from the sock (blocked two hours after the close, but their !vote should've been ignored anyway as it's just Legendary singer and well rererenced discography)

Fire Eshona (closed 17 Jan) was 2d:1m, but the nom notes that there is nothing reliably sourced and encyclopedic to merge. Superastig didn't even perform the merge, either.

Fatih Mehmet Gul (closed 15 Jan) was 3d:3k, but none of the keeps had valid arguments and so should have been ignored even before two of them were struck as socks.

Closers need to assess not only the argument weights, but also the users behind the !votes, so it is inexcusable for Superastig to have "missed" the glaring blocked socks and suspicious IPs, and even worse that he apparently lacks the competence to recognize invalid !votes. JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Moved from the bottom of the "discussion" subsection below. ansh.666 03:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. If the issue here is that about 1-in-25 closes made by the user are incorrect, and less-restrictive-than-TBAN corrective actions have not yet been attempted, then I think a general TBAN from the topic is premature. Rather than TBANNING them, I think assigning the user a mentor to help their ability to discern when a case is going to be contentious would be wiser. The user seems to have become a little more bold lately, and a warning to the user to slow down on that might be warranted, but an indefinite TBAN seems excessive when there are ways to address this that are not nearly as restrictive. Allowing the user to take on some of the bureaucratic work while under guidance from an admin will improve the user's competency here while also allowing them to perform good work for the project. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  The community has indicated, unlike RMs, RfCs, and even TfDs, that it prefers admins handle AfDs. Assigning someone a mentor to something that is already a marginally endorsed activity feels like a poor use of everyone's time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that the community prefer admins handle contentious AfDs, particularly so given how much community time poor closes take up. That being said, the community also acknowledges that there is a role for NACs at AfD to help clear out more of the simple closes, thereby allowing admins to spend more their AfD-closing admin-hours analyzing the tougher calls. A mentor would be there as someone to bounce off "is this something I should leave to admins" and to offer advice in responding to challenges of AfD closures. This doesn't seem like a waste of community time; something informal that could offer fraternal correction seems to be utterly reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  Is Superastig actually interested in receiving mentorship? Usually mentorship is offered when an editor is facing a sanction and clamoring to avoid it, but Superastig has essentially ignored all discussions regarding their closures not posted on their talk page (and even then, the responses have uniformly been to demur concerns) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, Superastig's lack of response here is making me reconsider my !vote. As is the apparent fact that they've never self-reverted a close? I wouldn't TBAN on "failure rate", but on lack of engagement? Absolutely. Levivich (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  This is very much my concern (the responses, that is) - but to clarify, it's not lack of engagement, since there's evidence of interaction, there's just complete refusal change their position in the face of clear evidence they've made mistakes. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Levivich, apparently he did revert himself once, in the talk page discussion linked by Sergecross below, with the comment (after being threatened with DRV) fine! I already reverted the closure, but I'm doing it just because I'm pressured with your hissy fits. His comments in that thread suggest he at least at that time had an egregiously deficient understanding of what "weighing consensus" means. After Sergecross explained that a keep !vote that simply stated an album got 3 stars from Allmusic was not policy-based and should not have been weighed equal to policy-backed redirect and delete arguments, Superastig's response was I've seen a few discussions like this, where each of them has only 1 "keep" vote and 1 "delete" vote. Either of them is weaker than the other. But after two relists, it was closed as "no consensus". The same case as this discussion. The "keep" vote is weaker than the "redirect" vote since the voter only mentioned nothing else but AllMusic. But, whether it is rebutted or not, it is still valid like the "redirect" argument no matter what. It doesn't sound fair to say that it's not valid. For the nth time, there was really nothing wrong with the closure I did. I did what I could to make the closure fair and square, though I could've added an explanation to back up the closure in the first place. Therefore, even if you throw hissy fits all day long, I really did a good job in giving proper weight to the given arguments. And there's nothing you can do about it because I am telling the truth. This conversation is now over. I'm not gonna waste my time responding to this again. JoelleJay (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah they definitely lost their cool on that one, but that was 19 months and probably like 300+ closes ago; I don't think isolated incidents that old are worth considering. I think the tone of their recent discussions (the last month) were fine. But just as I don't think 7/276 is too many DRVs, it's also not too many times to self-revert, so it cuts both ways. Levivich (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  I see that disagreement as part of a pattern of dismissive behavior, but I acknowledge that Superastig's tone has improved for the last several months. Superastig was fond of telling enquirers to [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]]: June 2021, November 2021, January 2022 talk page header (removed within a few weeks, after a request), and August 2022. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  In my opinion it's a problem that he has continuously characterized all opposition to his closes as "hissy fits" and has ignored the advice of a very large number of people over a very long period recommending he desist in closing AfDs, including pretty strong warnings from admins at DRV. And that only 8 of his articles have been taken to DRV does not mean his other closes were acceptable or went unchallenged after being discouraged by the notice at the top of his talk page, which until recently said If you're here to throw hissy fits over the closures of any deletion discussion, either drop the stick and accept the consensus or take them to the deletion review. The closures I've done are well-thought and therefore final, whether you like it or not. So, ain't nobody got time to argue with anyone over this matter. And it is certainly not acceptable that he purposely prevents deletions with preemptive redirect/NC/merge closures even when there is no consensus for those outcomes and/or they make no sense. His failure to recognize poor !vote arguments and obvious socks (and even socks that have been blocked and their !votes struck) is also concerning. JoelleJay (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  That talk page header was ridiculous, but that was a year ago, and I don't see it as "continuously" being uncivil. The Aug 2022 link Flatscan posted above doesn't read as problematic to me, except maybe the link to "stick" was not necessary. So if there haven't been communication problems in 8-12 months, I just don't see it as relevant; it's been fixed. There are, of course, more recent concerns raised in this thread, and I don't think those can really be addressed by anyone other than Astig. Levivich (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  As Extraordinary Writ has pointed out way down at the bottom of the discussion section, Superastig's "response" to this thread suggests that they still hold the same mentality espoused in that talk page header. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  That one, Danko Jones (EP), is the only self-revert of a close I found when skimming (Ctrl-F doesn't work well in this case) Superastig's contributions (2 pages) since they started closing AfDs in March 2021. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support While I agree the errors are an issue, by themselves alone I might not be on this side of the argument. However, it is not the overall error rate which puts me here, it is the repeated refusal to reconsider their closes when requested. That appears to be an 80-90% error rate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only 8 out of 276 closes went to DRV? That's a much better rate than I have! I'd probably encourage them to voluntarily back off a little or limit themselves to the REALLY obvious closes, but a topic ban goes way too far. WaggersTALK 13:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support. It is not a question of the numerical percentage of a deletion review in regards to unchallenged moves, but the overall frequency of it occurring. I remember my struggles when I was first getting in to RM closing, and some utter cluelessness on my part encouraged me to rightfully back off and simply watch and learn until I could better weigh arguments. Having more than two NACs vacated/overturned within a month is more than enough of a warning to stop closing until you can either (a) understand the weight of policy to avoid poor closures (b) realize that you're clueless and should stop for good to avoid SUPERVOTEing. I encourage Superastig to pick one of the two, and in the case of a, suggest that they find a mentor of some kind to help. If possible, I'd support a six-month topic ban at the minimum to help them slow down and learn.
  The Night Watch (talk)
  15:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support as per Sandstein. My name is mentioned above as offering commentary in the most recent DRV, and I do have concerns about this editor's ability to consistently close AfD's within the parameters set by the NAC guidelines. If this was a one-off or even a small number, you live with it (heck, one of my closes is at DRV currently), but there is a long pattern here with no real engagement by Superastig on the issues. Daniel (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments of Levivich and Red-tailed Hawk. I suggest he should slow down in closing AfDs coz I feel that sometimes he acts like an admin-level closer when it comes to closing them and he should focus on the ones with easier outcomes. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with most of his closures IMV, I'd question only a couple of them in fact. 268 of his other closures are correct. So it'll be unfair if he'll be TBANned indefinitely (or temporarily) just because of the 7 challenged closures that are overturned/relisted. Especially that he sometimes votes in AfDs. SBKSPP (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Please move your recommendation to the Involved subsection below. You are clearly acquainted with Superastig. Most of your 24 edits to their talk page relate to their AfD closes and/or DRVs, including your comment shortly before participating here. You also supported endorse at all ten of the DRVs listed in the table. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Oh. Didn't know where to vote. Thx anyways. SBKSPP (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Moved below. SBKSPP (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support (for several reasons) - having 8 DRVs as a NAC is not necessarily an issue. Having 1/8 DRVs upheld is significantly more a problem. But the user's issues there are somewhat broader. I concur their civility in the process is much improved and no longer a particular issue. However, as a nac user, general community consensus is that they are not to take on close closes. In that position, their reticence to reopen their own close when asked is a persistent failing. Beyond that, I find their lack of engagement post-discussion, or in DRVs, or in this discussion itself, especially concerning. Anyone who makes a nac is taking on the same onus that ADMINACCT applies, and I do not believe their engagement to date demonstrates meeting that obligation. Multiple DRV closes have provided warnings, so I believe a TBAN is justified. Should someone propose a reasonable lesser limitation (e.g. obligated to reopen on GF request), then I can be viewed as a support for such above the TBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support because of the continuing high rate of BADNAC seen in the analysis by Rosguill and the confrontational attitude towards this issue seen in the comments linked by Extraordinary Writ. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Not seeing any obvious reason to ban this user. Superastig has closed almost 300 AfDs, and most are closed correctly. So apparently, closing seven AfDs incorrectly is so horrible that it warrants a topic ban? I'd probably at most support a warning as a reasonable concession, but a topic ban is really excessive. Nythar (💬-❄️) 08:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

