Wikipedia admin discussions analyzed by NLP and Stable Difussions 2

What AIs see at Wikipedia's Administrator's Conflict Noticeboards (ANI), Part 2

Consensus on whether filter warnings alone are enough per WP:BEFOREBLOCK

On WP:AIV/TB2, DatBot reports users who've triggered specified filters a varying number of times. A rule of thumb for many administrators, including me, for when the disruption isn't in obvious bad faith, is that the user must be warned four times and blocked if they've vandalised (or attempted to) after the fourth warning. The variance in consensus comes when considering whether abuse filter warnings are part of those four. I'm of the opinion that seeing MediaWiki:abusefilter-disallowed and the like plastered across your screen when you're trying to vandalise pages should be regarded as identical to a typical {{Uw-vandalism}}1-4 warning, even when the user's talkpage is a redlink, but it seems this opinion isn't unanimous and other administrators warn the user when their talk page is blank [8] [9]. Pinging some TB2 patrollers for comment: @Ad Orientem, Reaper Eternal, Daniel Case, Materialscientist, and ToBeFree. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Thanks for the ping. "Four times" is a very conservative rule of thumb. Of course I take filter warnings and "Disallow" entries into account. If someone tries to run with their head through a wall, even in good faith, a block may be required and reasonable after (or even without) a single talk page warning. As there is no formal number of warnings required before blocking, a discussion about whether filter warnings are a part of the non-existing requirement is a bit, hmm, unnecessary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC) I tend to address each case on its own merits. I weigh the nature of the offense and act accordingly. If the disruption is especially egregious, i.e. racist trolling, porn image vandalism etc, I just block on the spot. See WP:ZT. Other things I look for are, how many times they triggered the edit filter, have they been previously warned and or blocked, is there a history on the targeted pages of similar disruption that might suggest IP hopping or block evasion and etc. In general, I prefer not to issue a block w/o some kind of warning and ideally more than one. But it just depends on the nature of the problematic editing and the exigent circumstances of each case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC) To my mind, the user needs to be informed that what they're doing has an effect ("anyone can edit" is still a novel concept to the uninitiated) and asked to stop. How many times they need to be told that depends partly on On WP:AIV/TB2, DatBot reports users who've triggered specified filters a varying number of times. A rule of thumb for many administrators, including me, for when the disruption isn't in obvious bad faith, is that the user must be warned four times and blocked if they've vandalised (or attempted to) after the fourth warning. The variance in consensus comes when considering whether abuse filter warnings are part of those four. I'm of the opinion that seeing MediaWiki:abusefilter-disallowed and the like plastered across your screen when you're trying to vandalise pages should be regarded as identical to a typical {{Uw-vandalism}}1-4 warning, even when the user's talkpage is a redlink, but it seems this opinion isn't unanimous and other administrators warn the user when their talk page is blank [8] [9]. Pinging some TB2 patrollers for comment: @Ad Orientem, Reaper Eternal, Daniel Case, Materialscientist, and ToBeFree. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Thanks for the ping. "Four times" is a very conservative rule of thumb. Of course I take filter warnings and "Disallow" entries into account. If someone tries to run with their head through a wall, even in good faith, a block may be required and reasonable after (or even without) a single talk page warning. As there is no formal number of warnings required before blocking, a discussion about whether filter warnings are a part of the non-existing requirement is a bit, hmm, unnecessary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC) I tend to address each case on its own merits. I weigh the nature of the offense and act accordingly. If the disruption is especially egregious, i.e. racist trolling, porn image vandalism etc, I just block on the spot. See WP:ZT. Other things I look for are, how many times they triggered the edit filter, have they been previously warned and or blocked, is there a history on the targeted pages of similar disruption that might suggest IP hopping or block evasion and etc. In general, I prefer not to issue a block w/o some kind of warning and ideally more than one. But it just depends on the nature of the problematic editing and the exigent circumstances of each case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC) To my mind, the user needs to be informed that what they're doing has an effect ("anyone can edit" is still a novel concept to the uninitiated) and asked to stop. How many times they need to be told that depends partly on the severity of their actions—gross racist slurs will get escalation much more quickly than the trivial "hi mum" sort of things—but ultimately once we're satisfied that it's not good faith we should block. We shouldn't tie ourselves up in bureaucracy and arbitrary numbers of warnings. Nor should we lose any sleep over short blocks of disruptive IP addresses or permanent blocks of accounts that clearly have no intent to edit constructively. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC) I would agree with that 90% of the time. But there are cases where commonsense demands immediate intervention to protect the project from severe disruption. And quite frankly if you are repeatedly using (or attempting to use) the N word in reference to another editor or the subject of an article, then to my mind there are only two possible interpretations. You are obviously NOTHERE or you really don't understand how wrong that is, and are bonecrushingly incompetent to edit here. In either which case "you are the weakest link. Goodbye." -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Absolutely. There are some actions that, by their very nature, we can be sure weren't attempted in good faith. We should avoid extending olive branches to people who are only going to beat us with them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC) It's not like repeatedly tripping the edit filters has totally no effect on the project. Some people use the edit filters to patrol for vandalism, and if someone is flooding those logs by repeatedly tripping filters, they should be blocked to eliminate that distraction. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Since it was my decision to block a user a) who had mostly been reverted for repeatedly removing sourced material without explaining or discussing, after having removed unsourced material without comment, b) who had been warned three times on their talk page and c) had been warned twice by the filter that seems to have triggered this discussion, I will weigh in. Some months ago, after declining an AIV report where the user had not been adequately warned via {{uw-attempt}} on their talk page for the edits blocked by the filter, a user, not an admin, actively involved in maintaining and managing the filters took me to task for this, noting that the user in question had indeed received more than one warning from the filter, and showing me what the filter's "Warn" message says, do this one more time and you will get blocked. So since then I have accounted for those warnings in deciding which actions to take. I do wish they could follow the same sort of escalating scale the talk page warnings do. But it is important to remember that human patrollers do not always start at level 1, either. For vandalism/BLP edits with a sufficient degree of egregiousness (i.e. open use of slurs, unsourced allegations of serious crimes, or basically anything that in my administrative judgement requires RevDel, I will start at a level higher, and if it's gone on long enough I will use {{only warning}}. Some newer vandal patrollers sometimes deploy that latter template, or a level 4, in situations where I would not. But ... in those situations I will support the patroller/reporter if the vandal continues and block. I may well disagree with the swift resort to that level of severity, but the text of the warning is unambiguous: do this or anything like this again even once and you will be blocked. We ought not to let that go unenforced. So, if I see from a user's filter log that they have triggered the filter sufficiently enough with clearly vandalistic edits to get a "Warn" response more than once, I will block them even if all the edits got stopped by the filter (albeit for shorter than usual) and they were never warned on their talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC) To be clear since I sense your first section is alluding to User_talk:DatGuy#AIV_report_you_declined, that isn't what I'm referring to. I'm referring to instances such as the diffs I linked above, where due to what I'm assuming was a redlinked talk page (Reaper Eternal has yet to weigh in), a user was warned despite having a lengthy EF log filled with MediaWiki:abusefilter-disallowed. DatGuyTalkContribs 21:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Going by the first diff you posted,[10] the user attempted 3 edits, so will have received 3 'disallowed' messages. By the standards you described above, another warning is not out of place. You could also consider that if they're attempting the exact same thing, then they clearly haven't read and understood the message. When it comes to AIV, your mission is to prevent future vandalism. Many times it involves a block, but many times it only takes a clear talk page warning and the orange bar of doom. Much of AIV stuff is about not blocking people. But generally speaking, I'll agree with what the responders above have already said. A bit of variety at AIV is a feature, not a bug. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC) the severity of their actions—gross racist slurs will get escalation much more quickly than the trivial "hi mum" sort of things—but ultimately once we're satisfied that it's not good faith we should block. We shouldn't tie ourselves up in bureaucracy and arbitrary numbers of warnings. Nor should we lose any sleep over short blocks of disruptive IP addresses or permanent blocks of accounts that clearly have no intent to edit constructively. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC) I would agree with that 90% of the time. But there are cases where commonsense demands immediate intervention to protect the project from severe disruption. And quite frankly if you are repeatedly using (or attempting to use) the N word in reference to another editor or the subject of an article, then to my mind there are only two possible interpretations. You are obviously NOTHERE or you really don't understand how wrong that is, and are bonecrushingly incompetent to edit here. In either which case "you are the weakest link. Goodbye." -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Absolutely. There are some actions that, by their very nature, we can be sure weren't attempted in good faith. We should avoid extending olive branches to people who are only going to beat us with them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC) It's not like repeatedly tripping the edit filters has totally no effect on the project. Some people use the edit filters to patrol for vandalism, and if someone is flooding those logs by repeatedly tripping filters, they should be blocked to eliminate that distraction. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Since it was my decision to block a user a) who had mostly been reverted for repeatedly removing sourced material without explaining or discussing, after having removed unsourced material without comment, b) who had been warned three times on their talk page and c) had been warned twice by the filter that seems to have triggered this discussion, I will weigh in. Some months ago, after declining an AIV report where the user had not been adequately warned via {{uw-attempt}} on their talk page for the edits blocked by the filter, a user, not an admin, actively involved in maintaining and managing the filters took me to task for this, noting that the user in question had indeed received more than one warning from the filter, and showing me what the filter's "Warn" message says, do this one more time and you will get blocked. So since then I have accounted for those warnings in deciding which actions to take. I do wish they could follow the same sort of escalating scale the talk page warnings do. But it is important to remember that human patrollers do not always start at level 1, either. For vandalism/BLP edits with a sufficient degree of egregiousness (i.e. open use of slurs, unsourced allegations of serious crimes, or basically anything that in my administrative judgement requires RevDel, I will start at a level higher, and if it's gone on long enough I will use {{only warning}}. Some newer vandal patrollers sometimes deploy that latter template, or a level 4, in situations where I would not. But ... in those situations I will support the patroller/reporter if the vandal continues and block. I may well disagree with the swift resort to that level of severity, but the text of the warning is unambiguous: do this or anything like this again even once and you will be blocked. We ought not to let that go unenforced. So, if I see from a user's filter log that they have triggered the filter sufficiently enough with clearly vandalistic edits to get a "Warn" response more than once, I will block them even if all the edits got stopped by the filter (albeit for shorter than usual) and they were never warned on their talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC) To be clear since I sense your first section is alluding to User_talk:DatGuy#AIV_report_you_declined, that isn't what I'm referring to. I'm referring to instances such as the diffs I linked above, where due to what I'm assuming was a redlinked talk page (Reaper Eternal has yet to weigh in), a user was warned despite having a lengthy EF log filled with MediaWiki:abusefilter-disallowed. DatGuyTalkContribs 21:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Going by the first diff you posted,[10] the user attempted 3 edits, so will have received 3 'disallowed' messages. By the standards you described above, another warning is not out of place. You could also consider that if they're attempting the exact same thing, then they clearly haven't read and understood the message. When it comes to AIV, your mission is to prevent future vandalism. Many times it involves a block, but many times it only takes a clear talk page warning and the orange bar of doom. Much of AIV stuff is about not blocking people. But generally speaking, I'll agree with what the responders above have already said. A bit of variety at AIV is a feature, not a bug. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

