User Talk: Athanelar

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Barnstars

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks with helping getting my username changed! (This is the first barnstar I've given out) YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
|}

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your work fighting spam and AI-generated content. RandFreeman 18:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
|}

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I am sending you a barnstar because of explaining what went wrong with my article, and I will make sure to get it right.Btw Thanks bro....... TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
|}

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Writer's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | This comment ↗ about the proper use of oversight-related words made me smile. Thanks for posting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
|}

A fox for you!

left|150px ↗
In the tradition of Polygnotus, an LLM cleanup fox for you. Thank you for the assist with the Udit Narayan ↗ article cleanup and the corresponding noticeboard discussion. Really appreciate it!

NicheSports (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 60px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Half Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Great minds think alike. Thank you! Mustbeotherwise (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
|}

Thailand barnstar and thanks for articles you're creating

{| style="border:1px solid gray; background-color:#fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size:x-large; padding:0 0.5em 0; vertical-align:middle; height:1.1em;" |'''The Thailand Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align:middle; border-top:1px solid gray;" | As someone who visted Wat Choeng Tha Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya ↗ many years ago, I really appreciate you moving the article ↗ and the one about Luang Pu Khao Analayo ↗ to draft space instead of having them deleted. I look forward to these articles moving back into the main space in the near future. SouthernNights (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
|}
{{cbot}}

Good article(s)

Your nomination of Shri Venkateswara (Balaji) Temple ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Shri Venkateswara (Balaji) Temple ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Shri Venkateswara (Balaji) Temple/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chilicave -- Chilicave (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Complaints/Contests relating to my RfC closes

Closure of RfC on Talk:Reform UK ↗

I noticed the following in your summary of the conclusions of the RfC "Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK?":

{{tq|[...] I do not find this to be strong enough to outweigh the numerical and argumentative consensus; namely because UK media sources need to be understandably cautious about terms that could be interpreted as pejorative (as evidenced by the lawsuit against the BBC) [...]}}

However, there was never a lawsuit against the BBC and moreover none of the users who responded to the RfC ever said that there had been. This makes me concerned that your summary of the conclusions is based on a misunderstanding of the discussion. TWM03 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

:It would seem that a lawsuit was threatened but did not occur; in the discussion someone mentions {{tq|Just because the BBC is willing to sanitise their ideology at the sight of a frivolous legal threat…}} It seems I had indeed misinterpreted the facts there; but I stand by the reasoning and the remainder of my close. I encourage you to read the discussion through yourself if you're concerned my summary isn't accurate. Athanelar (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Your RFC close at Talk:Imane Khelif ↗

Hi Athanelar,

In your close of the RFC you write in part "{{tq|Overall, I think the strength of argument leans towards non-inclusion}}" but then go onto state "{{tq|but the strong consensus presented for inclusion cannot be ignored}}" and then state that Khelif and the interviewer should be directly quoted. WP:DETCON ↗ states that "{{!tq|Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy}}". 
Given that DETCON directly states that consensus is determined on the quality of arguments and you have stated that the strength of arguments lean towards non-inclusion, how have you arrived at your determination that consensus is for inclusion? To me,
this seems like you have engaged in head-counting. ''TarnishedPath''talk 22:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

:I definitely should be clearer. What I mean is that, were I to vote in the RfC myself, I probably would lean towards 'oppose' out of an abundance of caution (and a desire to avoid satisfying the transphobic culture war types), but I don't think there is sufficient policy grounds to ignore the arguments made in favour of inclusion. I.e., I personally find the 'oppose' argument to be more convincing, but I do not think it should necessarily win out in terms of an assessment of community consensus. The RS are there for inclusion, the community support is there for inclusion, so the sensible thing to do is to go ahead with inclusion but in a moderate, well-considered and cautious manner. Athanelar (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::WP:RS ↗ is a guideline. WP:BLP ↗ and WP:V ↗ are policy. ''TarnishedPath''talk 22:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I do not think including the information in the manner that I have suggested it be included (and in the manner it has since been included) presents any BLP or V-related issues. If you think it does, I'm entirely willing to hear that out. The fact that we do not necessarily ''need to'' include a piece of information is not an argument that we ''shouldn't''. I'm fully willing to be convinced by a suitable argument that we shouldn't, but I think it's very relevant to Khelif's notability.
:::I did take the off-wiki coordination into consideration in my evaluation of the supporting votes. Given that, as you've pointed out, it's not a headcount, it didn't really change my evaluation of the argument, since aside from a few seemingly particularly ideologically-motivated individuals, the arguments for inclusion are anyway much the same - that being that the information is very relevant to the subject's public profile, and that sufficient reliable sources have reported on the information to make it verifiable.
:::The main thing is; I do not think that including the information in the form it's currently in is problematic on BLP grounds. Athanelar (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::Importantly WP:V, states in no uncertain terms, that just because RS state something, that does mean we have to include it. Per WP:VNOT ↗ "{{tq|While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Through the Consensus process, editors may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate.}}" ''TarnishedPath''talk 22:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::I also wanted to ask how if considered that it was specifically called out in the discussion of the RFC that there had been off-wiki co-ordination? Did this cause you to disregard any !votes/discussion by any accounts? ''TarnishedPath''talk 22:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

RFC close

You are clearly involved and not should not be closing the RFC. I can see this isn't the only time you've made a contentious RFC close. Perhaps you should avoid closing RFCs until you have more experience. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