  What effect do you expect a warning to have? As pointed out already, including by Nosebagbear two recommendations up, Superastig has received ample directed feedback via the DRV closing statements, but they have not corrected their closing behavior. Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Flatscan, the formal warning I am suggesting (not one at DRV) would discourage Superastig from engaging in controversial AfD closures and to generally not engage in AfD closures for a period of 6 months. This is different from a topic ban, which is a complete restriction. The reason I support this is because I simply do not understand why 7 supposedly "incorrect" closures are justification for a topic ban. And they're technically not "incorrect" either. Sometimes a discussion at AfD will result in "keep" the first time, and perhaps the second and even the third. And the fourth nomination then results in the article getting deleted. Can't the same thing happen at DRV? Of course it can. Maybe if it were an entirely different group of editors voting at DRV, Superastig would have been wrong only 3 times. I'd like to see conclusive evidence that Superastig's AfD closures are very disruptive and that the only solution available for this disruptive behavior is a complete restriction--a topic ban. I have seen nothing resembling this. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Based on the evidence presented, I believe that a formal warning will be ineffective. I note that WP:Banning policy (permalink) does not mention "warn" anywhere. I disagree that DRV has the high variance you describe: it has consistent participation and a group of regulars, encouraged by having a fraction of AfD's volume. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  I did not say DRV participants vary greatly; I said "if" there was a different crowd at DRV, some of the results may have been different. As for a warning/topic ban, that is up to the participants of this discussion to decide. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. If 2.5% of closures are taken to DRV, it does not mean that 97.5% of closures were good. Only a fraction of bad closures are taken to DRV. In my experience, it is a small fraction (acknowledging that there is no objective definition of goodness). So the statistics are against Superastig, not for Superastig. If stronger evidence is needed, someone experienced has to go through the last, say, 50 closures. Zero^talk 09:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Zero0000: Perhaps you could do that instead of assuming that a large percentage of Superastig's AfD closures are incorrect? That's the problem with assumptions; you can't know if they're correct, and they could be wrong. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

    My claim that only a fraction of bad closures are taken to DRV is my experience over many years. Zero^talk 14:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

    Not to mention a 1/7 endorse rate indicates he's actually really bad at closing controversial discussions, which he shouldn't even be closing in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

