Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive364

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366
Incidents (archives, search)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450
451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460
461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470
471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500
501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510
511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520
521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530
531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540
541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550
551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560
561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580
581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590
591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600
601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610
611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620
621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630
631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640
641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650
651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660
661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670
671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680
681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690
691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700
701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710
711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720
721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730
731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740
741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750
751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760
761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770
771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780
781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790
791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800
801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810
811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820
821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830
831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840
841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850
851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860
861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870
871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880
881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890
891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900
901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910
911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920
921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930
931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940
941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950
951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960
961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970
971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980
981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990
991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000
1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010
1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020
1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030
1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040
1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050
1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060
1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070
1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080
1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090
1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100
1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110
1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120
1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130
1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140
1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150
1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160
1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170
1171
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450
451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460
461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470
471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342
Other links

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



WP:RSN (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: S Marshall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: User talk:S Marshall#Closure review

Background: There are two separate objections. One to the close as a whole, and the other to the third paragraph. We present both here, and ask editors to say whether they support overturning the whole close, only the third paragraph, or none.

Reasoning - Third paragraph: Overall, I am satisfied with this closure. However, the closer claims that the Telgraph has an unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax, which is really misleading. That part of the debate centered over the Telegraph's unretracted claim that a student identified as a cat at a certain school (evinced by a viral argument in which a student brings up the "cat student" part as a rhetorical device), which is to be way less than what "embracing the litter boxes in schools hoax" implies; the Telegraph didn't even give that fact much weight anyways.
Now, someone has quoted this part of the closing summary on the Telegraph's WP:RSP entry, thus enabling this misleading part to inflict a lot more damage on those wishing to use RSP for a quick summary of existing consensus. If nothing else, I'd like at least this part to be amended.

As seen on the closer's talk page, at least 3 others are a lot more unsatisfied, believing that the closer falsely made claims of other misrepresentations being brought up and evinced. See BilledMammal's comment for details of this argument. Meanwhile, commenters here may want to consider the magnitude of !voters for deprecation who weren't convinced by the lack of factual misrepresentation. In the end, however, I personally am only concerned with removing or amending the misleading language I mention in the first paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that by "first paragraph", I meant the problematic language that I bring up in the first paragraph of my statement, not the first paragraph of the actual close. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Reasoning - Close as a whole: There are two issues with this closure; the closer has substantially misread the discussion, and the closer is WP:INVOLVED.

The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax is discussed at great length. The disputed article, here, is exhaustively dissected by the community, and, on the basis of scholarly sources and an Ofsted report, various misrepresentations contained in that article are noted. It's questioned whether these are really "misrepresentations" or confusions between fact and opinion. Towards the end of this, the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. And if the Telegraph has published a correction, then the "generally reliable" camp hasn't unearthed it.

This quoted paragraph, which is the only part of the close which focuses on the arguments made, is rife with inaccuracies. They say that various misrepresentations contained in that article are noted, but as far as I can tell only two misrepresentations were alleged; that the Telegraph endorsed the litter boxes in schools hoax, and that the Telegraph falsely claimed that a student identified as a cat.

The closer says that these allegations are proven on the basis of scholarly sources and an Ofsted report, but this in incorrect. As far as I can tell no scholarly papers were presented in relation to these allegations, and while the Ofsted report was presented, it was presented by those arguing "generally reliable", who pointed out that it took no position on whether a student actually identified as a cat.

They also interpret the consensus of the discussion on this as that the Telegraph has unashamed[ly] embrace[d] the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax. This is not a reasonable reading of discussion; editors rejected that claim on the basis that the Telegraph explicitly called claims of litter boxes in schools a hoax, and this counter-argument was endorsed by the majority of editors who commented on the claim.

Finally, they say towards the end of this, the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes. While a few editors on both the "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" side said that reliable sources are allowed to make occasional mistakes, it doesn't appear that this statement was especially common among the "generally reliable" camp, and to interpret this statement as meaning that those editors are recognizing that this specific example is a mistake is to read something into these !votes that is not there.

Given the number of factual errors made in the closer's summary of the discussion it is clear that it needs to be overturned and reclosed. This is particularly true because the closer is WP:INVOLVED, having argued in a previous discussion at RSN about the Telegraph in relation to politics that, while they considered it reliable for that sub-topic, it employs people with ghastly and abhorrent opinions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Closer (Telegraph)

[edit]

This is a no-consensus close, and there are two possible approaches to no-consensus. The first is the one usual at WP:AFD, where no consensus means no change. AFD puts the burden to achieve consensus on the pro-change side. User:Seraphimblade, below, clearly sees the discussion as being in this category.

The second is the one usual with content decisions, at WP:ONUS. ONUS puts the burden to achieve consensus on the anti-change side, and authorizes the removal of disputed material.

In closing this, I decided that the community doesn't have widespread confidence in the Daily Telegraph's coverage of trans issues, and therefore it shouldn't be listed as generally reliable. In other words, I decided to treat this as more like a content decision governed by WP:ONUS than a procedural one governed by AFD consensus. In doing this, I removed the first mover advantage that the "generally reliable" side expected and I think relied on. At issue here is the question: was I right to do that? If you think I was, you belong in the "endorse" column, and if you think I wasn't, then you belong at "overturn".

It's very arguable, and I won't object if the community overturns me here on that point. But I do think I'm right. My position is that we shouldn't be listing sources as generally reliable when the community has real doubts.

The claim that I was INVOLVED is much less arguable. INVOLVED means you can't close a discussion you've voted in, and it means you can't close a discussion about an article you've made non-trivial edits to. And that's all it says. If you stretch INVOLVED to allow claims that you're INVOLVED because you participated in a tangentially-related RFC on RSN the thick end of a year ago on the other side of the debate from your closure, then you've pulled it a long way out of its original shape, haven't you?