:You will notice that in the other 'contentious' RfC close above, TarnishedPath evidently was satisfied with my responses as they did not pursue a challenge of my close any further.
:I had no involvement in either that RfC nor the previous informal discussion, my only 'involvement' in the topic was changing the pronouns in the article based on what I saw to be a clear consensus in a previous discussion; I do not see how that is any different to, nor how it compromises my ability to, close the new RfC with the same conclusion. If you disagree and want my close reviewed, you are welcome to request as much at the WP:Administrators' noticeboard ↗.
:Do you actually have any problem with the substance of my closure? I'm aware that you !voted "No," the only person who did so, so I can't help but feel you're simply trying to get my close overturned on a technicality. Athanelar (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::The fact you made the edits the RFC sought to establish in the past makes you involved, you should not be closing such an RFC. I am not going to waste community time on a formal challenge but I think you should get more experience before closing RFCs in the future, you clearly lack the experience if you think that you were not involved when WP:INVOLVED ↗ clearly defines previous involvement in an article/dispute as involvement. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Your feedback is noted. Athanelar (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:NHC ↗ and H:ARC ↗

Hi @Athanelar. Your RfC close here ↗, whilst obviously done in good faith, had a few issues. I'm saying this as an editor who didn't actually participate in the RfC itself. WP:NHC ↗ says '{{tq|Consensus is not determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate.}}' Basically, a closer is there to assess the arguments made by participants and is there to either ascertain a consensus or report on whether there is actually no consensus. You made a pretty sweeping criticism of how WP:FORBESCON ↗ was previously assessed and concluded with '{{tq|it is therefore my suggestion that WP:FORBES be changed to MREL}}.' The use of the word '{{tq|my}}' makes it sound like this is your argument alone, rather than the community's.

Your last paragraph of that close statement explicitly mentions a numerical majority, which whilst in the spirit of '{{tq|not counting heads}}', then proceeds to be a slap in the face when they read the next part of the paragraph, where you say '{{tq|the points raised about the ambiguity between the two types of Forbes writers cannot be ignored}}', essentially writing off anybody who expressed a different view to that.

RfC closes are hard. I've been editing for a year and I have not yet attempted one. They are much more difficult than a standard WP:AfD ↗ close, largely in part due to the greater number of editors who partake in them. You've had some recent talk page messages from editors who have been unhappy with your closes, such as here ↗ where you were allegedly WP:INVOLVED ↗, which ''if'' true would have been a very poor decision. Here ↗ you failed to respond to @TarnishedPath's concerns at all.

I can't access your older talk page archives as you don't have archives set up. This is your choice, but I would highly recommend reading H:ARC ↗. Archiving your talk pages demonstrates good organisation and accountability, as other editors can see previous notices and discussions that have taken place here. Wiping your talk page without an archive means they are instead only visible through older diffs, which isn't the best.

To conclude, I commend your effort to be bold ↗! For the moment however, I would recommend building up experience elsewhere before taking on anymore RfCs. If this is an area of Wikipedia you want to remain involved in, an editor who comes to mind who could offer some advice would be @S Marshall. I hope my rather lengthy message doesn't deter you from continuing to contribute. You are an asset, especially the AI cleanup work you do at WP:AIC ↗! Happy to talk, and if you don't agree with what I've said here, that's absolutely fine too! 11WB (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I've seen this, but I'm not certain to what extent, if any, Athenalar needs my advice. I do suggest logging your closes but it's not compulsory. My own log is at User:S Marshall/RfC close log, and that page contains everything I've learned. Where I close with a decision rather than a compromise, I still routinely get complaints from the disappointed side.—S Marshall T/C ↗ 02:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

:That is a very good idea. Your close here ↗, which from reading the title alone editors know this is going to be highly controversial, was very good. The clear distinction between an experienced editor (considerably experienced in @S Marshall's case) and a newer closer, is the use of '{{tq|we}}' rather than '{{tq|I}}'. 11WB (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