    Zero0000, I meant that you should look through Superastig's closures and list every obviously incorrect and disruptive closure you can find. "My experience over many years" is not justification for a topic ban. If I supported a topic ban for an editor, why shouldn't I at least try to justify my vote with actual evidence, instead of just assumptions? 97.5% is not a bad look. If this were to decrease to, say, 60%, that then that would be a bad look. Even then, a formal warning and recommendation to stay away from all AfD closures for 6 months seems like a reasonable solution. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

    Many, if not most, of the contributors here are less concerned about the specific statisical incidence, and more the (continuing) nature of response when asked to reconsider, depsite multiple opportunities to amend. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

    Like I said here, Superastig's seven closures might not have been considered "incorrect" if there was a different crowd at DRV. And in fact, one of the 8 closures taken to DRV was accepted by the community. It's difficult to expect an editor to "amend" when it all depends on the community's opinions. "Superastig should only close AfDs if the closure lines up with our opinions which we will voice tomorrow at DRV" is the vibe I'm getting here. Again, this can be easily solved with a warning and recommendation that Superastig not engage in controversial closures and to generally refrain from closing AfDs for a few months. And this time a formal warning, not requests at DRV or talk pages. If there is disruption after the formal warning is issued, a topic ban will likely uncontroversially follow. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

    It's not about a difference of opinion, or who turns up to a discussion, it's about *how* one expresses oneself, the *nature* of the response, its effect, and subsequent actions, not simply the closure decision(s). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

    Diffs have been posted above of attempts to discuss the issue with Superastig, he has been shown to be less than willing to accept feedback from more experienced users. That's why I gave the proposal a weak support above, because I don't think a warning would have any effect and we'd be back here in a couple months. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Would also support a restriction short of a full ban on NACs. I don't have an issue with implementing reasonable alternatives to deletion like merge or redirect but close calls or potentially controversial decisions should be left to administrators. That has been the community consensus for many years and if Superastig can't abide by that, they shouldn't be closing AfDs at all. The odd mistake or lapse of judgement would be perfectly acceptable but there appears to be a pattern of overstepping the bounds here and not even coming to explain yourself when your actions are questioned at a noticeboard is poor form. If you're not willing to account for your action, you shouldn't be surprised to find your privilege to perform it revoked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Involved

• Support indefinite topic ban as proposer. I participated in two of the DRVs (January 2022 and June 2022, recommending overturn for both) and commented on the June AfD after it was relisted. I also approached Superastig about closes I found questionable at User talk:Superastig/Archive 6#AfD intersection with SBKSPP (June 2022, permalink), disengaging after three comments. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per my analysis below. Even when just looking at closes made in the past month, there's a clear pattern of supervoting and other questionable closes, combined with unsatisfactory engagement with concerns raised by other editors when brought to DRV. Given the high proportion of problematic closes in the last month, my guess is that a significant chunk of their yet-unchallenged closes leave something to be desired as well. I don't think that the oppose argument that Superastig is right 39/40 times holds water; my assessment of their last month in closes is that out of 15, 5 were clearly wrong, 6 were defensible outcomes but did not reflect the balance of the discussion, and the remaining 4 were trivial, unanimous cases. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments of Levivich and Red-tailed Hawk. As an editor who occasionally asks advice from him after warning me once, I suggest he should slow down in closing AfDs coz I feel that sometimes he acts like an admin-level closer when it comes to closing them and he should focus on the ones with easier outcomes. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with most of his closures IMV, I'd question only a couple of them in fact. 268 of his other closures are correct. So it'll be unfair if he'll be TBANned indefinitely (or temporarily) just because of the 7 challenged closures that are overturned/relisted. Especially that he sometimes votes in AfDs. SBKSPP (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• While I've contested Superastig's closes and think that a tban is a plausible outcome here, especially since there's the ignoring of consensus-backed advice, but don't we need to do a bit more digging through the discussions that haven't been challenged before calling for a tban? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, so looking through their most recent closes (list goes back to mid-January 2023), I do think we have a problem here, with a lot of dubious borderline closes that read like

  WP:SUPERVOTEs

  .