We as a community need to clarify what's INVOLVED and what isn't, because I've noticed that pretty much every time you make a disputed closure someone mentions it.—S Marshall T/C 07:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you misread INVOLVED. It’s not about single discussions, but disputes as a whole - and you’ve been involved in disputes in relation to the reliability of The Telegraph, and given the part of your comment I quoted you clearly also have strong feelings on the subject. BilledMammal (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
No, I don't have strong feelings about the Daily Telegraph. It employs people with ghastly and abhorrent opinions, and I certainly do have my views and opinions about some of those people, but that's not what's at issue here and the Daily Telegraph as a whole isn't a subject I care about.—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
That's not what ONUS says - it doesn't put the burden on "the anti-change side". It puts the burden on "those seeking to include disputed content". "Seeking to include" means the ones adding it. It doesn't say "seeking to include or retain". DeCausa (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The policy issue is where I said this: My position is that we shouldn't be listing sources as generally reliable when the community has real doubts.S Marshall T/C 13:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a view on that. I was just pointing out you've misread ONUS. DeCausa (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


S Marshall, I had not seen the indications of your involvement in this close, but you have even shown those here. WP:BADNAC states as the first reversal reason for a bad non-admin closure: The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved, with the exception of closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep[a] when all other viewpoints expressed were for keeping as well. You have indicated an opinion even here, and did so beforehand as well. So I will give you the option of reversing your closure, or I will, but it's going to be reversed. A discussion like this should be closed by an impartial closer, or perhaps a panel of them, but you have shown yourself not to be that. If you do not reverse your closure, I will do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
That would be an unwise and deeply controversial thing to do. I am not involved in this matter. At issue is whether the Daily Telegraph is reliable for statements about trans issues. I have never expressed a view on that. Historically I did express a view on the Daily Telegraph's reliability on politics. I said it was reliable for that, and it remains my view that the Daily Telegraph is reliable for politics. This doesn't make me involved in its reliability on other things and you do not get to unilaterally reverse a RFC close on your own judgment. That is not one of the powers the community has granted sysops.—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Either reverse or don't, coercing the closure to do so with an ultimatum is not ok. CNC (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
That is, in fact, one of the powers the community has granted sysops. WP:NAC specifically states that NACs are not appropriate in either of the following two situations: The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved, with the exception of closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep[a] when all other viewpoints expressed were for keeping as well., and The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. This closure at least arguably fails the two, but it dead clearly fails the second. It further states: Per Wikipedia:Deletion process § Non-administrators closing discussions,[b] inappropriate early closures of deletion debates may either be reopened by an uninvolved administrator. So, I intend to reopen it. For clarity, I don't intend to close it; I will leave that to others. I don't have a preferred outcome here, but this close was not appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
You won't do that without pushback. This wasn't a deletion decision so you don't get to rely on rules about deletion decisions, and I'm rather self-evidently not involved. Politics is not gender.—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't imagine I'll do it without pushback or without having people shouting at me. I've got a pretty thick skin by now. But I still think it needs to be done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I've reopened the discussion. As above, I do not intend to close it or in any way be involved with deciding on the outcome, but that outcome does need to be decided properly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturning the close might be premature. Is it normal to short circuit an AN RFC review in such a manner? Doesn't seem very efficient to have a big discussion here if the outcome is already ordained. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Do you also believe, per WP:NAC, that all of S Marshall's RfC closes on controversial topics should be reverted? Do you really want to set the precedent that all controversial closes must be handled by administrators? Do you think we have that capacity? I think this is a spectacularly bad exercise of judgement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
So you've overturned and relisted as an involved admin in this request, because you deem the closure was involved? I can't be the only one who sees the irony in this. CNC (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I saw a supervote/BADNAC here, and overturned it. I think that's what should be done. I wasn't involved in the discussion; I was upset by it because of how clearly unacceptable it was. That close didn't summarize the opinions in the discussions, it expressed the opinions of the closer. If that's not a bad close, I don't know what is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
And why do you think your 'upset' trumps the opinions of other editors who have expressed support for this close, or indeed those that agree that it should be overturned, but have decided to express that through discussion? This was very poor judgement. – Joe (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
BADNAC or not, your decision makes a mockery of this RfC review process. You expressed your opinion below to overturn and are clearly involved in the dispute here, then went ahead and supervoted the outcome. Being upset is no excuse for this, it's shocking. CNC (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Please restore the close and follow process here. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, what arrogance. Okay someone close this close review, although the AN certainly hasn't seen the last of this.—S Marshall T/C 11:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm stunned, Seraphimblade. Not only did you choose to ignore all the editors telling you that this was a bad idea and do it anyway, but you're now edit warring over it. Do you think this is how contentious decisions should be carried out? – Joe (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The close review shouldn't be closed. Seraphimblade should either do the right thing or a new discussion should he started here about the unilaterak overturn. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-participants (Telegraph)

