User talk:CSGinger14

Hello! This is a notice that no reminders need to be made about WP:CONTOP, WP:OWN, or WP:ADVOCACY, especially so if you plan to use the words "Please note that", "our policies state", or "guidelines are clear that". With the exception of Contop (thanks for the work you guys do), I do not need someone coming here to hammer home a necessarily biased viewpoint, nor have them present it as routine enforcement a la mode de WP:New pages patrol; I also want to note that if you have the gall to take on the task of policeman for something that personally upset your view of how things should be, you should be prepared to engage in a more complex intellectual exercise than a sentence and a half response to the 4 paragraphs of reasoning your two disinterested replies managed to generate. If you can't be bothered doing that, don't bother posting the message in the first place, your claim clearly isn't serious. Put in some effort yourself if you expect others to.

I've found that many of you enjoy the feeling of laying down the law but can't seem to be bothered to actually read it, which makes for an absolutely terrifying WP:BUREAUCRACY that lacks any real clue what it's shouting about in the first place; remember that a smug, coolheaded counter to anything thrown at you isn't nearly as effective a default strategy when there are entire paragraphs you didn't bother to read that prove you wrong, even more so if you can't manage to admit it after the fact. WP:TLDR is meant to keep conversations concise, not catatonic. You have an obligation to grapple in good faith with the posts you respond to on talk. Feel free to challenge me on why that's an invalid, I'll give you a barnstar if your reply includes more than five sentences and an actual counter to my main idea. You lot have managed to scare away a population of newbies the size of the active editor pool with your nonsense, so I figure you've gotta believe you can fill in the gap in their absence. Otherwise go stand in the corner and think about what you've done. In fact, use the time to go add something in the mainspace instead of bothering people for no reason.

Cheers, CSGinger14 (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The DCWC is open!

See a    "developing" or    "least developed" country? Write about it to earn points!

Hey CSGinger14, the third annual Developing Countries WikiContest is now open for submissions. Welcome to the contest! You can now list your work at your submissions page to earn points. We hope that you enjoy participating in this drive to fight Wikipedia's systemic bias. If you haven't done so already, please review the following:

• New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions on the talk page.
• Got open nominations? List them at the review requests sidebar.
• Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews.
• Not sure if your article qualifies? See the scoring rules for more information or contact a coordinator.
• Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open throughout the contest, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you the best of luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), Generalissima (talk · contribs), Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list. Sent via MediaWiki message delivery.) —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The 2026 Core Contest Winners!

The winners of the 2026 Core Contest are announced 🎉. A huge turnout that resulted in one of our trickiest deliberation sessions. The judges (Aza24, Femke and Casliber) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners!

• First place (and a prize of £120) goes to Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) for his dual efforts on Flatbread and Tortilla! One, formerly an unsourced list-like article, and the other, once a poorly sourced and spotty overview, both now number 250+ citations from an impressively academic source pool. We particularly commend the efforts to globalize content, treat the topics comprehensively and thoughtfully select illustrations. Both articles (one now a GA) are of a uniquely high quality amid the often underserved food topics on Wikipedia. Bravo!
• Second place (and a prize of £100) goes to Phlsph7 (talk · contribs), a Core Contest regular who has once again shown a mastery of big topics, with his dual efforts on Agnosticism and Premise—both now GAs (one, with a review by our first place winner!). With immensely thorough sourcing improvements, alongside carefully nuanced text on these often misunderstood topics, both articles are a pleasure to read.
• Third place (and a prize of £80) goes to MCE89 (talk · contribs), whose improvements to the Heard Island and McDonald Islands article have led to a triumphant FA declaration. The incredible balance of detail between human, geographical and flora-fauna elements is a great achievement, and sets a high standard for future island articles.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list. – Aza24 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Ryan Call (politician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ryan Call (politician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Call (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Ighs (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