:@11WB I also read that Forbes RFC and thought that it appeared as though Athanelar was inserting their own views into it. I choose not to say anything at the time as a) I wasn't involved an b) didn't give enough of a shit. In light of 11WB drawing my attention to the Khelif close (I'd forgotten who performed that) and the fact that it didn't appear to me a big issue with that RFC was addressed, one that was explicitly called out during the RFC, I'd suggest Athanelar not close big discussions until they have more experience. ''TarnishedPath''talk 03:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
::I've interacted with @Athanelar for a little while now, and I am absolutely confident they are taking on these (rather difficult) closes in good faith. I have no doubt about that at all in fact. I assessed whether to leave a comment on their talk page based on a few recent instances of editors questioning their RfC closes. To make the comparison here, the last time @S Marshall received direct criticism was in November last year ↗, and this was actually a request from an administrator. (Admittedly, I haven't seen that close, as @Joy didn't actually link to it in their comment). Since then @S Marshall has received only thanks. November was about 4-5 months ago, so this is a pretty incredible record when as we can see here, they've done several closes per month since then, some of them quite controversial, without any editors raising issues on their talk page. I can only praise @Athanelar in that regard. Even now, I would personally not take on any RfCs, at any level of controversy. I've limited my closes to AfD, and even there I am limited to !keeps, !redirects and !merges only. 11WB (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
::: It's number 257 in my RFC close log.—S Marshall T/C ↗ 04:15, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
:I have a couple of points to note here: first and foremost, you allege that {{tq|[I] failed to respond to @TarnishedPath's concerns at all,}} which I do not believe to be true. Some of their comments I did not directly respond to, because I responded to them in my single larger reply, which they then never replied to; I took that as me having satisfied their enquiry, though given that they are here as we speak I encourage them to correct me if I'm wrong. I wanted to address this first because I think it's important to establish that I do make every effort to respond to concerns with my closures.
:Going through my other contested closes (which are all on this talk page, by the way; I made a point not to remove any of those for posterity when cleaning up my talk page in the past.) we have;
:*TWM03's criticism of the grounds for my close of the RfC on the ideological label for Reform UK. This was a mistake on my part, which I acknowledged, and they presented no further criticism of the reasoning for my close.
:*TarnishedPath's criticism of my Khelif close, which as mentioned above they did not pursue any further after my latest response to them.
:*Traumnovelle's criticism of my closure of the RfC on whether Albert Cashier ↗'s article should use male pronouns. Their allegation of my involvement was based on the fact I had previously rewritten the article with male pronouns after there appeared to be a local consensus on the matter at the article's talk page. I never participated in the RfC itself, which had a borderline SNOW level of reasoning-based consensus; namely, the very article which had originally served as a test case and a justification for Cashier's article to use no gendered pronouns had since had an RfC which decided to instead use male pronouns. It would make no sense to come to the opposite conclusion on a subsequent RfC on essentially the same topic, and there was more than enough numerical support to boot. And, again, my only "involvement" in the matter was that a couple of months earlier I had changed the pronouns around in the article. Frankly, this out of all of the criticisms is one that was transparently obviously just a disgruntled opposition !voter trying to get my decision overturned on a technicality. Traumnovelle was the only person who !voted not to respect Cashier's gender self-identification.
:Lastly we come now to your points about my Forbes close. As I stated in that very close, I knew it would be controversial. My close I think faithfully synthesises the differing views of the community on the matter to come to a reasonable compromise consensus. My use of "me" and "I" is always intended as "me [as the closer, representing the assessment of the community's consensus]", I hope you can look beyond that and see the actual substance of the close, which has to reconcile with the fact that;
:*Keeping the previous status quo based on a headcount of the numerical majority of !voters would completely ignore the very strong argument made for MREL, which none of the status quo !voters managed to address at all.
:*Moving to GUNREL as suggested by the RfC itself would not be appropriate, because Forbes writer pieces are ultimately reliable in some cases which can be verified, it just takes a bit more work.
:*Procedurally closing the RfC due to the overly binary nature of its question would just be a waste of WP:EDITORTIME ↗
:*Finding 'no consensus' would blatantly ignore both the strength of arguments made by the couple of MREL voters, and the numerical strength of the status quo camp (even though not a headcount etc; we do ultimately have to keep it in mind when determining 'community consensus')
:I do not see how the facts presented (it is now difficult to tell at a glance whether a piece is truly written by Forbes staff, which we consider generally reliable, or Forbes contributors, which we consider generally unreliable, but you can determine the difference with a bit of extra legwork) could possibly lead to any logical conclusion except that we should consider Forbes as MREL.
:The fact of the matter, also, is that consensus being based on 'strength of argument' means it is ultimately subject to what the closer perceives as the strongest argument; the personal opinion of the closer is therefore an unavoidable part of the process. It's now gone, but in a brief discussion at WP:CR ↗ after I closed that one, another editor said that they were in the process of determining consensus when I made my close, and that they thought my close was sensible; so I'm at least not alone in my thinking.
:Anyway, to conclude all of this, I probably should keep a log of my closes so people can review all of the ones which go completely uncontested and see that my judgement is (I like to think) very sound and evenhanded. The reality of closes on contentious social issues (like Reform UK, Khelif and Cashier) or closes where numerical consensus doesn't seem to follow the strength of argument (like Forbes) is that these are going to invite a lot of scrutiny on the closer. I hope this comment goes some way to explaining why I believe my judgement was correct despite the criticisms made, and why therefore there should be no issues with me continuing to close RfCs, even contentious ones. Athanelar (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
::I'll start off by saying that implying @Traumnovelle acted with a motive ('{{tq|is one that was transparently obviously just a disgruntled opposition !voter trying to get my decision overturned on a technicality}}', borders on WP:ABF ↗, just be mindful of that. They were actually quite respectful and suggested to not take on such controversial closes without more experience (which is what has basically been said here also).
::For the Forbes close, this line is a huge red flag: '{{tq|The personal opinion of the closer is therefore an unavoidable part of the process}}'. This is exactly what we've been trying to highlight here. @TarnishedPath correctly said above ↗ '{{tq|I also read that Forbes RFC and thought that it appeared as though Athanelar was inserting their own views into it.}}' This is going to cause you many problems in the future, ''especially'' with controversial closes.
::The job of the closer, as is explained at WP:NHC ↗, is that '{{tq|consensus is '''not determined''' by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate.}}' This, I believe, is the fundamental issue that we're trying to address here. I am disappointed that you essentially rejected the advice that has been given to you in good faith here ('{{tq|there should be no issues with me continuing to close RfCs, even contentious ones}}').
::It is good that will you start a close log, that is positive. Just be aware, that you will likely continue to receive opposition from participants (and even non participants) if you continue to add your own personal opinions into RfC closes that you perform. 11WB (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Directly above the quoted section of WP:NHC, we're also explicitly told that {{tq|Closers are also required to '''exercise their judgment''' to ensure that any decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project's goals.}}
:::That's precisely what I did with the Forbes close. I think the arguments made in favour of MREL, even though the numerical minority, were clearly better aligned with the spirit of our PAGs, and I do not think the status quo !votes did a good enough job of refuting the points presented, since they were more focused on why Forbes should bot be considered GUNREL rather than why it ''should'' be considered GREL in face of the new information presented by Newslinger.
:::Again, I'm asking you to look beyond the semantics of what I'm saying which you worry confirm your concerns, and evaluate my actual judgement; do you actually believe that my judgement was based on my personal opinion in contradiction of the strength of argument in the RfC? The fact that not a single participant in this highly contentious RfC has come forward to disagree with my close should suggest something.