[edit]
  • Overturn. Firstly, the close strikes me as making an argument rather than summarizing them, which raises at least substantial concerns of a supervote. But, that aside, the close seems to be a "no consensus", which means no change to the status quo, yet it then calls for a change in the status quo. Given these concerns and the incoherent nature in general, I think the discussion needs to be reclosed in terms of first, determining if there is any consensus whatsoever (if "no", no changes are made), and, if so, what it is and why. While I have not exhaustively reviewed the discussion, I did take a look over it, and I don't think a clear consensus could be discerned from it, so I think a "no consensus, therefore no change" closure would be the most appropriate result. But certainly "No consensus, but make a change anyway" is an incoherent one, so that can't stand. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Responding to I decided to treat this as more like a content decision governed by WP:ONUS than a procedural one governed by AFD consensus. In doing this, I removed the first mover advantage that the "generally reliable" side expected and I think relied on. At issue here is the question: was I right to do that? It is my opinion that "no consensus" often means "no change", even outside of AFD. But RSP is a clear exception to this, as stated in WP:MREL. No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply. The words "no consensus" are literally in the title/definition of what is frequently "option 2" in RSN RFCs. Unfortunately, my opinion on this does not add clarity here, but instead suggests that an RFC like this one, which had a lot of option 1 and option 3 !votes, could reasonably be closed as "no consensus" and become a consensus for option 2. Because of the murkiness of all of this, I leave this as a comment rather than a bolded endorse/overturn, and I simply leave this as food for thought. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Agree. RSP is simply a place where summaries of discussions are documented, not much else. We can't omit NC discussions because there was previously consensus for X, Y and Z. Whether previous consensus should remain, or be prioritised over a NC discussion, is another topic that effects more RSP entries than just The Telegraph. CNC (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    As to where the boundary of WP:INVOLVED is, it is my opinion that one is involved if reasonable editors perceive the closer as having an obvious bias. Even if the closer is not actually biased, the perception of such is important, imo. Is S Marshall involved here? I don't know. It will depend on if more than a couple editors feel that he has an obvious bias. A couple clearly think he does, but I think more input is needed before deciding that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    While your obviously entitled to your opinion, INVOLVED is not based on having a perceived bias. You have to prove that bias makes the closure impartial based on disputes or conflicts with other editors within that topic area. CNC (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse close, but can understand re-listing in order to be re-closed by a group of editors to satisfy all these "extra" issues, specifically regarding the closing summary. From a look at the discussion, I don't think any other close could have reasonably ascertained that there was consensus for GR or GU while remaining impartial, and thus no consensus was the correct assessment by default. I found the closing rationale very reasonable, even if I do understand concerns regarding some of the wording. In my opinion the weight given to the dispute of reliability in the closing summary otherwise makes sense. If the RfC failed to gain consensus, it makes sense to use more words explaining why there wasn't consensus from those who disputed reliability, as opposed to elaborating on why editors believed it was reliable, similar to the closure summaries of other contentious RfCs. Concerns over the closure's involvement otherwise need to be supported with diffs, specifically of the closure's involvement in disputes regarding The Telegraph or trans issues, otherwise this "fall back" argument is meaningless. CNC (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    @CommunityNotesContributor: I think you overlooked this diff I provided - sorry, I should have made its presence clearer rather than including it as a WP:EASTEREGG. BilledMammal (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    So no dispute then? Having an opinion is not being involved. Anything else? CNC (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    The dispute was regarding the reliability of the Telegraph. Having an opinion made them a party to that dispute. Editors who are parties to a dispute are forbidden from closing discussions broadly related to that dispute, and whether the Telegraph is reliable for politics is a dispute very closely related to whether it is reliable for trans issues. BilledMammal (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    "Having an opinion made them a party to that dispute." That's a huge stretch. CNC (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    To clarify; they expressed their opinion while participating in the dispute. That makes them a party to the dispute. BilledMammal (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion was "What do we think of the reliability of this story", the editor provided an opinion on that. They didn't engage in any dispute with other editors, ie argue with other editors, it was an isolated comment. To clarify, this discussion is a dispute, because we are arguing. See the difference? CNC (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion was Reliability of the Daily Telegraph for politics?, and the notion that it is only a dispute if there is arguing is... novel. Interpreting it that way would mean that editors would even be able to close RfC's they participate in, so long as they don't engage in any back-and-forth discussion.
    This discussion is getting a little deep, so I'll step out now. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    WP:INVOLVED does have novel wording: " Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics,...". This is not a "conflict" with other editors, nor based on trans topics. The wording at WP:CLOSE arguably has a higher bar for contesting: "if the closing editor may have become inextricably involved through previous experience in the conflict area", so a throwaway opinion isn't going to cut it here. CNC (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I found the close very reasoned. I can understand that some may take issue with the description "unashamed embrace", however the crux of the issue is that the paper published a hoax in the area of gender identity and when it was demonstrated that it was hoax they didn't publish a correction. To me that seems perfectly relevant to the question of whether The Telegraph is reliable on trans issues regardless of the specific wording. TarnishedPathtalk 11:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    What hoax are you referring to with the paper published a hoax? BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    The kitty litter hoax, the claim that accommodations were being made to children who identified as animals. Is there something else that the close referred to as an "unashamed embrace" of? TarnishedPathtalk 03:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    The paper did not make that claim, it reported on others making that claim, cited to them. It did not report that as fact. We don't expect reliable sources to avoid reporting on others spouting falsehoods - otherwise every US news source that has reported on all of Trump's falsehoods would have to be unreliable, since they reported them! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    (however many do expect newspapers to issue updates when falsehoods come to light, but we're going off-topic here. point is, that part of the close unduly exaggerates the consensus on the nature of the issue discussed.) Aaron Liu (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    There was a recent discussion about Al Jazeera that many of the editors commenting here had to have seen (and quite a few participated in) where the conclusion I observed is that is not expected for "news" that was accurate at the time and cited/attributed to another source that later updates itself - so long as their future news stories are in compliance with the updated information. I agree with you that it unduly exaggerates the amount of consensus for "unreliable" to make it a "no consensus". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    That the newspaper published a hoax is not a summary of the discussion. It is one contention that was strongly disputed within the discussion. The term "unashamed embrace" shouldn't be an issue for some, it should be an issue for all, as it wasn't even argued during the discussion. Editors who claimed the Telegraph was knowingly printing false material also often argued that they snuck it in through quotes by dubious actors rather than putting it in their own voice. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Closer says that WP:ONUS applies to editors who object to adding a rule so "those who want the status quo need to achieve positive consensus for it", it will be good if admins comment that's not how it works. It's fine to agree with the minority that the cat affair justifies action but that's a vote not an evaluation of consensus. However, adding twaddle to the essay-class WP:RSP page needn't concern admins. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Given that the closer assessed this as "no consensus", the correct and only outcome is to retain the status quo, which is that the Telegraph is "generally reliable". The spiel above about WP:ONUS mandating some other outcome is not supported by WP guidelines and effectively takes the close into WP:SUPERVOTE territory. This should be reclosed properly, with no consensus meaning no change to the status. That's not to say we would always have to follow the Telegraph on trans issues, of course, ONUS does apply at individual article level across the project, and where claims in the Telegraph represent WP:FRINGE viewpoints when compared with other sources, it's correct to ignore them. That's a far cry from there being a consensus to label it as "reliability disputed" though.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Note that "no consensus" for a source evaluation brings it into WP:MREL, its own status for "no consensus". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    That would apply if the matter had never been discussed before, with no status quo, and this were to establish a new position. But that's not the case. There was an RFC in 2022 which concluded that the Telegraph is generally reliable. This RFC here sought to amend that prior consensus and add a new caveat for trans issues specifically. Altering previous consensus requires consensus, not a lack thereof. Lack of consensus means retain status quo.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Lack of consensus that a source is generally reliable means that it isn't generally reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    It means nothing of the sort. It means nobody could agree if it is or not. You don't get to "win" the argument by default just because some people agreed with you and some people didn't. This principle would also apply if it had previously been declared unreliable. The status quo remains.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    If nobody can agree if it is or is not reliable, then it can't, by definition, be generally reliable. WP:RSP#Legend defines "Generally reliable" as Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    The status quo of RSP is categorising discussions based on consensus or lack of. CNC (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    It's been referenced before but RSP is a summary of discussions. If there is no consensus over the reliability of a source, or over a particular topic from a source, then it will be documented as such. The reliability of The Telegraph was otherwise previously discussed prior to the RfC. What your implying has broader implications on RSP categorisation. CNC (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Potential involvement aside, the bit about WP:ONUS on the closer's talk page takes this into supervote territory. I will leave it to the new closer or closers to decide the outcome. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse. This was a good close. Firstly I don't see how a single past opinion about a separate topic that The Daily Telegraph covers would then indicate the closer is therefore WP:INVOLVED in this topical circumstance (i.e., this single opinion doesn't make the closer "inextricably involved... in the conflict area"). This is especially true in this case, where the closer's broader comment was essentially about the apparent ability of the newspaper to still remain factual despite the individual biases of of a subset of employees. Secondly, about the close itself, the legend for Perennial Sources list entries labeled "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" (i.e. Option 2 of RSN RfCs) provides the relevant detail for evaluation here: "Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances." The discussion in this RfC clearly fits the description of "may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate". If discussions are split between Options 1 and 3 (or 4) and no consensus emerges, as was the case here, the discussion then pretty clearly renders into Option 2 territory when it's time to close. It's clear to me the Option 2 of active RfC discussions is for considering the "unclear" and "additional considerations apply" aspects of the label during such discussions, but needn't be explicitly invoked at a level that cements 'consensus for a lack of consensus', so to speak, for it to be the correct outcome. This case shakes out as no consensus about the reliability of The Daily Telegraph for the subject of trans issues, exactly as the closer found it. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse as far as I am concerned, closes deserve some minor presumption of regularity, and there should be a showing of some meaningful issue or bias before we go about overturning one. I see nothing of the sort here, and the close strikes me as well within the range of possibilities that a reasonable closer might choose. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The closer's summary is rife with misleading claims and analysis, along with real concerns of a supervote, as many others have pointed out at length. I'd like to put specific emphasis on what the closer should have, but did not mention in the summary:
    • 1. The sheer amount of sensationalist claims the original poster had listed that went on to be directly and irrefutibly shown to be either false or misleading. See discussion there at length
    • 2. Directly following that, a re-evaluation of the merits of the one remaining possible 'single mistake' (the child's identity as a cat) to even possibly warrant this RfD to result in a characterization of 'reliability disputed'
    • 3. An accurate presentation of the terms of that misrepresented 'one mistake', which was revealed in discussion to be a mistaken assumption based on information the paper was provided with
    • 4. The major amount of support in the 'unreliable' camp that were either based on non-arguments or used language suggesting they had taken all of the original poster's assertions at face value. A sampling: "it was extensively proven that the Telegraph propagates blatant lies"; another user says "we should never use a newspaper for almost anything"; yet another states "the Telegraph is not a source of expert opinion on this topic... there's no reason Wikipedia needs to publish anything they say about it". There are many more !votes that are non-starters when you read the reasoning.
The closer did not recognize the importance of depreciating the value of any editors' votes that were not based on any evidence discussed in the RfC, besides the other issues raised above and by other editors. I hope the next close will be fairer. JoeJShmo💌 06:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn While I think I agree with the closer, the way it was phrased makes it fairly clear this was a supervote at best. Lulfas (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn First, I don't find the WP:INVOLVED argument compelling. Commenting on a previous RFC about the Telegraph's reliability as a whole is approaching the line, but I think it is firmly on the "acceptable" side of it. Reading the close itself, I see substantial defects on the merits to the point that it looks like a WP:SUPERVOTE. The close seems to take assertions made by the 3/4 camp at face value (especially the litter box thing, which was a clear point of disagreement as to what facts they were stating), while minimizing or totally glossing over arguments made by the 1 !voters, especially the comprehensive refutations of the RFC basis by Chess. The weighting applied to these arguments is also strange. Editors on both sides made some poor arguments, but a lot of the 3 and most of the 4 !voters made arguments that were weak or totally irrelevant. Those addressing the opinion pieces or "platforming" certain views mean nothing for reliability, since those are already unusable for statements of fact. Some accepted the litter box claims at face value, totally ignoring the refutations to them much like the close itself did. Other !votes were bare statements of opinion, such as I'd barely trust the Telegraph with the weather, let alone any politics, and least of all any kind of gender politics. When these non-arguments are down-weighted or discarded, I believe the consensus becomes very clear. I would have closed it as WP:GREL, but with an additional note that while factually reliable, there was consensus that their coverage of trans issues is biased and special attention should be given to WP:DUE. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    But that clearly would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE, since there obviously wasn't a consensus in the discussion. The idea that a "refutation" must be accepted by everyone else who !votes subsequent to it is obviously silly. The "refutation" just wasn't convincing to many editors. Loki (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    It was not convincing or not - many editors chose to ignore it completely, rather than explain why they were not convinced. As I stated elsewhere, if an editor wishes to express their view that a refutation is not convincing, that is fine and could be given weight as appropriate, as the person you replied to did. But if all they do is ignore it, their vote must be seen in light of the fact they are ignoring the discussion on it, and only commenting with their opinion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    In which case we must also regard every comment that does not explicitly mention every piece of evidence or (claimed) refutations of that evidence as ignoring that evidence and/or refutation. i.e. the same standards must be applied to everyone. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think it is especially controversial to say that a !vote that considers the counter arguments and rejects them is stronger than one that simply repeats the claims with nothing showing they've done any actual analysis of it. I didn't say those should be totally ignored, just weighted accordingly. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think it's more controversial than you think it is. Imagine the following two !votes:
    • Support I think we should only include a mention of Darwin's Origin of Species, because of the many reliable sources that support it, and the zero that support the "aliens did it" hypothesis advanced by the OP. - Alice
    • Oppose Alice claims that no reliable sources support the "aliens did it" hypothesis, but what about "Aliens Did It" by Quacky McQuackerson? - Bob
    Which of these !votes is stronger? Which should be weighted more highly? Loki (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Considering that in this hypothetical you're "Bob" (Alice claims that the Telegraph doesn't endorse the Litter boxes in schools hoax, but what about this article where they call it a hoax?), that isn't exactly a counter-argument. BilledMammal (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    You are indeed Bob in this case. You are saying that the source says something that everyone with eyes can read for themselves is not what the source is saying. You’ve claimed that the source “states that the litter boxes in schools happened” - but that was clearly refuted as they merely reported on the hoax that was stated by others, with attribution. Ditto for the other things you’ve claimed. To be quite blunt, when an editor is as misleading as your initial claims in the RfC are, and they are so clearly refuted that there is virtually nobody arguing after the fact that isn’t equally misrepresenting the sources, all of the !votes based on the misrepresentation need to be weighted heavily down, or given no weight if they provide zero other justification than the misinformation.
    In other words, we should not be in the habit of rewarding people who promote quackery (such as Bob), or who promote misinformation/misleading reading of a source to try and “win” the argument (like you did). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    You say "everyone with eyes" agrees with you, ignoring the many people with eyes who disagree with you. Loki (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    ...which is what many option 3 !voters did. The difference between these sides which both didn't mention refutations is that more option 3 !voters often did not provide refutations. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    And what I'm saying here is that a weak refutation should not be more heavily weighted than no refutation. If anything it should be weighted less, because it reveals a fundamentally weak argument. Loki (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    That’s absolutely absurd. Someone who is expressing their opinion with reasoning/rationale will always be weighted higher than someone who drives by and “throws a !vote at the house”. You claim it’s weak, then care to explain why a majority of “non drive by” editors after the refutation agreed with it? And of those who didn’t, very few bothered to actually explain what they found wrong with it? Those two things are, in fact, the sign of a strong refutation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree wholeheartedly. This contention seems entirely misconceived to me, and also somewhat oppressive. Giving full reasons can't be mandatory. If I'm at AfD, I shouldn't have to type out, "I concur with the nominator. I too have carried out an exhausive search for sources and I too have not been able to locate an acceptable one. Like the nominator, I don't agree that this person's blog is a useful source for their biography." I should be allowed to type "Delete per nom" in the happy expectation that my contribution will get full weight. People must not be made to feel they have to type out arguments that have already been well made, in full, before their view is counted.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    It depends on the context. If at the AfD the nom says "Fails GNG", and an editor subsequently posts a list of sources, saying "per nom" is a very weak argument - you need to address the rebuttal.
    It's similar here. If you say "Per Loki", you need to address the rebuttal that argued Loki not only failed to provide sources for the claim that the Telegraph endorsed the Litter boxes in schools hoax, but that one of the sources they did provide explicitly called it a hoax. BilledMammal (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    It's long been understood that WP:PERX is a weak argument. While WP:ATA is an essay, it has broad community support. As mentioned on that page, Where reasonable counter-arguments to the nomination have been raised in the discussion, you may wish to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshalling your own evidence. At least giving some evidence that you've read the opposing arguments and disagree with them shows that you've done some kind of analysis. If we don't weigh arguments according to how comprehensive, informed, and well-grounded they are then all we have left is a headcount. To also quote from WP:CRFC, The degree to which arguments have been rebutted by other editors may be relevant, as long as the rebuttals themselves carry sufficient weight. If one group is responding directly to the other’s arguments but the other isn’t, that may be relevant to determining which group has better reasoning. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    When the arguments they are citing have been solidly refuted with significant agreement with that refutation, then yes, the editor should be expected to justify their agreement or have their argument down weighted accordingly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Considering almost all of nom's original arguments were at best misrepresentations, votes along the lines of "delete per nom" should've been- and should be- majority depreciated. The litter box hoax was a non starter, and nom was reduced to "claims along the lines of a litter box hoax". Further claims were shown to be non-starters as well. Any vote relying on nom's presentation of the issues stated quite possibly could've been completely disqualified, and at the least depreciated. JoeJShmo💌 01:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    @S Marshall, is your reading of the discussion that Loki's opening stood more or less unrebutted? Nominator brought 14 links to the Telegraph in their nomination. 9 were described by nominator as directly saying false things. All 9 by my count conclusively refuted farther in the discussion as nothing more than biased presentation at most.
    The 5 others were to do with the cat-gate at Rye College. Nominator brought two articles from the Guardian and Pink News to show Telegraph coverage was proven false. In fact, while the Pink News at least states that the Telegraph's reporting is false, it certainly doesn't prove it. The Guardian simply carries the school's denial that a student identifies as a cat.
    And then the rub. No one has actually proven that a student did or didn't identify as a cat. But editors continue to dispute whether demonstrating factual inaccuracy is an important part of a finding of unreliability, so there's that.
    Nominator also brought up some academic sources which I haven't had time to look into as deeply but which were strongly contested in discussion (and which you didn't mention in your close anyway).
    So out of 14 Telegraph articles, and 2 articles in the Guardian and Pink News, nominator managed to directly misrepresent the content of 11, and there is, at the very least, a significant case that nominator directly misrepresented the content of the other 5. This was spelled out clearly early in the discussion. But you think "Per Loki" and "Per Chess" should be given equal weight, because Loki actually made the misrepresentations, while Chess only pointed them out? Samuelshraga (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Loki's nomination statement was exhaustively analyzed by the community in that RFC. It enjoyed significant support and received significant opposition, and overall there was no consensus about its accuracy. The question at issue in that RFC was: Where does bias become unreliability? The community doesn't agree on the answer, but there certainly is not a consensus that the Telegraph is general reliable about trans people.
I did not say and do not think that all Loki's arguments were unrefuted. I do think it's proven that the Telegraph's reporting on the litter boxes in schools hoax was inflammatory in the extreme, that it published the report using reported speech but otherwise uncritically, and that it failed to publish a correction.—S Marshall T/C 07:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
This is just not a reasonable, policy-informed reading of the RfC. The question at issue was not Where does bias become unreliability. Bias does not become unreliability. One can be biased without being unreliable and vice versa. The question was "What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?". Being inflammatory is not evidence of unreliability. Failing to publish a correction is not evidence of unreliability if it can't be demonstrated that the paper published a falsehood.
The nomination statement enjoyed significant support and received significant opposition, and overall there was no consensus about its accuracy. Is this more vote counting? Where have you weighed arguments? Samuelshraga (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