RE your AfD comment

RE your assertion that the deletionist / exclusionist crowd is simply louder than the rest ... because inclusionists are the typically ones busy writing the actual content, here's a list of articles that I've created, with Four Awards noted. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I also suggest you review WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF, and retract your comments. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for retracting part of your comments. I would still suggest that you focus on content, rather than your perception of other editors' metapedian-ideological commitments. It will make your time on Wikipedia less stressful and the discussions you are in less heated. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts TLDR: I explain in great detail what the dangers I believe are that exist in what just occurred at the RfC, what's taken place at this AfD and many others, on other occasions here, and daily elsewhere. I don't feel I have the luxury to focus on content when these sorts of discussions actively impede my work and scare away new potentially active editors (i.e the ones who bother to take the time to engage in a discussion in the first place) to the detriment of many of this site's most vacant and dilapidated communities, and our long term potential to survive (or, alternatively, and more critically, thrive). Please read it; I didn't take an hour and a half to write it cause I was bored, once I got past 500 words I decided this was gonna be the full elaboration of my position (as it stands at this moment). I wouldn't have done so if I didn't think the argument, and some response to it (or at the very least acknowledgement of it), was necessary. I'm asking for 15 minutes of your time to accomplish what I see as years of good for this website. If you don't think that tradeoff is accurate, I figure it's best left for others to see regardless, but I don't think that's the case, and I think deep down, even if you're groaning and rolling your eyes right now, you don't think that's the case either. You started this account four years ago and have 45,000 edits. Clearly you're interested in the active upkeep of this community. Entertain me, I promise it'll be worth your time; if that doesn't sway you, all I can offer is the guarantee that it's an interesting read.

Addendum to TLDR (Read First):

I'll note it explicitly to ensure that nothing is lost in translation for anyone that reads this: I am citing as many policies as I am partly because I'm trying to paint an image of what it feels like to be a new editor having their good faith and reasonably acceptable content additions removed, and a message posted on their talk page laying out the laundry list of apparent (but not always genuine) violations of one or more site policies by an editor of long-term membership who should presumably be well versed and experienced in every facet of site policy, even the parts they disagree with, despite explicitly misattributing it in such discussions. At that point the deletion itself becomes something of an NPOV violation, because it's done in the spirit of removing content one personally feels shouldn't be there; in spite of multiple guidelines that explicitly warn against it, and numerous additional community essays that fiercely advocate against it. In fact, the only real acceptable cases for someone to bypass those guidelines at all (based on the position you seem to have espoused) are when content is so egregious that it can't wait for a discussion to pass for it to be removed. They use that loophole in pretty much all cases, in spite of policies that explicitly state you shouldn't. But there's no real instrument or system by which people can be held accountable for those violations in the same way as is the case for content posted on the mainspace. If the 'offending' editor responds, the second-round allegations almost always include a hinting that they're drifting towards WP:OWN. The other half of that approach derives from the fact that I think your own logic is sympathetic to the notion that adherence to guidelines formed by consensus is important; the fact that so many editors seem to be getting a free pass for ignoring certain core guidelines, while nonetheless being forgiven for doubling down on others with the express urgent need to enforce inordinate content (often with the justification of the better or more immediate handling high impact edge cases) is ridiculous. I think that you know that, and I'm curious to know what your response is in that regard.

I don't need you to read it today, or tomorrow, but I really would like you to read it. And I'd like you to respond to it. And I'd like anyone else that stumbles upon it to respond to it too, because I think its a conversation that occurs in a lot of places individually every day, but never in an environment where any of the editors making the argument really coalesce beyond a party of more than two or 3, all in very specific discussion environments. Honestly, feel free to just leave an acknowledgement that you've had a similar experience if you have, I think it's important that it be known the extent to which it happens. I'm not ignoring the fact that WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress, I think that the fact that we don't challenge this fundamentally risks allowing the site's progress to near grind to a halt entirely; we are actively competing with AI, I need people to stop living in a fantasy land where we aren't actively involved in the world that surrounds us. We are not separate from the events that occur because the determinations we make here decide whether or not information of reasonable quality is available when the time arises where it's needed. What we omit is just as much a reflection of WP:BIAS as what we include. If that information was omitted not because of a serious violation, but instead because there were minor issues within the text that the reverting editor couldn't be bothered to take five minutes to fix themselves (Feel free to challenge me on that, I have numerous receipts I can pull, and can find new material almost instantaneously if need be to prove it), then that is a serious indictment of the culture we've created in this community, and I feel a genuine threat to its long term survival as well.

Who patrols the patroller?