:::I'm not rejecting your advice, I'm arguing it's based on shaky ground; I think I have adequately responded to previous criticisms of my closures, and therefore I do not think it should be suggested that I am insufficiently experienced to make such closures merely because those criticisms existed in the first place. That's why I made a point of specifically pointing out why I believe those criticisms didn't stand in my response to you. It's inevitable that some people will be displeased with the close of a contentious RfC. Athanelar (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
::::The issue is that you are following that particular guidance, without taking into account the implications of said judgement. It is the way this is presented in the closing statement that makes the difference. Nobody from that discussion has (yet) come forward, but somebody (me) who didn't participate did. Admittedly @TarnishedPath has had a previous RfC disagreement with you, this is not say they are biased against you, they have come to the same conclusion as multiple others now that it would be in your best interest to gain some more experience before attempting any more controversial RfC closes. Semantics are unfortunately very important, as it is the difference between appearing impartial and not. @S Marshall is able to take on these closes without (at least in recent times) anyone taking issue. You, despite your (if not a bit concerning) reasoning, have had multiple in a short period.
::::I invite you to try some non-admin closes at WP:AfD ↗. They are definitely easier than these contentious RfCs you've been taking on. You've jumped in at the deep end of the pool, without first practising in the shallows. I can only speak positively about the great folks that work over at AfD, @OwenX being my primary contact for that part of the project. They can offer you some excellent advice and are very patient with new editors (they gave their time to helping me, and I wouldn't consider myself to be greatest or fastest learner by any means)! It is up to you. Thank you for at least responding to what we've said here! 11WB (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::I'm just looking back now at the forbes RfC, and going in order of the !votes;
:::::*GUNREL
:::::*GUNREL
:::::*Status quo, because {{tq|No evidence has been presented that Forbes staff writing is generally unreliable}}, with suggestion for a reliability cutoff as a compromise.
:::::*Bad RfC; overly binary.
:::::*Status quo, because {{tq|No evidence that the staff editorial articles are unreliable has been presented,}}
:::::*Status quo, {{tq|but with a note to verify staff vs. contributor status as close to the publication date as possible.}}
:::::*MREL {{tq|"staff" pieces from the past need to be checked that they weren't originally "contributor"}}
:::::*MREL, per above reasoning
:::::*Status quo, because {{tq|Labeling Forbes Staff pieces as unreliable is would eradicate a huge portion of business, finance, and media sourcing.}}
:::::*GUNREL
:::::*Status quo {{tq|Forbes's contributors' articles are generally unreliable and should stay that way.}} (irrelevant to the question of the RfC)
:::::*Status quo {{tq|there is no evidence presented to conclude that staff writer articles are unreliable.}}
:::::*MREL
:::::*Status quo {{tq|I see no clear or solid evidence that articles contributed by Forbes staff are unreliable}}
:::::*Status quo {{tq|the evidence provided (the Buzzfeed article) is about Forbes contributors who are already unreliable}}
:::::*Status quo {{tq|The Forbes (not contributor) are generally reliable}}
:::::As you can see, not a single one of the status quo votes actually substantively responds to the information raised by Newslinger which was brought up in the first MREL vote. They are all instead focused on responding to the binary question in the RfC itself, arguing that there is no argument for broadly treating Forbes as GUNREL; which is absolutely true, and is part of why my consensus determination is what it was. These are not actually arguments for considering FORBES as GREL, they're simply votes for ''not'' considering it as GUNREL.
:::::So, then we come to the MREL votes, These are mostly based on a lengthy comment by Newslinger in the discussion section, which reads in part; {{tq|A year ago, one of the discussions on this noticeboard (Forbes.com authors who change roles), which I participated in, noted that when an author on Forbes.com changes their role (e.g. by being promoted from a contributor to a staff writer), '''their bylines on all of their previous articles are retroactively changed to reflect their current role.'''}} Emphasis mine.
:::::This is a ''massive'' bombshell which none of the status quo votes address at all. This means that some 'generally reliable' (at the time) WP:FORBES ↗ staff pieces were actually generally unreliable WP:FORBESCON ↗ pieces in disguise. So, the arguments made for FORBES to be considered MREL based on this, plus the fact that the numerical majority of 'status quo' votes were really more like 'not GUNREL' votes, demonstrates to me a clear basis to consider FORBES as MREL. It's not an opinion I pulled out of my ass.
:::::If you want to criticise the wording of my close; great, I have noted that already and will do better going forward. I simply don't think there's any grounds to challenge my judgement, which you don't seem to think there is either as you haven't presented any criticisms except of the semantics. Therefore, I don't think it's fair to suggest I'm ill-equipped for these sorts of closes. Athanelar (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::We probably don't need to escalate with the use of unsavoury words. I opened this discussion in good faith. Let's keep that in mind please. 11WB (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I fully respect that, I don't intend any offense with "pulled out of my ass," I simply mean it's not a closing decision based solely on my personal opinion; there is evident argumentative basis for it in the RfC itself. Athanelar (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
:::I disagree with your reading of {{tq|The fact of the matter, also, is that consensus being based on 'strength of argument' means it is ultimately subject to what the closer perceives as the strongest argument; the personal opinion of the closer is therefore an unavoidable part of the process}}, @11WB. To me, @Athanelar is saying that their (as closer) judgment, and therefore personal opinion, is being exercised in the matter of the strength of arguments on each side for the point in question. And {{em|not}} in the matter of the point in question itself. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
::::I didn't actually quote that specific part, but I understand your point, thank you. 11WB (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Well, you quoted the clause after the semi-colon, didn't you, as a {{tq|huge red flag}}. My point was that it should be taken in the context of the whole sentence, which I think makes it rather less of a red flag. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::I fully agree, and your comment does accurately summarise what I meant. One cannot "exercise judgement" without opinion coming into play. Athanelar (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::Sure. Look, I am not here to rip into anybody, I actually have a huge degree of respect and awe for @Athanelar. They have fully leaned into being bold, and I commend them for that. All I'm saying here is that it is often safer to start with the easier stuff, instead of going head deep into the hard stuff. 11WB (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
:::For those interested, there is now a log of all of my (so far, 9) RfC closes at User:Athanelar/Closed discussions for those who might want to audit me. Athanelar (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
::{{tq|TarnishedPath's criticism of my Khelif close, which as mentioned above they did not pursue any further after my latest response to them.}}
::I didn't pursue it as I didn't see any point. I see going to WP:AN as a mostly futile endeavour and I don't think many others would have closed any differently. That said, I do think you ought to have explicitly addressed the off-wiki canvassing in the Khalif close (it was pretty easy to confirm the effects on the RFC). That's neither here nor there now.
::I haven't looked at all your other closes besides the Forbes one, but if you are getting quite a few people here, I'd suggest that you do strongly consider what they are saying. ''TarnishedPath''talk 09:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
:::I understand, and I probably should've explicitly mentioned that I considered it in my judgement; because I did.
:::As for the other closes; I am openminded to all feedback, there just hasn't been (at least to my eye) any substantive criticism given towards my actual judgement thus far, so I haven't seen a reason to doubt my capability in making these closes. The criticism of my 'involvement' in the Cashier RfC is the only one of that type, and I leave it to the reader to determine the validity of that criticism based on what I've already said. Athanelar (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
::::This was honestly a chance encounter, as I happened to be on the WP:RS/N ↗ board for a recent unrelated RfC I have opened myself. I recall you have previously had feedback regarding performing discussion closes too early at WP:AN/I ↗. This is honestly just a case of learning. You're undoubtedly bolder than 99% of new editors, as most wouldn't think to begin clerking AN/I or closing contentious RfCs this early on. You have the support of respected editors such as @SunloungerFrog, and as you correctly pointed out, no participants from the Forbes RfC have come here to raise any concerns. If you believe you're capable of taking all this on, I can only wish you the best of luck! 11WB (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