...and now we're getting somewhere. You don't have to be caught in a lie to be deceptive. Those appalling fundraising banners that the Wikimedia Foundation displays on our site are a really good example of this: being deceptive without actually lying. This practice of misleading people by telling the absolute truth, in an incredibly selective way, is called paltering and it's widely used by marketers, politicians, lawyers, pressure groups, and at least here in the UK, in newspapers. And if you could read what the "unreliable" camp said without understanding this, then I would gently suggest that you have an opportunity to re-read the debate more carefully.
The "unreliable" camp did not have to catch the Daily Telegraph in a falsehood. They just had to catch them telling the truth so selectively that bias becomes actual deception.
They didn't have to prove the Daily Telegraph intends to deceive. Deception can be inadvertent, particularly when it's by editors who're checking facts rather than checking for balance. We know all about this from Wikipedian content disputes: it's possible to deceive in good faith.
All the "unreliable" camp had to do was convince Wikipedians (1) that it's possible to be mislead by the Telegraph's coverage and (2) this happens often enough to affect the Daily Telegraph's reliability about trans people.
In my judgment, they failed. They did not achieve a consensus that the Daily Telegraph is unreliable.
I then had to decide what to do in the absence of a consensus.—S Marshall T/C 08:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
It's fascinating if this was the basis for your ruling, given that you don't seem to have mentioned this in either your original or expanded close.
Had you mentioned it, doubtless you would have given an excellent explanation of how when editors rebutted charges of "misleading" with a defence of factual accuracy (e.g. here), they were missing the point. And pointed to discussants who actually said that being accurate but misleading was the basis of their case for GUNREL.
And when it was argued that the bar for reliability should be rooted in what false/misleading claims could be cited in articles rather than uncitable misleading implications (first sentence here and last 2 paragraphs here), you would have explained which counter-arguments you found to this point and how you weighted them, to reach a No Consensus finding.
I also note that this is the 3rd separate explanation I've seen you give for your close. It still doesn't contain a weighing of arguments, but I'll grant you that it's less egregious than the previous two. I look forward to the next one. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm clearly never going to convince you, but I have a chance at convincing your audience, so I'll deal with that too.
I'm allowed to explain my close in different ways, because you're allowed to spend thousands of words attacking it in different ways.
It's not for me to decide which counterarguments are persuasive. That's not the closer's role.
The RFC isn't a closer's suggestion box. It's an exhaustive dive into what the community thinks.
I don't decide who was right. I decide what the community as a whole thinks about the subject.
I believe that the community as a whole is at "no consensus" on the Daily Telegraph's reliability on trans issues.
And I believe that RSP should say so.
And if I'd weighted the arguments the way you want, I really would have been supervoting.—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
If I thought you'd weighed arguments in a way that I don't like - if I thought you'd weighed arguments at all - then I would have just grumbled about Wikipedia in my head, and not come to a big central forum like this.
People on this noticeboard seem to have plenty of respect for your track record as a closer, even if they think you missed the mark here. As someone who is new to these discussions, I don't see much to respect about this close. In fact I don't see much evidence that you even gave the RfC more than a cursory skim. I wasn't one of the people who invested a lot of time in the arguments at the RfC, but if I were I would be pretty livid that someone would come on and clearly count votes without reference to arguments or policy. If I encounter your future closes I will endeavour to keep an open mind, in deference to the people who seem to value your contributions in general, though not in this case. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The idea that a "refutation" must be accepted by everyone else who !votes subsequent to it is not what's being proposed here. I also don't expect S Marshall to take every unrefuted point as fact,
    The ask is that a closing statement explain why an evaluation of consensus was made.
    S Marshall accepted your view that The Telegraph promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax, but did not provide an explanation for why your claim was the consensus and why refutations of it were not. Because your claim was accepted at face value, the consensus was for Option 2.
    I expect closes to explain why opposing views were rejected in addition to summarizing consensus. Otherwise, there is no indication that a closer considered viewpoints other than the one they ultimately endorsed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Very, very well put. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Note that this was originally a reply to Loki's comment above, starting with But that clearly would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse. As Novem Linguae notes in their comment above, no consensus on source reliability is not the same thing as no change or keeping the status quo. We have here a source which where reliability is a matter of contention among editors, with dozens of well explained and policy-grounded arguments for both declaring the source as unreliable and reliable. Even discounting arguments focused on bias instead of reliability, I can see no weighing of the arguments that comes to any conclusion besides that editors do not agree on the reliability of The Telegraph on transgender topics. WP:MREL exists for a reason. RSP provides guidance on whether there is broad consensus on the reliability of common sources. Source evaluation within articles is always a matter of judging the specific claims and context. Dylnuge (TalkEdits) 02:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn and reclose to same result. People have already pointed out the problems with the close statement itself, but I think "no consensus" is the correct conclusion to be drawn from that discussion. WP:MREL says Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate which I think is certainly the case here. It would be very hard to close the discussion for one side or the other without that close being a supervote itself. Pinguinn 🐧 11:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse outside of paragraph 3 The INVOLVED concerns do not move me per CNC, and I think S Marshall's interpretation of RSP (that a lack of consensus for reliability should be explicitly noted, not keep the status quo) is correct. With that being said, no consensus was found that the Telegraph articles about the Rye College debacle constituted promotion of a "hoax"; the closer writes about it as if the proposition there was hoax-promotion was agreed upon, and editors disagreed whether that alone was enough to make the Telegraph unreliable. Still, there was definitely not consensus the Telegraph is reliable for these issues; Aquillion's presentation of academic sources that criticize the Telegraph's reporting on this subject was never adequately rebutted, for one.
Even if S Marshall's close was flawed, I really do not want to go through the whole song and dance of reclosing with what will almost certainly be the same result, stated more verbosely. Sometimes I feel as if the consensus model tends toward rule by CAVE people. Mach61 13:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn Agree with the those who have argued that this should be reclosed properly. Even some of the editors who endorse the close recognize there's problems with wording of the close. The best way forward is to overturn the close and close it correctly. I realize this might seem like a waste of time, but when editors invest this much time into a review we might as well get it right. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse Its pretty clear from above that many agree with the close substance, like I do as well. It seems that the closer made a comment in the close that led to this discussion, but that doesnt lead me to question the substance of the close. I do not find the supervote nor involved arguments to be convincing either. If the source isnt generally reliable, which clearly it isnt from this and other discussions, then it starts to look more like a drop the stick or SOAP issue to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    • @Jtbobwaysf: - regardless of the substance of the close, the controversial comment I suppose you are referring to was explictly referred to in the added RSN entry: ("In the 2024 RfC, The Telegraph's "unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked litter boxes in schools hoax" was discussed, and it was noted that the misrepresentations about this remain unretracted.) How do we solve this issue if the close is endorsed? starship.paint (RUN) 00:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
      The obvious place would be discussing it at RSP, to discuss how a summary should read. I don't think you'll find any support for including that quote in future, based on this discussion alone. Common sense can simply prevail here. CNC (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
      I don't question the substance either, but it is extremely bad for what's supposed to be a neutral summary that saves peoples' time to mislead its readers on such an important point. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