I don't regret what I said, but I'm not rude, and can recognize when I'm wrong, so I ask respectfully that you not assume I don't know what I'm talking about, or that my points aren't just as valid as those of anyone else just because I tend to get brash, there's just fewer of me and a lot more people freed up to attack on different fronts. You and I both understand that WP:CONSENSUS means that none of us get preferable treatment, but it is supremely frustrating to be able to point to what is wrong with the logic of someone's position (sometimes they're actively and very obviously misattributing policy, with zero reaction from other editors) and watch as they do it persistently across discussions, with no real reaction from anyone, besides the ones who get frustrated and are thereafter made to be the bad guys if they take the bait. I do assume good faith, but I think it's frankly disrespectful to the many people who have faced this kind of treatment, especially those who had no experience with the website to begin with, to act as though this isn't a serious problem within the community, and that the community culture of AGF can't just as easily be used as a weapon if you know that a frustrated editor (even if they're right) often yields a more negative response from the community than misattributing policy or simply not engaging with other editors at all even after nuking material they worked hard on then holding them to an unachievable standard to satisfy WP:ONUS. It took them time to write that material, I link WP:OWN there because even when they're being respectful and the other side is Actively omitting critical context from the policies they're citing, many are immediately accused of it (not knowing what that means, in a fair portion of cases) for defending the content they produced, and are not familiar enough with site policies to understand the contradictions. We need to address that in some way and if other people aren't going to, then I will, and I don't feel the need to give the benefit of the doubt to those I know from broad review are actively violating the same policies they accuse others of violating elsewhere.

I don't think you understand how sick and tired of this I am. I have multiple friends in law school that I've shown these discussions to and, despite the extremely important points laid out in WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:LAWYER, they all say it's basically a direct analog to case law. We are scrutinizing material so far past the point of what the guidelines even say that the discussions become nonsense; these sorts of arguments only avoid accusations of WP:NPOV violations because many forget that that policy applies to consensus building and policy considerations as well. You and I can both acknowledge that there is a massive bureaucracy that patrols content on the site, often unfairly (feel free to challenge me on that point, but I assure you that within the week I can provide you 500 individual instances from the past month where that occurred), even though that directly contradicts and effectively ignores both the spirit and the letter of deliberate site policies intended to prevent overreach and unnecessary restrictions on improvements to mainspace material. In some cases (e.g. vandalism patrol, BLP verifiability, COI patrollers, etc.), we can both agree that's a good thing. In others, it actively and massively undermines the goals of the website to a degree that's unacceptable for us to skip past.

I can quote you at least 5 conversations in the past 8 months I've had on here where a series of editors looking to exclude content ganged up on me spontaneously with the exact same claim that some at the AfD are making now, that I'm being rude (which is the one thing I'll acknowledge is true, but almost exclusively after instigation), that I'm badgering, that my actions violate WP:ADVOCACY, or WP:OWN, or WP:TLDR, or WP:An essay that's 105th in impact score and really more an expression of a particular exclusionary view of what qualifies as article content that's nonetheless directly stated by the editor to require immediate deletionary enforcement (Most of the time I would point this out, since it violates WP:PRESERVE, or point to other sections they conveniently forgot to note in their analysis, but that's badgering.

There's only so much credence I'm willing to give people who have been on the site for 20 years with 50,000 edits for not reading two paragraphs down in a guideline they've cited 50 times in the past month. Which is absurd! Even if we disagree on whether its justified in any case, we can at least acknowledge that ignoring the whole or parts of guidelines while simultaneously laying down those exact guidelines as immutable precedent is absurd. And genuinely I don't understand why it is wrong to point out that that's the case if you can directly explain why and how, and why thereafter asking an editor to reflect on it is considered so wrong? If your response is that it isn't but you have to do it in a calm, cool, and collected manner, you have to understand that sometimes that is an absurd ask of people. I think that we're doing the site a disservice if we allow a view of things to proliferate that advocates repressing content that someone may never take the time to write again. It takes an absolute reductionist view of the impact and role of Wikipedia in wider society. I ask very politely for editors in such situations to answer very simple questions that concern those facts, and they most often won't do it. They don't feel it to be necessary, and they often saw the fact of my asking as the thing that's itself disrespectful. Why is that the case? Why are we more concerned about supporting editors' conversational sensitivities than dealing with massive and rampant abuse of enforcement measures by the primary enforcers? That isn't consensus, it explicitly isn't, that really isn't up for debate, and if you think it is I will directly quote 3 policies that represent global community consensus, not essay written by a select number of users.