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Radha Jayalakshmi - In a discussion with 4 delete !votes, 1 redirect !vote, and 2 struck sock !votes for keep, closed as redirect.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by S. C. Krishnan, 2 delete, 1 keep, 1 struck sock for keep, closed as redirect
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by T. R. Mahalingam, 1 delete, 1 keep, previously soft deleted at AfD, closed as redirect
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Belfield (4th nomination) close vacated and relisted by Oaktree b
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Urdu songs recorded by Runa Laila, 1 delete, 1 redirect, closed as redirect
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Kanak Chapa, 1 delete, 1 redirect, 1 discounted struck sock, closed as redirect
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badnaseeb (2nd nomination) overturned following DRV
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21 High Street Doha overturned following DRV
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William (footballer, born 1982) unanimous keep, nom blocked as sock, no support for deletion.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big, Blonde and Beautiful , unanimous redirect
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Home Entertainment, unanimous keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire Eshona, 2 delete, 1 merge, closed as merge
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NER Class Z unanimous keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatih Mehmet Gul, 2 delete, 3 keep, but keep !voters did not engage with counterarguments and 2 were later blocked for sockpuppetry, closed as no consensus should probably be taken to DRV and reopened.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Morro, 2 delete, 1 delete-or-redirect, 1 redirect, closed as redirect

  This is not a good track record, there's a clear tendency to close as redirect over delete even when numerically deletion is favored, without clear justification based on the weight of arguments. Both the empirical record above, and Superastig's own comments at User_talk:Superastig/Archive_6#AfD_intersection_with_SBKSPP, suggest that Superastig is disproportionately weighting !votes made by SBKSPP. There's also several examples of inappropriately closing discussions as keep or no consensus when the balance of arguments (and evidence of socking) should have given them pause. Their AfD match rate when voting is also relatively weak (66.7%, with no mitigating circumstances that I'm aware of). If this was the first time that issues were being raised I'd consider arguing that a warning to stick to the unanimous calls would be sufficient, but given that this behavior is taking place after being repeatedly told at DRV to back off from close-call or contentious closures, and is coupled with an unwillingness to engage constructively with discussions about their closes, I think a tban from closing discussions is warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  @

  PRESERVE, which are both policies, before closing their respective discussions as redirect? Or to put it more broadly: what's wrong with weighing votes against ATD/PRESERVE? (I have not yet looked at the more-recent AFDs you linked to, but will do so.) Levivich (talk

  ) 16:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  List of Urdu songs recorded by Runa Laila, are not--no such list exists at the target, and the ensuing redirect is unhelpful (not to mention circular). If Superastig was including thoughtful closes and engaging with discussion when challenged, or if the problem closes were exclusively limited to "closing 'redirect' when the discussion says 'delete' but the redirect is helpful", I'd be more amenable to their continued activity in the area, but given that they have essentially been unacountable to the community's concerns at DRV thus far, and that issues seem to extend to improperly assessing no consensus outcomes I don't see the benefit in their continuing to close discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk

  16:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  The benefit I see in their continuing to close discussions is the 300+ good closures/relists per year we get. I'm perfectly willing to "sacrifice" 7 DRVs to get 300 good closes. In other words, if the cost of 300 closures is the time spent on 7 DRVs, that's worth it. (And I don't agree that there were, in fact, 7 bad closes among the DRVs listed in the OP.)

  I've looked at the list of recent closures, and here is my take on them (out of order):