There's a lot of useful thought in this discussion, which could be turned into an essay. We don't give much guidance to RfC closers at the moment so such an essay might have value.—S Marshall T/C ↗ 10:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

:I absolutely support this! 11WB (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

:If you want to give some bullet points of important conclusions you think would be good to take away from this discussion, I'd be happy to put writing such an essay on my to-do list. Athanelar (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

::That won't be possible this weekend as it's Easter and my time is largely short tomorrow. This will be a task I would need to make time for during the week. 11WB (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hindu theology

25px ↗ Hello! Your submission of Hindu theology ↗ at the Did You Know nominations page ↗ has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at '''your nomination's entry ↗''' and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Morogris (<big>'''✉'''</big> • '''✎''' ↗) 03:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

:I have posted a reply there: thanks for taking a look at my article and my nomination. Athanelar (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Hindu theology

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 25 April 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Hindu theology ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that not all schools of '''Hindu theology ↗''' believe that reality was created out of nothing?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hindu theology ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hindu theology ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}}  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that user ~2026-29101-67 was right

In this article “List of animated feature films of 2020”, this user said that “Citing Imdb is disputed, but not inappropriate, therefore i have added this movie into the list, i also did search through the internet and can confirm that it was really shown in some theaters in the united states as a limited run”. They are right. I looked at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, and i found this “IMDb content which is in dispute about whether it is appropriate to reference on Wikipedia: Released films only: Sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications.”. Their edit were release dates, running time, company credits, and the crew list (the director, Dan P. Lyons). I was also able to confirm that this movie did really was shown on some theaters in the United States, like a limited run of sorts. Although, it should be admitted that this user added this information without a consensus, as you, Athanelar, reccomended WP:ONUS in their edit. ~2026-30350-55 ↗ (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

:As I explained to you before (because I'm not stupid, and I'm aware that you are the same editor); the WP:ONUS ↗ is on you to seek consensus for inclusion of your changes when those changes are in dispute. "Disputed" doesn't mean "acceptable". Athanelar (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
::@Athanelar I know that disputed dosen’t mean acceptable, that’s why i’m asking for a consensus. ~2026-30469-30 ↗ (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
::@AthanelarLet’s have a consensus, shall we? ~2026-30469-30 ↗ (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
:::You're ''still'' blocked from your actions on your previous accounts many TAs ago, so you shouldn't be editing anything at all until you submit an unblock request and have it approved. Everything you're currently doing is block evasion. Athanelar (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
::should the TA get banned for multi-acc abuse? [[User:The Ars Goetia|Goetia [She/They] ]] (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Rohan Shrestha feedback

Hello Athanelar, thank you for reviewing Draft:Rohan Shrestha ↗. I have disclosed my connection to the subject on my talk page per WP:COI ↗.

I would like to understand your decline better so I can improve the draft. Could you clarify which specific sources you found insufficient? For example, would the ''Variety ↗'' coverage (by their India correspondent Naman Ramachandran) and the ''Gulf News ↗'' reporting on the Ryan Reynolds assignment qualify as independent secondary sources under WP:CREATIVE ↗? Similarly, the ICC ↗ captains' day coverage in ''The Business Standard'' was news reporting not initiated by the subject.

I want to make sure I address the right gaps before resubmitting. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thank you. Rohanshrestha1 (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

:The "Variety coverage" is based on an interview with Shrestha, so it's not independent ↗ of the subject.
:I'm not sure what you mean by "the Gulf News reporting" because there is no reference in the article belonging to Gulf News. I assume this error is because of the fact you're obviously using some kind of AI tool to assist you in talking to me here.
:The "ICC captains' day coverage" is nothing more than a passing mention ↗ of the fact that Shrestha took the photo. This does not contribute anything to Shrestha's notability.
:Also, please don't use AI to reply to me as you have done here. I am a volunteer generously spending my time to help you; please extend me the same courtesy and take the effort to communicate with me in your own words. Athanelar (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
::Sorry for the AI thing, I was just making sure I get communication right. Thank you for explaining the independence standard and I agree that most of the sources are interviews and not independent coverage. About the gulf times, there was a link which i thought I have submitted.
::To help me get this verified could you let me know if it is worth looking for independent sources or the subject does not qualify right now. Rohanshrestha1 (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Whether the subject qualifies is based entirely on whether you can find the kind of sources you need ↗. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary ↗ of what the majority of people ↗ who are wholly unconnected ↗ with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications ↗, (see Golden rule ↗) and not much else. What you know ↗ (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified ↗ from a reliable published source. Athanelar (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft: Geza Hosszu-Legocky - Please find the draft article? It has disappeared.