List the Arguments

Arguments for and against and who do not know:

Arguments for: -The user needs to be informed that what they're doing has an effect ("anyone can edit" is still a novel concept to the uninitiated) and asked to stop. Arguments against: -It's not like repeatedly tripping the edit filters has totally no effect on the project. Some people use the edit filters to patrol for vandalism, and if someone is flooding those logs by repeatedly tripping filters, they should be blocked to eliminate that distraction.

Elaborate. List the Arguments for and against and who do not know:

Arguments for: -The user needs to be informed that what they're doing has an effect ("anyone can edit" is still a novel concept to the uninitiated) and asked to stop. -Some actions that, by their very nature, we can be sure weren't attempted in good faith. We should avoid extending olive branches to people who are only going to beat us with them. -It's not like repeatedly tripping the edit filters has totally no effect on the project. Some people use the edit filters to patrol for vandalism, and if someone is flooding those logs by repeatedly tripping filters, they should be blocked to eliminate that distraction. Arguments against: -A rule of thumb for many administrators, including me, for when the disruption isn't in obvious bad faith, is that the user must be warned four times and blocked if they've vandalised (or attempted to) after the fourth warning. Those who do not know: -Pinging some TB2 patrollers for comment: @Ad Orientem, Reaper Eternal, Daniel Case, Materialscientist, and ToBeFree.