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Radha Jayalakshmi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by S. C. Krishnan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by T. R. Mahalingam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Urdu songs recorded by Runa Laila, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Kanak Chapa - In my view, it's inherently silly to redirect as "List of songs recorder by X" to the article "X". As you say, it's kind of circular and unnecessary. But not wrong, not against policy, and not against the consensus displayed in those discussions. If you have 1 keep, 1 redirect, and 1 delete, closing as redirect is reasonable; it's reasonable to apply ATD and PRESERVE and weigh both the keep and delete vote less than one weighs the redirect vote. In the case of list of songs redirected to the artist, I wouldn't do that, but I do not see these closes as closed "wrong" or disruptively; this is minor in my view.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Belfield (4th nomination) - the keep close was correct and I don't think it needed to be relisted; I just !voted keep. This is an obvious keep IMO, almost snow-worthy.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badnaseeb (2nd nomination) - The NAC of "no consensus" seems correct to me. It's the re-close as "redirect" that seems like... wait for it... applying ATD and PRESERVE :-) I mean, Sandstein did what Astig used to do, which is weigh the votes towards ATD. Given that Astig was given feedback about not doing that, I can see why Astig closed this as a "no consensus" instead of a "redirect". But really, the take-away I'm getting is that weighing votes is something an admin can do but a non-admin closer cannot? I disagree.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21 High Street Doha - NACed as "merge", taken to DRV, relisted, closed by an admin as "redirect". The original close was correct, what a waste of time!
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatih Mehmet Gul - after two relists, with most of the participants being LTAs, this looks like a proper "no consensus" close
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Morro - proper application of an obvious ATD
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William (footballer, born 1982), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big, Blonde and Beautiful, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Home Entertainment, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NER Class Z. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire Eshona were obviously closed correctly, being unanimous or near unanimous

  I'm not seeing a problem here. 15 closes and the only problem I have is the five "list of songs..." didn't need to be redirected, but it's not worth having them stop. Having them stop closing would be a significant net loss to the project, because we'd lose the good closes. Levivich (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think your reading of Badnaseeb and its DRV is rather odd. The issue there was that keep votes were not properly discounted--i.e. that they should have weighted differently there. There's a similar issue at Fatih Mehmet Gul, where keep !votes should have been discounted due to LTA status and non-engagement with discussion, but were not. Finally, regarding 21 High Street Doha, I think that the balance of discussion at the time of their original close was significantly different from the final close (compare: Original close, final close). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  On Fatih Mehmet Gul, correct me if I'm misreading it, but those accounts weren't blocked until after the AFD closed (closure 1/15, blocks 1/17 and 1/19). Discounting votes due to non-engagement in discussion? Show me an AFD where that happened :-P

  On 21 High Street Doha, the numerical !vote count changed, but the balance of arguments are the same, as is the applicability of ATD to that entry. I mean, the fact that after more attention, more people voted "redirect" confirms that "redirect" was the proper application of global consensus to this title. (I do not consider "merge" and "redirect" as being qualitatively different.)

  On Badnaseeb, I agree with you that Astig should have discounted votes instead of going the "no consensus" route and closed it as a "redirect", as it was ultimately closed by an admin... but I can forgive Astig for not doing that, given that this close was made on the heels of the 21 High Street Doha DRV. I don't agree with TBANing him for making this mistake. When I count the closes that I actually think are in error, I'm looking at 3 or 4 over the course of a year (including Badnaseeb)... a 98% or 99% match rate is really, really good for NACing AFDs, IMO. Levivich (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  For 21 High Street Doha, the correct call at the time of Superastig's close was to relist. There had been no prior relists and consensus was unclear. If the balance of discussion had been the same after 2, or even 1 relist, Superastig's close would have been defensible. For Fatih Mehmet Gul, the correct call would have been to recognize that this is a close and convoluted discussion with SPAs involved and to not NAC it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would not relist

  WP:ATD says redirect (as a matter of policy!). I mean it's the same situation as Badnaseeb; in both cases, redirect is the right close per ATD. I mostly disagree with the notion that when Astig correctly weighed votes at 21 High Street, that was overturned, and then when he didn't weigh votes at Badnaseeb, that was also overturned, and we're going to TBAN him for this. My view is that 21 High St should not have been overturned, and if it wasn't, Astig would have weighed Badnaseeb correctly, and that wouldn't be overturned, either. Levivich (talk