You can go back and look at my previous discussions. You'll see that in the vast majority of cases, the only times I showed anything amounting to disrespect has been when editors haven't acknowledged anything I had to say, in favor of advocating a particularly restrictive interpretation of policy in an abstract case which thereafter makes for It's easy to be the villain when you're the only person holding the opposing view in a discussion, and it has very much been a minority of those holding the view opposing mine who have treated my positions or my time with respect. What are your thoughts on that? I say that fully sincerely, I want to know.

There are people actively arguing on that AfD that an article with 30 reliable sources, at least 20 of them from independent, significant coverage is not notable, largely because they personally don't feel it to be notable, which is an active violation of WP:DONTLIKEIT. They have not once explained what they consider their view of notability to be. The point of guidelines is to ultimately create content for the website, not to prevent it from ever appearing in the first place. How do we come to terms with the fact that the discussion pool for the creation of content policy is governed by people who don't write content, and are primarily concerned with a reduction in content or content accepted versus an augmentation. If you're willing to take the time to read Meta:Eventualism, I want to hear your opinion on it. Cause I think we have to do something about it, and I'm tired of people ducking out of that challenge.

Regards,

CSGinger14 (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

​The most direct response I can give to express what's written above is that you don't have the luxury to focus on content if you are consistently and persistently being stopped from contributing material that is explicitly acceptable under site policy, because it's nonetheless being analyzed by committed, communally influential deletionists as though it's up for debate what's actually deserving of an article.

That article qualifies for GNG, explicitly, and there's a sizeable (but not a majority) of editors who are actively engaging in WP:ADVOCACY in attempting to exclude this material in spite of it well and above satisfying base policy. I know explicitly that these are the same editors who promote the view that advocacy in the mainspace is unacceptable, and adherence to global consensus as a rule (to be clear, my point is that I don't understand how you can possibly advocate deletion here then turn around and claim adherence to global consensus as a rule at WP:Notability (people). How do you juggle those two viewpoints simultaneously?

CSGinger14 (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I stopped reading at I don't feel I have the luxury to focus on content. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

​Oh my god, I'm so sorry. I completely forgot you can't read! Next time I'll make up a picture book so you feel included.

Cheers,

CSGinger14 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is CSGinger14. Thank you. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Re AE statement

it's extremely difficult for me to collapse my line of reasoning in any instance

Sometimes when I'm lazy I use AI to condense my comments for me. You may want to try it out NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

​ Thanks, will consider it.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Vertex Holdings on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 03:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

DCWC August update

The 2026 Developing Countries WikiContest has been running for a month now, so let's check in with the competition so far!

As of the time of writing, our top contestants are:

1. Vanderwaalforces (submissions) ahead of the pack with 715 points, with two FAs and many GAs on the monarchs of the Kingdom of Benin;
2. Simongraham (submissions) with 291 points, mostly with GAs on jumping spiders, alongside various GAN and FAC reviews;
3. Jaguarnik (submissions) with 240 points, mostly from an FA on the 1945 film Ivan the Terrible;
4. Grnrchst (submissions) with 215 points, mostly from GAs on anarchist history in various countries, alongside many GA reviews, and;
6. Vestrian24Bio (submissions) tied for 4th with 215 points, with an FL and four GAs on Indian cricket!

These competitors are in the lead, but if past experience is any indication, big shake-ups might still await us in the contest. If you're looking for a way to boost your position, we got a table of review requests from fellow participants—you can rack up a lot of points through reviews, and it might just convince others to review your own nominations! You can also look through the eligible reviews page to find other articles to review, with highlights for articles eligible for the 1.5× multiplier. The coordinators would like to thank Jaguarnik (submissions) for his work to keep this page up to date.

Thank you so much for all your work in the contest so far, dear participants, and keep on the good fight against systemic bias on our wiki! Have any questions? Leave a message on the contest talk page or send it to one of our wonderful coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), Generalissima (talk · contribs), Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), and TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list. Sent via MediaWiki message delivery.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

RE TarnishedPath

@11WB As you approached me, and made a direct accusation in a reply to me:

[TLDR: Nothing states that the ArbCom word count applies outside of ArbCom except in very specific interpretive circumstances that haven't been met. It's unfair to shut that down for discussion when the determination of the validity of your claim directly decides whether or not my statements represent a violation in this instance. The grounds for why the word count should be applied elsewhere necessarily rests upon the notion that I'm acting in bad faith by gaming the system, a very serious charge presented without explicit evidence, and an accusation presented in a very similar manner to that for which I was earlier criticized.]