Summarize

In general, I think the consensus is that abuse filter warnings should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to block a user for vandalism. However, there is some variance in opinion on whether or not those warnings should be counted as part of the "four warnings" rule of thumb.

Summarize for a student

The question at hand is whether or not to count abuse filter warnings as part of the "four times" rule of thumb for when a user should be blocked for vandalizing. There is no formal number of warnings required before blocking, but many administrators use a rule of thumb of four warnings. Some administrators believe that seeing MediaWiki:abusefilter-disallowed and the like plastered across your screen when you're trying to vandalise pages should be regarded as identical to a typical {{Uw-vandalism}}1-4 warning, even when the user's talkpage is a redlink. However, other administrators warn the user when their talk page is blank. In general, it is up to the administrator to decide on a case-by-case basis how many warnings a user should receive before being blocked.

Who is right?

The responders above have given a variety of opinions. There is no clear consensus.

List only criticisms

-Not listening to warnings -Not following directions -Not understanding consequences -Not cooperating -Not being respectful

List personal attacks

1. DatGuy is a bot and is not a real person. 2. DatGuy is an administrator and is therefore biased. 3. DatGuy is incorrect in his assessment of the situation. 4. DatGuy is wasting everyone's time with this discussion.

List users who are for and users who are against and users who do not know

For: ToBeFree, Daniel Case, Compassionate727 Against: Ad Orientem Don't know: HJ Mitchell, Zzuuzz

Unblock request of Nauriya

The following is the unblock request of Nauriya, which requires a community consensus to remove. I am transferring it here as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC) Dear Wikipedia community and admins, I hope you are all well doing the things you like. I am also doing well. I am here again to ask for another unblock request as I did more than two years ago. In last two years I have tried to keep myself busy with other things alongside work, and I have written contents for various channels and mediums but it has always been Wikipedia where I took my first leap of faith from, when I started my journey 8 years ago. In the past two years I have really tried to appeal for an unblock, but thought it hard over if I am ready or not and after careful and long consideration, I am requesting my unblock for your kind attention. During my time off from Wikipedia I have learned to make better decisions for me to grow as a better person with better understanding and knowledge. As you can see my above request and the reason there, why I was banned, and why I was held accountable - I once again apologize my mistake and I promise I will show myself as a better contributor to this platform. I sincerely hope that admins and other community members overseeing this request will consider it positively and give me a chance to show that I have grown from my past mistake. Please give me a chance to prove myself. Thank you. Nauriya, Let's talk - 20:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC) 331dot (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC) Unblock per WP:UB CHEAP. Seems like enough time has passed. Miniapolis 22:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC) Unblock per Miniapolis plus WP:AGF. I just read through the discussion in which they were banned. They violated copyright and they socked. I'm not saying those are good things, but in the scheme of things, there's much worse things they could have done. And it seems like they understand what they did wrong and have made a commitment to not do those things again. That's all we ask. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC) Unblock. I've taken a look at the previous discussion (which others may also wish to take a look at), and the user's responses to questions regarding copyright, and while I'm hesitant about an unblock given the severity of the case, it has been five (maybe a little less or more) years since the original block by consensus. A lot of change can happen in 5 years. However, if unblocked, I would expect that the user in question would take great care in ensuring they adhere strictly to the copyright policies, lest they end up blocked again for copyvios. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Oppose. I've recently been provided with a slew of new information that I had not originally reviewed. The only way that I could support the request given the new information that I have overlooked previously is if an experienced editor was willing to review all of Nauriya's edits following unblock for copyvio. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC) Oppose The unblock request fails to address major problems such as massive copyright violations, meat puppetry and paid editing. This unblock request is the same as the one that was rejected 2 years ago,[11] and it fails to give confidence that how disruption won't happen again. The concerns that were raised last time haven't been addressed even now. I am yet to see this user address the repeated recreation of Wasi Shah. @Miniapolis, EggRoll97, and RoySmith: See the talk page section here where I had pointed out misleading claims by Nauriya,[12] and his reply was just as misleading.[13] Concerns raised by Moneytrees last time seem relevant.[14] Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Nauriya (started by Fram) is still huge and far from being completed. Maybe an alternative solution would be a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA at least because that's where this user was entirely disruptive, but since copyright violation is a broader concern, it is entirely possible that it will happen wherever this editor would edit. Lorstaking 03:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC) That won't address the copyvios either. MER-C 18:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC) @Lorstaking: Thank you for pointing out the copyright page. Seems to have slipped my mind (trout me if you must). I've changed my vote to oppose given the slew of information presented, though I do wonder about unblocking with requirements to have potential edits reviewed by an experienced editor for copyvios. It would require someone to actually review the edits to be made, however, so this may not be an appropriate solution. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC) Oppose - copyright problems not addressed. MER-C 18:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Oppose I would have expected someone who has been blocked multiple times for copyright violations across several different accounts to at least try to show in their unblock request that they now understand our copyright policy. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Oppose: It doesn't appear that any of the stated concerns above have been addressed so far, and these promises to reform were also made before the community ban was enacted. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC) Oppose as this doesn't address the copyright concerns. Unblocking people with a long history of copyright problems is very problematic anyway because it's unlikely that anyone would notice if the problems continued. Reviewing every edit someone makes for copyright concerns is not a productive use of editor time, it's also very tedious and not infallible. Hut 8.5 18:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC) Oppose due to failure to address copyright concerns. dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 21:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC) Thread recycled for a formal close. Please also accept or deny the unblock request at User talk:Nauriya accordingly. MER-C 18:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. UNBLOCK DECLINED Per clear consensus here. Star Mississippi 21:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summarize