  ) 17:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Finally, regarding the calculus of I'm perfectly willing to "sacrifice" 7 DRVs to get 300 good closes--I think that misrepresents the content and quality of the good closes. A good NAC close is an obvious close, which by definition do not take long to perform. Even with an overabundance of caution, closing such a discussion should take no more than 2 minutes. A DRV, meanwhile, is going to take 5-30 minutes of time for each participant in the discussion, plus additional time in closing. So, my math is that on the good side we've saved 10 hours of work, whereas on the bad side we've cost the community 17.5 hours of work, and that's before factoring in discussions such as this one and the further examination of other closes they've done. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree that closing such a discussion should take no more than 2 minutes. One must read the discussion in order to determine if it is in fact controversial or noncontroversial. That takes longer than two minutes. I'd estimate NACing an AFD to take 10-30 minutes per AFD. It's true that a DRV is the same 10-30 minutes, but per participant, so you have a multiplication effect. Taking the lower bound of 10 minutes and using some round estimates to make the math easier: 10 minutes x 300 closes = 3,000 labor-minutes. 10 minutes x 7 DRVs x 10 participants per DRV = 700 labor-minutes. I admit this is some fuzzy math, but I think it illustrates the point. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think we may have a different bar for the level of obviousness expected from a NAC. I think that, particularly in the case of an editor who has been repeatedly warned at DRV to stay away from contentious or close calls, the only closes that should be performed are ones where the discussion is essentially unanimous, where an uninvolved closer is a formality. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's exactly right. To me, "obvious" doesn't mean "unanimous", and it doesn't mean "requires no weighing of votes", it means "the outcome is obvious to any experienced editor", even if that obvious outcome requires weighing votes. For example, I think it's OK for for a NAC to discount "IAR keep" votes, or to discount blocked sock votes, or to apply ATD. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  By the way, looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatih Mehmet Gul at the time of closure (before the socks were blocked), would a "no consensus" closure have been wrong? This is unrelated to the question of re-opening it now that they are known to be socks. Animal lover |666| 18:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think that at the time of the close it was on the borderline between deletion and no consensus, with an even vote count but a balance of discussion favoring delete. But bringing it back to the question of whether NAC is appropriate, I think it's worthwhile to discourage NACs in such situations, not just because of

  WP:RELISTBIAS but also to save the non-admin's time--it's not saving the project time to have non-admins pore over discussions for a good 10-30 min only to come to the conclusion that delete is the correct outcome, in which case there's nothing they can do and the time has been wasted. This issue could be avoided if we adopted a convention to allow NACs to recommend deletion closes, which apparently is already sort of the practice at CfD where deletion first requires a lot of non-delete-button-related cleanup _signed, Rosguill ^talk

  18:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hm, I don't think that's quite the point of contention between our understandings. I agree that it's fine for an NAC to discount "IAR keep" votes, or to discount blocked sock votes, or to apply ATD (and that failure to do so may itself be a problem!), but that the resulting consensus arrived at should not be ambiguous or leave room for interpretation. NACs should not be closing discussions as no consensus when there is a plausible interpretation of the balance of debate favoring deletion, even if an admin coming in and closing it as no consensus would be defensible. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Levivich's analysis. I also see nothing wrong with the closures presented, including the redirects since ATD is key. One of the !voters in the list of songs states that he's "not opposed for a redirect". Besides, a redirect doesn't hurt at all. SBKSPP (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Deletion policy as written does not require editors or closers to consider ATDs or to implement them against consensus to delete. The redirects were both pointless and lacking in any P&G support, and as closers are expected to evaluate the legitimacy of AfD participants as well as their arguments' validity none of the BADNACs noted by Rosguill above can even be justified as the type of "redirect-as-compromise" close that might be acceptable from e.g. a 5d-1r-2k !vote landscape. Every single keep !vote in those AfDs should have been ignored even in the absence of blatant socking. See my !vote above. JoelleJay (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Frankly I'm surprised that someone who I have down as "most uncooperative AfD behavior ever encountered" should now be in the habit of closing them. The second half of any of their !votes used to be, literally, "that's my opinion, I'm not ever going to change it, so don't bother responding, kthnxbye". Not having visited many non-STEM AfDs recently, I possibly have missed a complete heel-face turn there, but chances are that someone with that approach to deletion discussions should not be closing even uncontroversial AfDs. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• We don't do numbered !votes for ban proposals, or at least shouldn't, so I have combined the support/oppose/neutral sections above. @Levivich and Animal lover 666: This has involved slight refactoring of your comments; feel free to modify further as you see fit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I imitated the formatting of a community ban proposal that was on AN when I started drafting. I just realized that the Support, Oppose, and Neutral subsections match WP:Requests for adminship. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Just a quick comment, IMO we should consider a DRV overturn as at least effectively 2 errors. I haven't looked into the details for these DRVs but I assume the normal procedure was followed for them all and the editors concerned first approached Superastig explaining their concerns but this wasn't enough to convince Superastig to do something (probably overturn their close and leave it for someone else). For this reason, simple raw counts of their 'error rate' is IMO somewhat flawed for something like this. Indeed IMO I would consider failing to properly take on board concerns about your close especially as an NAC and where there's been a consensus you have had problems before, as something which should count for more than "2 errors" if you wanted to put it into raw numbers. As I haven't looked into the details, as there is mentioned of January, it's possible that Superastig wasn't able to take on board the DRV feedback for all challenges as some were partly simultaneously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs) 11:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  I skimmed through the notification diffs from the table: my count is seven after discussion and three with no prior message. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'm still undecided, as I've had both good and bad interactions with SuperAstig. They make plenty of good closes, but this was definitely an example of a bad close and a negative interaction with him when I asked about it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Noting that Superastig has responded to this AN thread here by describing it as "outright ridiculous" and complaining that editors "seem to get triggered" by his "really well-thought" closures. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty similar to my DIF directly above. It's starting to move the needle for me... Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  Same here, it seems to be moving into