Please help me find the draft article Geza Hosszu-Legocky. I have been working on it all day adding independent verifiable sources and it has disappeared again? Please help me find it. Please. Thenfactor (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

:It appears it has been deleted by @Jimfbleak under speedy deletion criterion WP:G11 ↗ (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) Athanelar (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
::Please help me restore this draft article. I can work on it Please. Thenfactor (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

PLEASE RESTORE THE DRAFT ARTICLE: Geza Hosszu-Legocky so I can work on it.

Please restore the draft article so I can work on it and remove any unambiguous advertising or promotion. I need time to review this and if people are constantly deleting it, I cannot improve the article. Thenfactor (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

:I did not delete the article and I have no power to restore it; as it was deleted under WP:G11 ↗, it is in any case not eligible for undeletion. Athanelar (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Draf Review Abdulbaki Jari

Hi Athanelar, thanks for your review. I have added notability of the person independent of the popular event he founded. I would love it if you could take a look at it and see if the changes are effected. This is my first ever article on Wikipedia, i am hopeful that i will learn and contribute more.

Thank you ~2026-30832-66 ↗ (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

:I'll let someone else review it; I make it a point not to re-review the same article more than once to ensure each review is impartial and views the draft with fresh eyes. Athanelar (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::Oh, that's really good. Thank you ~2026-30832-66 ↗ (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFF; padding:10px 15px 0; color: black"
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; font-size:130%" |'''Good article nominations ↗ |''' June 2026 Backlog Drive
|rowspan=3|right|75px ↗
|-
|'''June 2026 Backlog Drive:'''
Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed.

Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points!

Interested in taking part? You can '''sign up here ↗'''.
|-
|colspan=2|'''Other ways to participate:'''

Join the conversations on our talk page ↗.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.
|}

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

GA nomination of ISRO

Hi Athanelar! Can you have a look on the templates at Talk:ISRO ↗ (regarding GAN), modified by the previous reviewer. – '''''𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™''''' '''''𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔''''' 04:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Closure of RfC on Talk:Dead Internet theory

The entire RfC was a disaster from the start, so you can't be blamed for that. Primary issue is that the source argument being used was not in line with reliable sources, unreliable sources were used in mass, and you did not mention that. This isn't about "taking a side," it is reflecting what is said in the reliable sources. Since the RfC started, a reliable source addressed the primary issue within the discussion, and was included in the article. Consensus is not a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy ↗; closing the third RfC on this topic without addressing the poor arguments, bad sources, and changes that occurred in the article to reflect new literature that were brought up in the RfC. As has been stated in other posts above, to me, this seems like you have engaged in head-counting and ignored the actual issues with the argument. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