      I agree with CNC that this additional and unnecessary summary of the close should be trimmed over at RSP. The fact that we are discussing such far off theories (even if untrue) associated with this source should point to the validity of the close. Again I endorse, I am confident the additional comment can be struck without needing to re-run the discussion. Just do what is simple rather than making it complicated. I believe whoever closes this discussion can just find that the close comment as a matter of fact is incorrect (while the overall close is non-controversial), strike it, and thus subsequently remove the summary over at at RSP. Seems simple enough to me Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
      So now we've got the nominator at this close review who wants to overturn, and an uninvolved contributor who endorses, both giving exactly the same reasoning for their position.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
      Important to note that I dont agree that the closer was involved, so we disagree on a key policy issue. We can be clear from this review discussion as well as the original discussion that there is clearly no-consensus that the source is reliable, or anywhere close to reliable for that matter. This isnt a matter where this discussion is going to be overturned and then spontaneously the source will be viewed in the next discussion as reliable. So common sense means we would not need to overturn this to put it back to another discussion, as if the matter was undecided. We are only dealing with a close summary that was a bit off, but the close itself is correct. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
      I think that overturning that paragraph counts as overturning the close. It seems Jtbob feels like the biggest damages can be resolved without amending the close statement and that the summary isn't damaging enough to amend, the latter of which I definitely disagree with. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
      You're right that directly amending the close would be overturning. Hence for example I endorse the close as the correct outcome, but can understand overturning based on the summary. The reality is this RfC could be closed specifying that parts of the closing summary X, Y and Z, were inappropriate and/or inaccurate, while not directly overturning that RfC, only adding an additional summary to it, based on the discussion that has occurred here. Ie as a note to the top of that RfC, but not within it, thus not actually overturning the close itself. Sometimes it'd be nice to simply think outside the box to avoid a lot of legwork of re-closing such a long RfC. CNC (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
      I don't see how the additional summary would work. If it doesn't mention that the close's language on Rye College is inaccurate, then it won't really be effective. If it does, I feel like we'd need consensus that it's inaccurate. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
      Consensus based on the close of this RfC, attached above the previous. It would be the same concept as re-closing with the same result, without the extra hassle. A new concept you might say. CNC (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
      I feel like that would require the same level of consensus as a closure review. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
      It wouldn't no. It would be another RfC closure, as this is an RfC. CNC (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    This isn't an RfC, and if it requires consensus here anyway I'd rather we just amend the original language than invent something untested and potentially confusing. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse except paragraph 3. S Marshall's interpretation of RSP is right. However, 'unashamed embrace' of the litter boxes hoax is an inaccurate summary of consensus. That incorrect phrasing was immediately being used in RSP for anyone looking-up the source. Rewriting that part might be the simplest way of resolving this, some editors have helpfully suggested alternative wording. I can believe the closer is usually good, I agree with much of what they say and know closing detail is tricky, but the summary currently doesn't do justice to the editors who spent time analysing the sources. It makes sense to bring up the further explanation added by the closer afterward, up into the main summary, so it's all easily accessible without further clicks, Tom B (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn The close was no doubt in good faith, however it is not well argued, and indeed it should not really be argued at all. It also isn't really a close.
    • It gives platform to the most flagrantly gender-critical tracts by anti-woke activists. This is irrelevant. Tracts by activists are opinion pieces, and whether they are the "most flagrant" or the "most Satanic" or the "most wonderful" they should not be cited for anything other than the opinion of their authors.
    • widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax - as remarked elsewhere the Telegraph pointed out that it was a hoax. The only factual error seems to have revolved around whether there was a cat identifying pupil, which to me seems irrelevant. The crux of the story is the, undisputed, unkind criticism of the child who thought such a thing would be silly.
    • We label a source as "generally reliable" when there's widespread consensus that the source can be trusted to publish fact and retract error. I think this is overegging the pudding. In general there is consensus among relatively few editors, which we believe would be widely shared.
    • We must say […] that the Daily Telegraph is generally reliable, except as regards trans issues and gender-critical views, where the Daily Telegraph's reliability is disputed. This is really not a close. It's a continuation of the RfC by other means.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC).
  • Overturn - too much of the closer's own opinion on the issue in dispute was in the closing statement; not enough of the statement was spent summarizing the discussion and explaining how votes were weighed. Let someone else close it; no comment on how it should be closed. But a "no consensus" result at RSN (for a perennial source) should mean a 2 (yellow) listing at RSP. That's what "2" means: no consensus on reliability. "1" if there is consensus it's reliabile, "3" if there is consensus it's not, and otherwise, 2. Levivich (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I did not participate in the discussion and have no interest in this dispute other than an interest in broadsheet newspapers generally. The close misrepresents consensus. For example, the close says that the Telegraph embraced the hoax. In reality, there is at least no consensus that the Telegraph embraced the hoax, and a lengthy argument about whether it did. Similarly, the close misrepresents and displays a failure to understand policy. For example, the close claims that a source is not "generally reliable" unless there is widespread consensus that it is. In reality, the policy WP:NEWSORG says that news reporting from well-established news outlets is "generally" reliable for statements of fact. If it is possible under that policy to dispute the "general" reliabilty of the Telegraph at all (and it is not obvious that it is possible to dispute it under the policy, if you accept that the Telegraph is "well-established" as a national daily quality broadsheet newspaper of record established in 1855, and one of at most five such newspapers still published in England), the policy must create a presumption that it is generally reliable and place the burden of proof on those who seek to rebut that presumption. Likewise the closer claims that WP:ONUS applies to disputes over the reliability of sources. In fact, WP:ONUS applies to the disputes about the inclusion of content in articles, which is a completely different matter concerned with the exclusion of verifiable content on grounds of "due weight" and similar issues. Likewise the closer claims that the question in the RfC was where does bias become unreliability? In reality, policy WP:BIASED says that reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. Finally, the closer misrepresents the effect of no consensus in a discussion where there are already policies, namely WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED. If there are policies, there is an existing site consensus. WP:DETCON says "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" (my emphasis). That appears to mean viewed through the lens of the policy WP:NEWSORG. I think I should also point out that WP:RSP is not a policy or guideline, does not override the policy WP:NEWSORG, and should have been weighted accordingly. I think it could also be reasonably argued that no consensus is capable of meaning "no consensus to change the text of RSP", but I express no opinion about whether it does mean that. James500 (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    WP:NEWSORG isn't policy, and it doesn't say all newspapers are reliable unless there's consensus otherwise. We've rightly found parts of the British mainstream press, notably but not only the Daily Mail, properly unreliable in the past. The burden of proof doesn't lie where you say it does.