User talk:Athanelar

Barnstars

Barnstars and awards herein

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	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!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your work fighting spam and AI-generated content. RandFreeman 18:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	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!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	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!

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!

	The Half Barnstar
	Great minds think alike. Thank you! Mustbeotherwise (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thailand barnstar and thanks for articles you're creating

		The Thailand Barnstar
		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)

Good article(s)

Your nomination of Shri Venkateswara (Balaji) Temple has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Shri Venkateswara (Balaji) Temple has passed; congratulations! See 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

Extended content

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?":

[...] 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 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 "Overall, I think the strength of argument leans towards non-inclusion" but then go onto state "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 "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 "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 '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 'it is therefore my suggestion that WP:FORBES be changed to MREL.' The use of the word '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 'not counting heads', then proceeds to be a slap in the face when they read the next part of the paragraph, where you say '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 'we' rather than '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 [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 ('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: '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 '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 '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 ('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 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 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 No evidence that the staff editorial articles are unreliable has been presented,
• Status quo, but with a note to verify staff vs. contributor status as close to the publication date as possible.
• MREL "staff" pieces from the past need to be checked that they weren't originally "contributor"
• MREL, per above reasoning
• Status quo, because Labeling Forbes Staff pieces as unreliable is would eradicate a huge portion of business, finance, and media sourcing.
• GUNREL
• Status quo Forbes's contributors' articles are generally unreliable and should stay that way. (irrelevant to the question of the RfC)
• Status quo there is no evidence presented to conclude that staff writer articles are unreliable.
• MREL
• Status quo I see no clear or solid evidence that articles contributed by Forbes staff are unreliable
• Status quo the evidence provided (the Buzzfeed article) is about Forbes contributors who are already unreliable
• Status quo 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; 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 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 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 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)

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

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 (✉ • ✎) 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

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)

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:SUPERVOTEy 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 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, 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)

Appeal: Draft:Robert J. Rosenstein rejection

Hello Athanelar, thank you for reviewing Draft:Robert J. Rosenstein. I am writing to respectfully ask you to reconsider the rejection, and to ask for clarification on the reasons given.

On "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia": I genuinely do not understand how this applies here. Robert J. Rosenstein is a real person who built Liquor Barn into Kentucky's largest independent beverage alcohol retail chain, received Market Watch's highest annual retail honor in 1987, and whose business sale was covered by national media. Could you explain specifically what makes this subject contrary to Wikipedia's purpose? Is it a notability concern, a neutrality concern, or something else? Understanding this precisely would help me address it correctly.

On "AI generated": I acknowledge that I have used AI tools to help research and revise drafts of the article but I wrote the article. The underlying sources are all real, published, and independently verifiable — including a full personal profile in Beverage Dynamics (archived at the Wayback Machine), multiple Market Watch articles naming him personally, and local Lexington press coverage. The AI assistance was for drafting and formatting, not for fabricating sources.

On "not productively engaging with feedback": I have genuinely tried to address each round of feedback. When reviewers said "sources are about the company not the person," I added the Beverage Dynamics personal profile, the Market Watch 2015 article naming him directly, and Smiley Pete local press. I am open to specific guidance on what would satisfy the notability requirement.

If you are willing to reconsider, or to point me toward exactly what is needed, I would greatly appreciate it. Many thanks for your helpJamier93 (talk)

Jamier93, you had asked a question about your draft at the Teahouse, where you were specifically advised by User:CoffeeCrumbs that The Beverage Dynamics piece is absolutely not a "full personal profile of Rosenstein." It's a passing mention that says little about him, and being quoted doesn't mean anything for notability. And yet, you sre here now on my talk page once again saying that The underlying sources... includ[e] a full personal profile in Beverage Dynamics. So please do explain exactly how you have genuinely tried to address each round of feedback?