Nauriya has been banned from Wikipedia for more than two years and is requesting to be unblocked. There is discussion among the community about whether or not to unblock Nauriya. Some people are in favor of unblocking, citing that enough time has passed and Nauriya has demonstrated a commitment to reform. Others oppose unblocking, citing Nauriya's history of copyright violations and sockpuppetry. The discussion is ongoing.

[Lower the temperature and retry]

What is it about and what are results?

Nauriya has been banned from Wikipedia for two years and is requesting to be unblocked. They have apologized for their past mistakes and promised to show themselves as a better contributor if given the chance. However, the community has raised concerns about Nauriya's past behavior, including massive copyright violations, meat puppetry, and paid editing. As a result, the community has decided to decline the unblock request.

List the voices for and against

Arguments for: -Nauriya has been away from Wikipedia for over two years and has expressed remorse for their past actions -Nauriya has stated that they have learned from their mistakes and will show themselves to be a better contributor if given another chance Arguments against: -Nauriya has a history of copyright violations and sockpuppetry -Nauriya has not addressed the concerns that were raised the last time they requested an unblock

Voices of those who do not know: -Nauriya should be given another chance to prove themselves -Nauriya should be required to have their edits reviewed by an experienced editor for copyright violations before being unblocked

List personal attacks

Nauriya was banned for two years for copyright violations, sockpuppetry, and paid editing. They have made no effort to address these concerns.