Unless you can show reasonable proof that my intention was to sway others decision through those messages, you have no grounds or right to claim that I'm attempting to game the system; no policy states I'm not allowed to contact involved parties for clarification or conduct concerns, unless I'm making specific inroads toward users to change the outcome of discussions, which I'm not. Your argument rests upon either a word count limit that specific applies to the actual ArbCom discussion, or the assumption that I'm acting in bad faith by gaming the system.

Apply the same logic Rosguill used to determine that my response to the closer was a confidently wrong [assertion] that [is] genuinely disruptive to your own commentary. Your assertion that I'm in clear violation of WP:GAME is not backed by clear evidence apart from your further assertion that you would not have left that message had [you] not been sure it was in fact a violation., effectively the same grounds as my own disqualified claim rested upon. It necessarily relies upon the assumption that I'm acting in bad faith, which is a very serious charge. Are we to thus take your commentary as disruptive, or at its word? The only fundamental difference between the two statements on their merits is that I've lost the presumption of innocence as the noted editor in violation.

I respectfully acknowledged those editors' position after raising my concerns with the conduct of their edits, acknowledged their right to hold the views they did, and acknowledged my role in producing uncivil conduct according to points of agreement in their logic at ArbCom. I acknowledged I was incorrect in reaching out to the filer and withdrew, and the only additional message was a further request for assistance from one of the only admin whose first response to me upon reaching out did not include an accused policy violation. Simply put, nothing I did represented a purposeful effort to sway the result of the arbitration; nor have I continued to engage in such behavior in instances where it's clearly and recognizably a policy violation. That's the only determination that matters

CSGinger14 (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a clever way to get around USERTALKSTOP. I've already notified @Rosguill of your multiple postings. As a point of principle, I am not going to read that wall of text. Thanks. 11WB 💬 02:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I still have a right to defend against false accusations. Action was carried out in good faith, the response respectful, and placed at my own talk page to abide by USERTALKSTOP.

CSGinger14 (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You've chosen to ignore the rules that other editors follow. By writing a lecture here and pinging me, you've again ignored a formal instruction (WP:USERTALKSTOP). Posting to @voorts and all others who have left statements is a circumvention of the word count limit and is a violation of WP:GAME, plain and simple. Bludgeoning every discussion that you disagree with is a form of DE. You were given advice by @NW which I think you should seriously consider following. It is your choices that have resulted in an AE case being opened, nothing else. The ball is in your court to acknowledge your mistakes and incorporate the necessary changes (though your word count limit is exceeded). Turning up at editor's talk page to continue ranting is not the correct way to deal with this.

This will be my last reply here, please respect my request and do not ping me again. 11WB 💬 02:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

CSGinger14 is topic banned from Ryan Call (politician), broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned as the result of this AE thread.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this topic ban using the appeal process and the arbitration enforcement appeals template. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this topic ban, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore; do not attempt to WP:GAME or grossly exceed the word limits at AE. I know it isn't fun being dragged to a noticeboard, but those word limits exist for very valid reasons and bypassing them severely without requesting an extension will lead to administrators taking action to moderate the threads. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the star

I want to thank you again for the Barn Star you gave me for the Great Black Swamp article. Have you seen the Grand Kankakee Marsh yet? I just updated the Underground Railroad sections in both articles.

Please keep an eye out for both articles in the future so they remain neutral and factual and sourced with proper references per WP guidelines. They are getting more attention now from other editors. I look forward to seeing you edit one day.

Anyway, busy times. I hope that you are well.

GeoFAXsafety79 GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations RfC

Hi CSGinger14,

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC, which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.

By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.

Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 16:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

You already have one topic ban

And are now using the same tactics to disrupt DRV that got you the first ban. This is your only warning. If you don't stop posting walls of text and policing other users when your own contributions are problematic then you will be removed from DRV too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:52, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Please don't antagonize me. You should not be describing other editors' contributions as "awful" or "frankly stupid" and I'm fully within my rights to address that when it directly affects editors' perceptions of what's taking place or has taken place in these discussions. I've made no problematic edits here that I haven't retracted when necessary after they were addressed, and that weren't otherwise directly relevant to the discussion's proceedings. Your insinuation that I've continued to act disruptively after my TBAN represents POV Railroading and your threat to institute another one of your own accord is directly advised against by administrative policy. You should stop.

CSGinger14 (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, writing long blocks of text in discussions overwhelms the flow and almost certainly kills the discussion. That's why it's disruptive. It's not an insinuation I'm stating it as a fact. Exactly the same editing behaviour was the reason why you were topic banned.

I have been an editor for 20 years and an admin for 19 of those years and I have been closing AFDs and DRVs for decades. You do not fully understand how AFD and DRV work and your approach is not helping us collectively find a consensus. That's where the disruption arises.

Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour and there are wide variations in the way people communicate. People very rarely set out to be mean or hurtful in their comments but it does become very easy to overfocus on the words rather than than the intent. You clearly mean well but need to learn to accept the wide range of communication styles rather than bristling and challenging them. Not every flaw is there for you to fix personally.

DRV is stuffed full of experienced admins and regulars who have been contributing there as long as I have. I freely acknowledge that my own communication style is terse and brusque and the style can be misinterpreted for the intent. You can rest assured that I will be pulled up and my comments criticised when they need to be, so you don't need to police me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14, I would prefer to keep that off-topic discussion collapsed, as Spartaz had it. Your strikethroughs are fine, but undoing an admins RPA is not. Please take my advice as somebody who is currently banned from Spartaz's talk page: this is not something worth pursuing and will land you in far worse trouble. You were let off lightly at AE recently, despite the major circumvention of the word count limit. It's time to move on, seriously. 11WB 💬 03:52, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Wait, I thought you said that anyone could? Was that not what you meant by "anyone is permitted"?

CSGinger14 (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I said anyone could not 11WB but the convention is that the two involved parties are excluded but I didn't explicitly say that so I guess that's on me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:02, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, on that, it's clearly no longer needed, so you are welcome to post on my talk page again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour and there are wide variations in the way people communicate

I don't understand how you can state that and then present my style of communication as impermissible. I intentionally collapsed text where it was necessary to preserve flow, the vast majority of my posts were direct responses to statements by other editors (i.e @11WB),and you yourself state that it's clear I was doing so in good faith. WP:WALLS specifically accounts for this by stating that sometimes such long-blocks of text are necessary.

I will happily retract more if you feel it's necessary but it's unfair for the entirety of my post on a discussion that I'm involved in as a previous contributing editor to be labeled as a personal attack and collapsed wholesale. If we exclude the parts that would be retracted anyway, I occupy no more than a third of the total text in that discussion at the moment, and have zero plans to contribute more. As the discussion fills up I'd be at about the same length as any other editor, maybe a bit wordier. It's otherwise indirectly invalidating what's currently one of only two arguments other than the closer for sustaining the verdict and one of the only direct counters to the claims made by others in discussion.

CSGinger14 (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue here CSG is that DRV isn't the right place for conduct discussion, it is a mismatch. Also, and I say this respectfully, I don't agree with your accusations directed at Spartaz. By the way, this isn't an effort to shut you out of the DRV, but it needs to focus on the merits of the close, not conduct of the editors. I think WP:FOC is relevant here. But replace the word "content" with "close" in regards to DRV. 11WB 💬 04:12, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Many of the points that I raise directly address what I believe to have been the closer's rationale for making the decision they did. That's why I stated that it's unfair for the entire thing to be removed wholesale.

If one of the principal arguments for overturning the close is that the closer ignored the arguments presented by the delete side (excluding the WP:STRAWPOLL, which we're not supposed to use as our guiding determination anyway), why is it unjustified to analyze the delete side's responses to the keep arguments in connection to the closer's response, both of which have been claimed to be invalid multiple times in that DRV without any analysis of their contents. No quotes. No talk quotes. No discussion of explicit sources. Can it at least be confirmed that you see the point I'm trying to make?

CSGinger14 (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes. But again, the issue is you presented your points by throwing unfounded conduct accusations at another participant, which then undermines everything you've said because (and yes, I'll keep circling back to this as it's the key issue) DRV is not a conduct board. 11WB 💬 04:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

How is that any different from them throwing unfounded conduct accusations at the closer?