As for The AI assistance was for drafting and formatting; that's not allowed either. Athanelar (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The beverage dynamics piece is about the origin story of Liquor Barn which began with Robert and his father Irving: https://web.archive.org/web/20201126154850/https://beveragedynamics.com/2007/02/02/raising-the-bar/

Can you please provide feedback on the best path forward as I did work to meaningfully address each piece of feedback and added several additional references/ sources.

many thanks Jamier93 (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

There is no path forward for this draft, I will not be lifting my rejection. Athanelar (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

reverted archive

Really not sure why you did this. The archived content you restored was from August 8. (And now it's on the archive page twice.) —scs (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Scs Because as I said in my edit summary, the bot messed up somehow and when I looked at the page it had removed evergthing except August 8 and left August 8 behind. See this revision which was the latest one before I reverted the bot. Athanelar (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Aha. I was only looking at the Table of Contents, which showed seven days, August 8 to August 14. The content was all still there, it just wasn't showing. For some reason that I haven't gotten to the bottom of, the {{collapsetop}} template ("Obviously preposterous example of why we source things") in 20:48, 8 August 2026 review of submission by Sevdayeli28 didn't close properly, making the rest of the page invisible. (If you click on "[show]", you'll see not only the preposterous example, but all the rest of the content.)

Now that the archived August 8 content is no longer being transcluded, the problem has gone away for good. —scs (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I had a feeling it was going to be something like that, but I couldn't identify it at the time so I went for the quick fix. Good catch! Athanelar (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I've brought this up at the Village Pump. —scs (talk) 12:15, 15 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)

Clarification on rejection of Draft:Nick Watson (priest)

Hi Athanelar. I’d be grateful if you could clarify the basis for rejecting Draft:Nick Watson (priest), rather than declining it for further sourcing.

The draft now cites Crockford’s Clerical Directory, Church Times, Shropshire Star, Express & Star, Premier Christian News, the Lord-Lieutenant of Shropshire, and additional historical/community sources. It also documents a 33-year ordained ministry and his current office as Archdeacon of Salop.

I also think the context of the office may be relevant. The Archdeacon of Salop is a long-established senior Church of England office with its own Wikipedia article and a documented succession extending back many centuries. Watson is the current holder of that office and, in the existing succession list, appears to be the only holder for roughly the last three centuries whose name remains a red link rather than leading to a biography. I appreciate that holding a notable office does not automatically confer standalone notability under Wikipedia policy, but this seems relevant when assessing whether a short, well-sourced biography of the current incumbent is encyclopaedically useful.

I’m struggling to understand what specifically is still considered insufficient, especially as the three previous Archdeacons of Salop have standalone articles with substantially fewer references and similar source types.

Could you please indicate which cited sources you consider not to provide sufficient independent/significant coverage, and whether there is any realistic form of additional sourcing that would make the draft acceptable? Thanks. ~~~~ Floyd1677 (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

First and foremost, please do not use AI to talk to other editors. I have no desire to speak to a chatbot.

I also think the context of the office may be relevant... It's not. Appointed offices, whether secular or clerical, generally do not confer notability by default; only public offices do. Bishops would seem to be one of few exceptions, but the man in this case is not a bishop.

the three previous Archdeacons of Salop have standalone articles with substantially fewer references and similar source types. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Imagine a priest who wanted to be appointed as Archdeacon excused away his wanton sinfulness by saying "Well, I know of other archdeacons who've committed the same sins!" It's rather the same. We judge articles on their individual merits against our standards, we do not judge them against other articles that may well be themselves unsuitable.

Could you please indicate which cited sources you consider not to provide sufficient independent/significant coverage If you read them yourself, this should be abundantly clear to you. The Church Times source for instance is just a passing namedrop among a list of appointments. The fact that this does not constitute significant coverage should, I imagine, need no explanation. Another pitfall of outsourcing the work to AI. Athanelar (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Shashvat Nakrani

Hello Athanelar, I hope you are doing amazing. I saw that you recently reviewed and declined my Draft:Shashvat Nakrani submission. I want some clarification regarding the notability concern.

The article had previously passed AfC review and was moved to mainspace by a reviewer before it was later deleted under LLMPROD. After the deletion, I rewrote, improved and removed non-notable awards and promotional words from the draft and resubmitted it for review. Given that the article had previously passed AfC and reached mainspace, I’m a little confused about how the subject is now considered not notable. LegacyWiki (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@LegacyWiki In your view, which 3 sources on your draft meet all of the following criteria;

Significant coverage of your specific subject; not his companies, not events associated with him, but some in-depth, biographical coverage of him specifically

Reliable - i.e., from a respectable publication with reasonable editorial oversight

Independent - i.e., produced with no connection to or influence from your subject, which also means not being based on an interview with him, or a press release from his companies.

Tell me which 3 sources in the draft you think have all of the above, because in my estimation I found the provided sources to be lacking. Athanelar (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2026 (UTC)