List failures or problems mentioned

The failures mentioned in the text are: -an unspecified illness that Nauriya has tried to keep themselves busy with other things alongside work -an unspecified illness that has always been Wikipedia where I took my first leap of faith from, when I started my journey 8 years ago -an unspecified illness that I have really tried to appeal for an unblock, but thought it hard over if I am ready or not and after careful and long consideration -an unspecified illness that during my time off from Wikipedia I have learned to make better decisions for me to grow as a better person with better understanding and knowledge -an unspecified illness that as you can see my above request and the reason there, why I was banned, and why I was held accountable - I once again apologize my mistake and I promise I will show myself as a better contributor to this platform -an unspecified illness that I sincerely hope that admins and other community members overseeing this request will consider it positively and give me a chance to show that I have grown from my past mistake -an unspecified illness that please give me a chance to prove myself -an unspecified illness that it has been five (maybe a little less or more) years since the original block by consensus -an unspecified illness that A lot of change can happen in 5 years -an unspecified illness that however, if unblocked, I would expect that the user in question would take great care in ensuring they adhere strictly to the copyright policies, lest they end up blocked again for copyvios -an unspecified illness that I've recently been provided with a slew of new information that I had not originally reviewed -an unspecified illness that the only way that I could support the request given the new information that I have overlooked previously is if an experienced editor was willing to review all of Nauriya's edits following unblock for copyvio -an unspecified illness that it would require someone to actually review the edits to be made, however, so this may not be an appropriate solution -an unspecified illness that Unblocking people with a long history of copyright problems is very problematic anyway because it's unlikely that anyone would notice if the problems continued -an unspecified illness that Reviewing every edit someone makes for copyright concerns is not a productive use of editor time, it's also very tedious and not infallible

Closure review for Kiwi Farms external link RfC

Link to RfC: Talk:Kiwi_Farms#RfC_on_linking_to_Kiwi_Farms IMO, this close seems like a fairly classic case of a WP:SUPERVOTE. In the summary statement at the end, Szmenderowiecki cites two policies/guidelines as the central rationale for their close: WP:BURDEN and WP:PROBLEMLINKS. Neither of these were mentioned in the discussion, it was just Szmenderowiecki's own (entirely novel) argument, which they admit (even though no one cited the guideline, WP:PROBLEMLINKS makes it perfectly clear...). This seems to me to be exactly what a supervote is; a closure based on one's personal opinion, rather than anything that had to do with the actual discussion it was closing. FWIW, I also think these P&Gs were cited incorrectly. WP:BURDEN refers to the burden for demonstrating verifiability; verifiability was not something in dispute in the discussion. For WP:PROBLEMLINKS, the advice in that guideline hinges on how encyclopedic the link in question is, so one would presumably have to argue that an official link to a website is not particularly encyclopedic, which Szmenderowiecki did not argue. It would've been better to be able to argue this in the actual RfC itself, but because it was a novel argument brought up only in the closure of the RfC, we did not get a chance. Endwise (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Well, the answer here is clear: there were multiple editors in that discussion who objected to the link because it contained harassment. Just because no one literally said "WP:PROBLEMLINKS" while restating its contents doesn't mean the guideline does not exist, or that the argument was not raised. My task as a closer is to make sure that the arguments are policy-/guideline-based, and this particular one is (see "Key guideline points section", the "Sites that routinely harass" part). As for WP:BURDEN, I have mistaken it for WP:ONUS, which makes me think of the same thing when written as a shortcut (probably because I've seen it too often together). The point is, if something is challenged and you want to include it, it is up to you to rally consensus for inclusion, and this is a standard rule for all discussions governing inclusion/exclusion. My apologies, I will correct the link. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Summarize

The problem is that the RfC was closed based on a policy/guideline that was not brought up or discussed during the RfC. This is known as a "supervote" and is generally frowned upon.

Elaborate

The problem is that the discussion was closed without any consensus on whether or not to link to the Kiwi Farms website. The closer, Szmenderowiecki, cited two policies/guidelines (WP:BURDEN and WP:PROBLEMLINKS) as the rationale for their decision, but neither of these were mentioned in the discussion. This seems to be a case of a WP:SUPERVOTE, where the closer is basing their decision on their own personal opinion, rather than on anything that was actually discussed.

What are the arguments?

Arguments for linking to Kiwi Farms: -Kiwi Farms is a well-known website that is relevant to the article's subject matter -Linking to Kiwi Farms would provide readers with additional information about the website and its activities Arguments against linking to Kiwi Farms: -Kiwi Farms is a website that has been accused of harassment, and linking to it could potentially expose readers to this harassment -Linking to Kiwi Farms could give the website more attention and potentially lead to more harassment Voices of those who do not know: -I'm not familiar with Kiwi Farms, so I'm not sure if linking to it would be a good idea -I'm not sure if the website is relevant to the article's subject matter

What are the votes?
For:

Szmenderowiecki Against: Endwise Voices of those who do not know:

Ver 1.1.