CSGinger14 (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Which I'll state again is not focused entirely or even largely on user conduct. It is, however, focused on the responses those editors made in discussion, which is necessarily relevant to the discussion. Stating that all of it pertains to user conduct offers an extremely restrictive interpretation of what's acceptable solely for me to include in my responses.

Can you state how much of my response is fundamentally different from that of AndreJustAndre?:

HerrHeulsuse argument hinges on a misread of both the discussion and the notability guideline

That's effectively exactly the tone and focus I used in my source analysis. If the difference is the material around it, why can that not simply be removed?

CSGinger14 (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

They didn't... Please reread my initial reply. At this point we are going round in circles. I'm going to put a lid on that now, as this has hit an impasse. You've received a TBAN already and an administrator has warned you will receive a TBAN from DRV should this behaviour continue. If I were you in this situation, I would go and do something else entirely. Either on Wikipedia in areas you are permitted to edit or offwiki. It's time to move on. 11WB 💬 04:40, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

No, that's an unacceptable way to close this out. I'm not automatically in the wrong because I've previously come up on conduct charges. Stating that I should just move on when I have a reasonable case, that I have adjusted with perspective, is diminutive and disrespectful.

An administrator should also not have broad discretion to threaten me with a topic ban for something that they themselves stated later was done in good faith. That's a scare tactic. Bring me up for enforcement again, there isn't, and should never be a presumption of guilt, and I've shown explicitly my reasoning for my claims and have retracted them where necessary, which, combined with the fact that half of this has now occurred on my own talk page and has been based on civil reasoning, shows that I haven't been acting disruptively.

CSGinger14 (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I want to be absolutely firm here, if you continue this, despite the warnings, I'll consider opening an WP:AN thread. Your recent contributions to DRV and AfD have crossed the line of what others will tolerate. I can't predict the outcome, but based on the evidence, a consensus for a TBAN from DRV/AfD would be highly probable. Focus your efforts elsewhere. 11WB 💬 04:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I'll disengage, but I stand by the points I've raised. Asking politely for fair treatment shouldn't earn me warnings, which speaks to my points above.

CSGinger14 (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

You can retract your thanks, I don't accept it, I'm sorry to say. This didn't end kindly or respectfully, and I don't want to support any notion you might have that it did. Respectfully, with that in mind, unless to raise enforcement charges, I'm banning you from my user talk.

Regards, CSGinger14 (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Organized Labour September Editing Event

You're invited to join the Organized Labour community editing event, a cross-wiki event taking place throughout September 2026!

The campaign brings together Wikimedians interested in improving coverage of organised labour, workers, trade unions, and labour history. We have confirmed collaborations with Wikipedia language editions in English, Dutch, Persian, Serbo-Croatian and French. If you want to add other language editions or other wiki projects you are strongly encouraged to do so! This event spans geography and languages!

This is a one-time invitation. You're receiving it because you previously signed a petition related to Wiki Workers United (WWU). We hope you'll join us!

Regards ~ Shushugah (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry.

Hello. I acknowledge I'm probably the last person you want to hear from. Per AN and AN/I policy, I was supposed to inform you of the AN thread, but I guess at this point it would not make sense to post that now.

I genuinely hope you are not injured or in pain as a result of your accident, having experienced those myself I can say they aren't pleasant. I would like to extend an apology for how the AN thread and events leading up to that went. My goal was to try and guide you away from bringing conduct issues to DRV. I can see now my approach was flawed and didn't work. Obviously, I wasn't to know that autism would be brought up at AN, nor did I intend it to be. That was never part of my reasoning. I don't believe Spartaz intended to use it as a weapon, I certainly didn't get that impression on first reading. Unfortunately, the intent was quickly lost as AN is not the correct venue for such discussion.

I imagine the discussion will close soon, which will be a relief for us both I think. I've been triggered by a few of the things others have said, which I can tell you isn't common for me. Whatever happens, and I'm not posturing when I say this, I hope there are no hard feelings from all of this. I've been very impressed by your ability to not get worn down under pretty strong scrutiny coming from all sides. Many editors would have developed WP:ANIFLU were they in your place. 11WB 💬 01:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)