:The fundamental question of the RfC was flawed, considering it was literally "which version of the definition of this term should our article focus on," which is a non-question, because Wikipedia articles do not pick a POV and stick to it.
:The only Wikipedia-compliant answer is "report whatever's in the reliable sources, paying mind to WP:DUE ↗ and avoiding WP:FALSEBALANCE ↗." If certain information shouldn't be included because the sources for it are not reliable, that's an entirely separate matter entirely outside the scope of that RfC, or my close of it. People responded to the question posed by the RfC, and I closed in favour of the only option that sensibly aligns with WP:NPOV ↗; which also happened to be the numerical majority. It was the numerical majority for a reason.
:I could well have closed the RfC as a fundamentally flawed question, but that felt a bit too WP:SUPERVOTE ↗y and I thought it was more sensible to simply reflect the strongest argument presented; which essentially amounts to the same outcome anyway.
:My close obviously should not be taken as endorsement to include information from unreliable sources, because that is not within the power of an RfC close to do.
:The option you stated you preferred was A, which was {{tq|Describe the Dead Internet theory as a "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice, and present it as a conspiracy theory that proposes that since 2016 the internet has consisted primarily of bot activity and automated content manipulated by algorithmic curation, that aims to control the population and reduce genuine human interaction. '''The non-conspiratorial alternative can be mentioned in the article but will not be the focus.'''}} But there's obviously no way that could be the correct outcome when, as PK-Wiki put it, {{tq|There are many, many sources focusing on what the source above calls the "leaner" version, aka the "no-conspiracy AI boom slop bot proliferation". Those sources are the "colloquial usage" of using the phrase "dead Internet theory" to describe that leaner version. Both it and the "2016 creepypasta conspiracy" version must be described in the article. One evolved from the other and the article should describe the timeline and evolution.}}
:The article should not "focus" on either version of the theory. That was the point of "Option C," and that was the point of my close; the article should neutrally report how reliable sources are using the term, we should not "focus" on one usage or make a point of lauding one as "original" or "more correct" or anything to that effect. Athanelar (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
::The article was, for all intents and purposes, already doing what option C suggested, but using the term "conspiracy theory" in the lede sentence as that is how the full, original, still existing, theory has been and continues to be described in multiple reliable sources.
::During the RfC, the only source that used the term "colloquial usage" was in pre-print (WP:PREPRINT ↗) and the articles ↗ date of publication is currently listed as September of 2026 (so not yet "published", but seemingly accepted by the journal and not just an upload on Social Science Research Network ↗). Even accepting it's use, I think it is a stretch to extend what the paper actually states to the conclusion that "Those sources are the "colloquial usage" of using the phrase "dead Internet theory"". There '''is ''' a source that identifies the DIT and the "leaner" version. The leaner version is framed within the broader conspiracy theory, within this source however. As I had stated, that source resolved the discrepancy we had in the literature. Summarizing what the sources actually state, we have three major categories:
::1) The ones that discuss the topic in detail and define it as a conspiracy theory.
::2) The ones that discuss only the "core observations," but do so in reasonable detail, and are often ambiguous on if it is a conspiracy theory, was a conspiracy theory and is no longer, or make no mention of that aspect.
::3) The ones that mention it in passing without great explanation.
::4) Unreliable sources.
::The major issue was the discrepancy between the first and second group of sources, and that was resolved in a source discussing the first major source to fall into group 2. The source was not added to the article until the RfC was already open, and the article already incorporated it before the RfC closed. The discussion was tainted by heavy reliance on sources in category 4, or no sources at all. Even if the source for "colloquial usage" is accepted now that it is at least on a journals website, it falls into category 3 as it barely mentions the DIT and that is not the main focus of the paper.
::I believe the RfC should have been closed as a fundamentally flawed question, with emphasis on the way sources were collected, framed, and omitted by the initial opener. Fundamentally, they saw a table I was making to aggregate sources, and made their own limited to sources from no earlier then 2025, failed to screen them against basic reliability criteria, and presented their own interpretation of the sources in a column as objective fact. I don't think many of their interpretations actually align with the content of those sources.
::I made these arguments, and pointed out these issues, during the RfC. This is the third one we've had on this in under a year, and not all participants showed up to all of them. What we needed was a well constructed RfC, which will be difficult now, as will maintaining the page and keeping it in line with what the sources actually say. Closing this one without any caveats to narrow the scope, discussing how it relates to previous RfCs (and importantly, what has changed since the 1st one closed), or even mention of the issues with the RfC makes me think this was a head count. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Ultimately, I do think the article is best served by being descriptively neutral. The term "conspiracy theory" is one of those things which is almost inherently borderline when it comes to NPOV, and so requires fairly robust and unanimous sources to support, and the community obviously was not convinced that your argument was strong enough to support it.
:::While closes are not a headcount, they ''are'' an assessment of the community's consensus. It would, I think, have been an inappropriate SUPERVOTE if I had concluded based on my own opinion regarding the quality of the sources that the highly contentious term "conspiracy theory" should be used as the descriptor and focus of the article instead of simply maintaining a more neutral stance on the way we handle it. One thing I'm starting to learn is that contentious closes are damned if you do, damned if you don't. When my close doesn't align with the majority I'm accused of supervoting and basing the close on my own opinion, and when it does align with the majority I'm accused of headcounting.
:::I stand by my close, I think it's a sensible one. If you so strongly disagree, I have no prejudice against you bringing it for review. Athanelar (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Generally, the "community" isn't reading the sources, they might skim some of what is in the RfC, and the information presented to them was quite dubious.
::::The talk page has some new discussions, essentially the close is being read as not only removing conspiracy theory from the main descriptor of the lede, to de-emphasizing that portion of the literature completely. My main issue is the closing comments; without firmer guidelines, limits, or clarification, or mention of the problems with the RfC, the result is ambiguous enough for people to declare whatever they want consensus. There is no mention of the problems with the RfC you say you saw, there isn't mention of arguments based on reliable sources vs arguments based on the opinions of editors. Tried to help with a more neutral/balanced watered down version (that doesn't reflect the literature at all, but does reflect what people want a bit while trying to stay true to the sources), and I can't even understand the objections raised at this point other then they don't want to see that portion of the topic emphasized.
::::Honestly, I have lost faith in the process. This and a few other issues on Wikipedia make me no longer believe people actually care what sources say at all. They've had three RfCs, each one worse then the one before it, and now that they've got a green light, are already saying any more would be disruptive. It's a lot easier to spam bad sources then it is to check those sources, it's exhausting. I don't think review or anything would do anything positive at this point, they'll just hold another RfC until they eventually get their way anyway, if you could weigh in on the implementation post close, that would probably be all that can be done. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::I've given my two cents at the relevant talk page thread. Athanelar (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Teatro Sans Souci

Hello Athanelar,
Thank you for reviewing my draft.
I have carefully revised the article and done my best to address the concerns you raised regarding neutrality, wording, formatting, and sourcing. I am new to Wikipedia and still learning its standards, so I appreciate your feedback and guidance.
When you have a chance, I would be grateful if you could take another look at the draft. I believe I have made the requested corrections, but if further changes are needed, I would appreciate any advice on how to improve it.
I apologize for any inconvenience my mistakes may have caused. I am genuinely excited to learn how Wikipedia works and to become a constructive contributor to the project.
Thank you again for your time and assistance.
Best regards,
Giorgio Oliper Giorgiousa (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

:First, in the process of rewriting your draft, you removed my decline notice. Don't do that. All decline notices must remain on the draft for later reviewers to see.
:I suspect, though, the reason you did that was by accident; because you very obviously rewrote the draft using AI again and then pasted in the new output from the AI. There are still clear signs of AI generated text.
:Given that I declined your draft for being AI generated, I should hope it's obvious that your next step should be to rewrite it from scratch by yourself without any help from AI. Athanelar (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
{{Collapse AI top|sig=Pyrrhic victor (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)}}
::Hello Athanelar,
::Thank you for taking the time to explain your concerns.
::I apologize for removing the decline notice. I did not realize that it was supposed to remain on the draft, and any removal was unintentional.
::I am new to Wikipedia and still learning its procedures and editorial standards. My goal is to create an accurate article about a historical Buenos Aires theater, not to create additional work for reviewers.
::I understand your concerns regarding the draft. Rather than resubmitting it immediately, I will spend more time reviewing Wikipedia's guidelines and working through the issues you identified.
::Since I am still learning, I would appreciate any specific advice you may have regarding which sections of the draft appear most problematic from a neutrality or sourcing standpoint. That would help me better understand how to improve the article in accordance with Wikipedia's standards.
::Thank you again for your time and patience.
::Best regards,
::Giorgiousa Giorgiousa (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}

Draft: Antoine Pierini declined - appeal

Hi there! My page that I had published has been declined, but I wrote the text and did not copy/paste from an AI source. I had also used my previous texts to write this draft. Can I please have advice on how to move forward? My main concern for this page - was if it were to be taken down due to the improper use of citing my sources correctly. I would greatly appreciate your guidance. Thank you. AirOn1980 (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