  WP:IDHT territory. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me}

  16:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Per

Rejoy2003 What do you feel was improper about it? 331dot (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hasty judgement? lmao ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact)

If there's something funny here, I'm not seeing what it is. You came here. It's up to you to tell us what was improper about your block. In reviewing what I have so far, it seems to me that the block is valid. You will need to show that you understand the reasons for the block and will not repeat them; in this case, copyright violations. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's understandable if you don't find it funny. Although I loved the question you asked and your reply actually does makes sense. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 10:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Had it been me blocking, the block would not have been partial. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

A hand does have different sizes of fingers, you know. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 13:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

What Deepfriedokra said. Salvio ^giuliano 12:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Deepfriedokra too. If you want to be unblocked you need to take the time to understand why you have been blocked, and why your article was delated, why that deletion was snow-endorsed at DRV, and why we aren't finding your situation in the least bit funny. Then you need to demonstrate that understanding The more comments you make in more places before you do that the greater the likelihood that your partial block will become a full block. You are on thin ice, tread wisely. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: 👍 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this an appeal of the block to

WP:AN? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)

15:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, of course it is. What else could it be? The advice at

Phil Bridger (talk

) 17:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Considering the response Rejoy2003 has got from five admins already, I'd kind of hope not. Might as well close this. SN54129 17:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a strange complaint. The blocking admin, User:Moneytrees, explained the block, if anything, more precisely and fully than most admins do. I'm baffled that Rejoy2003 should want even more explanation. If this is indeed an "appeal to AN" (a rather indirect one), I'll say Decline quite forcefully. Bishonen | tålk 19:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC).

I'm not sure I have anything to add here that I haven't already said on Rejoy2003's talk page. Actually, User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks has some good advice on appealing copyright blocks. I try to make most of blocks for copyright violations partial blocks since it can make rewrites easier-- if an editor I've partially blocked is causing issues at other venues, then I have no issue with another admin making it a full block. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You’ve been more than reasonable, going above and beyond in trying to explain something very simple to someone who does not want to listen to you. From this non-admin’s point of view, I’m impressed with your patience and communication skills. For the OP… less so. If they carry on demanding ever greater detail on something that should be fucking obvious, well, we’d be better off without them, alas. — Trey Maturin™ 20:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Proper block by Monkeytrees, proper denial of unblock by Yamla. The OP seems to have an informal view of copyright policy. I do appreciate the OP has been helpful in talkspace during their block. Understanding copyright is fundamental to proper attribution. Non-compliance with copyright policy is a deal breaker. BusterD (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

If User:Rejoy2003 wants to be unblocked, he should read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, Wikipedia:Copyrights, and the user essay User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks; formulate an unblock request either off-wiki or at User:Rejoy2003/sandbox, then come back to this page with his new request once it's ready. Animal lover |666| 13:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)