:There's no need to 'appeal' a decline. You're free to resubmit it to be reviewed by somebody else at any time when you feel that you've addressed the concerns.
:It is my firm belief that the draft is generated, in whole or in part, by AI. You might have used a correction tool like Grammarly or a translation tool like DeepL which use AI as part of their function, and therefore not realised you were using AI, but I am certain based on signs in the text that AI was used. Athanelar (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::I did use a correction tool in my old texts that I used so maybe it was that. I also copied from other sites the accents over the "e" in my text so that could be a factor as well. No copy and paste other than that, I stand by that. I will resubmit, I appreciate the notes. Do you have any suggestions on how to reference better, or do you believe the references are good. Thank you! AirOn1980 (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

CSD G5s

Hello, Athanelar,

When you tag a page to be deleted CSD G5, you have to ensure that no regular editors have made contributions to the other article. You also have to identify, with a link, to the sockmaster you think the page creator is a sockpuppet of. This is easiest if you use Twinkle ↗. If you have questions, please bring them to the Teahouse ↗. Thank you. '''''L'''''iz '''''Read!''''' ↗ '''''Talk!''''' 03:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Liz The only other significant contributor to the article Teesri Begum ↗, AdvHusen, is (in my opinion, although the SPI is waiting) almost certainly related to the same sock network as far as behavioural evidence goes. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Alakmarsaify ↗
:The page was;
:Recreated by a TA (blocked as a sock of Alakmarsaify) just a day after being deleted under G5 (for being created by that same user)
:Expanded considerably by A1-K (blocked as a sock of the same master)
:Then suddenly a day later after A1-K is banned, AdvHusen shows up to significantly expand the article again and push it directly to mainspace. Athanelar (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse

How do you know this ↗ is an LTA? '''97104, not 97100! (t•c ↗•r ↗•l ↗)''' 20:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

:See WP:LTA/CB885 ↗ as well as the contribs of their previously blocked accounts at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicleBooks885 ↗. Athanelar (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

I 'visited' the Teahouse recently and observed how patient and encouraging you are to new editors. You are an excellent Teahouse host. We often don't tell other editors how well they are doing so I am taking this opportunity to let you know that you are appreciated. Best Regards, '' Barbara ''✐✉ ↗ 22:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up after feedback

Thank you for the detailed feedback on Draft:Earl MacDonald. I understand the concern about generalization and wording that wasn't supported by sources.

I’ve rewritten the section entirely, removed the sentence you flagged, and limited the content to clearly attributed statements from the sources. Please let me know if anything still needs further adjusting. Earlmacdon (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

RfC follow-up

Hi :@Athanelar, you kindly helped me close an RfC earlier this year on Sydney Sweeney's political affiliation.

You wrote "It may be productive for the community to seek a broader consensus on whether it is appropriate for articles to include mention of the registered political parties of non-political figures. An argument was made by one of the !voters here about a 'precedent' to this effect, but clear brightline guidance on the matter would be helpful in case of future debates. (non-admin closure) Athanelar (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)"

- I was one of those voters and have become interested in ensuring Wikipedia policies are applied fairly and equally. Could you advise me on how I can seek broader consensus on whether articles should include political affiliation of non-political figures? I can ask my Wiki mentor otherwise but just wondering if there's a well-known process I can/should follow or know about. Thanks! ∞ HardScience (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:A good first step would be to start a casual discussion about the matter at WP:VPP ↗ and see what people think about it. Athanelar (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks! ∞ HardScience (talk) ∞ HardScience (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Procedural close of LLM RfC ↗. voorts (talk/contributions ↗) 16:49, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

AI summaries

Do we have official guidance on AI edit summaries ↗, or is it still just frowned upon? I'd be more inclined to grant leeway if it wasn't IMMEDIATELY after they agreed to not use it - and objectively false compared to the actual edit. I did clean up their changes (although I probably should have just reverted, since it didn't add anything substantial except the one uncited claim). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

:@ChompyTheGogoat I'm not aware of anything specific. Since it's not article content and is user-to-user communication I'd sag it basically falls under WP:AITALK ↗, so "against community norms but not strictly against PAGs" at the moment. Coming from an editor who specifically said they'd stop using AI in any capacity, though, I'd say it's disruptive editing. Athanelar (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::I'm not inclined to try to invoke disciplinary measures ''yet'' - WP:ROPE ↗ and all - but I'll definitely try to keep an eye out. I just reverted another. I attempted to add their contribs to my watchlist but it doesn't appear to accept pages in Special namespace; is there a better way of going about that? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for re-review of Draft:Gulabuddin Sukhanwar

Hello Athanelar. You previously reviewed and declined my draft on Gulabuddin Sukhanwar because of concerns about AI-generated writing and LLM tones. I have substantially revised the draft by simplifying the prose, removing promotional language, verifying the content against the cited sources, and restructuring it to better follow Wikipedia's style. The draft has now been resubmitted and is awaiting review. I would appreciate it if you could take another look or let me know whether the previous concerns have been addressed. Thank you for the kind feedback.Wed400 (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:I never review the same draft twice, to make sure it gets a fair re-review from an entirely neutral party. That said, your edit summary has all the hallmarks as the kind of edit summary given when an AI is used to rewrite the text, and I can still see AI signs in the text itself.
:I cannot stress enough that generating article text using AI isn't allowed ↗ and continuing to do so after you've been told as much is disruptive editing which may get you blocked from editing. Athanelar (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you for the clarification. I will continue to wait for another reviewer as you suggested. I also make sure to consider fully direct citations and manual copyedits. Thank you once again for your time.Wed400 (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Wed400 (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
:::No, you don't "consider" it, it's mandatory. You can't use an AI tool to generate text for your article. If you have done so, you need to delete all of the AI generated text and start over, from scratch, entirely in your own words. Athanelar (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)