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, upon closer inspection, I find that WP:NEWSORG is in fact a guideline, and not a policy. However, if WP:DETCON does not apply to guidelines, the effect would be to throw all guidelines out of the window. I am not aware that we have ever found a quality broadsheet print newspaper to be unreliable. The Daily Mail is a tabloid, and it is not, and as far as I am aware, never has been, quality press. It is not apparent that the Daily Mail is "well established" within the meaning of WP:NEWSORG. I think I should point out that NEWSORG makes a distiction between news sources being reliable and their being generally reliable. I am not saying that the Telegraph cannot be unreliable for a particular fact or statement, or even for a particular topic. I am saying that "generally reliable" means something different to that in NEWSORG. James500 (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    Well, exactly so. The discussion we're analysing is about whether the Telegraph is unreliable for a particular topic, to whit, trans people. My position is that there's no consensus about whether it's reliable for that topic, and that WP:RSP should say so. Do you think there's a consensus it's reliable?—S Marshall T/C 11:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    Even if all well-established broadsheet newspapers are presumed to be generally reliable until found otherwise, this requires that there be some mechanism by which such newspapers can be found otherwise (otherwise we would be saying they are always generally reliable regardless of any evidence to the contrary). That mechanism is a discussion at RSN, and this RFC was an example of such a discussion. It follows that it must be possible for that discussion to find that a well-established broadsheet newspaper is something other than generally reliable, either for all topics or for some subset of topics. Whether this discussion did establish that is the point of this discussion. Additionally, the reliability of a source can change over time - just because the Telegraph has a long history of being regarded as reliable does not imply anything about whether it is or is not reliable today. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    I am going to strike my !vote, since it appears that it might actually be unitelligible. I was not asserting that the newspaper was reliable on this topic, a matter on which I have no personal opinion. All that I objected to was to was certain reasoning and wording used in the closing statement and by the closer to produce a particular outcome. I did not mean to express any opinion on the outcome itself. James500 (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think it was unintelligible. The close mispresents consensus. For example, the close says that the Telegraph embraced the hoax. In reality, there is at least no consensus that the Telegraph embraced the hoax, and a lengthy argument about whether it did. This on its own is a perfectly reasonable and widely shared opinion that argues for overturn, before any weighing of the second part of your comment.
    Your opinion about the relative weight of the status quo in the presumption of reliability in established news organisations should not have been read by anyone as an argument that the Telegraph was reliable. I think it was an important response, especially that you pointed out that no consensus is capable of meaning "no consensus to change the text of the RSP". It was certainly my understanding of the RfC, and the way that I framed my contribution to it, that the question was whether the evidence presented merited downgrading the Telegraph, and that positive arguments for its reliability were assumed. I'm sure some editors would have put those arguments had the discussion been framed in the way that some people in this review now interpret it. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    The question was "What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?". If the outcome of that discussion is "no consensus", how can an RSP entry saying "Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases" on trans issues be accurate or appropriate? This is a genuine question - I am trying to understand the arguments for that position because I currently do not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    The RSN RFC question was exceedingly clear, and is the standard question for RSN RFCs: What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues? The questions was not "should it be downgraded," or "should the RSP entry be changed", in which case, one could argue that no-consensus means no change. But since the question was "What is the reliability?" with the standard 4 options, no consensus on the reliability means Option 2, at least in my view. And that's true for all RSN "What is the reliability?" 4-question RFCs. Levivich (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    This is absolutely fair, but a reading of the discussion shows that the approach that was taken was "should it be downgraded", although I take your point that these were not the terms of the question at the RfC. I think a fair summation of the discussion would recognise this. Personally my involvement on the RfC was just to say that after the refutations of the RfC nomination, I didn't see that there was any case to answer for unreliability. I think if contributors had thought there were any need to make a positive case for reliability, rather than just refute the case for unreliability, they would have done so. If the RfC is re-opened with this point clarified, I'm sure they will. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree that is a fair summation of the RFC - from what I can tell the majority of people were answering the question that was asked. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    If you read Closer's statement at this review, you will find in his explanation: In other words, I decided to treat this as more like a content decision governed by WP:ONUS than a procedural one governed by AFD consensus. In doing this, I removed the first mover advantage that the "generally reliable" side expected and I think relied on.
    Closer saw that GREL side expected that the status quo had weight, and didn't feel that they had to make a positive case for general reliability. Meaning if this RfC is closed no consensus, why wouldn't we have another RfC straight away containing the positive case for Telegraph's reliability as part of the Option 1 case? As closer says, GREL-supporters relied on this argument being assumed last time, so this would be new evidence in the discussion.
    The remedy here seems to me to re-open the RfC under discussion to allow that case to be made (and rebutted) now, and then close with those arguments explicitly considered. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    I would concur with this perception. In the absence of a legitimate case for unreliability (ie, the presented evidence was roundly and comprehensively debunked) there was no positive case to make.
    This RFC discussion in practice proceeded very much like "is there a consensus that the catgirl story was a hoax, and thus that the Telegraph is unreliable", and the consensus was quite clearly no it was not a hoax (especially if reading only votes that went beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT), and any fair reading of the evidence was no it was not a hoax. The case was so poorly made, what else was there to do? Yet the closer insisted on still describing it as a hoax, and proceeded to downgrade the source citing that as a basis, unilaterally widening the subject beyond that stated in the RFC in the process. Void if removed (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    I didn't think it was unintelligible either; seemed well-reasoned to me. Levivich (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse except paragraph 3. A no consensus close is well within closer's discretion, and it would be hard to envision this being closed any other way. S Marshall is one of our most experienced and competent closers. His summaries tend to be more colorful than others ("willing warrior in the war on wokery"), but we can accommodate a variety of closing styles. I think the "unashamed embrace" part is more than just color, and since so much of the discussion was spent supporting or debunking that assertion, I don't think SM got it right that there's consensus on that point. I would be fine with reclose with the same overall result as a second choice, and I think most of our experienced closers (including SM, if so directed) could manage a close that's more dispassionate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think it would be surprising if whoever closes this directed me to reword the close giving the same result. I think that would be a distinctly unconventional outcome for an RfC close review, but I suppose I'd comply if so asked.—S Marshall T/C 13:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    It won't happen. Just a vote of confidence in your skills and nature. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    Well, thank you. Thanks to the kind words of quite a few people including yourself, I'm reassured that in general and despite a few exceptions, I do seem to enjoy the community's confidence as a closer (whether or not there's consensus to overturn this particular close, which isn't for me to judge).—S Marshall T/C 14:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    As someone who thinks you got this one wrong, I also respect your overall closing ability and experience. The ones I've seen are overall very good. Accurately determining consensus is really hard, even for the most experienced editors. Anyone who closes enough contentious discussions is bound to make a mistake once in a while, and I don't think it has any impact on the community's overall trust in your judgement. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse. As you might see, I'm very confused by the structure of this survey and discussion, and would not be surprised if this endorsement gets relocated to a more appropriate location within it. This closure was more than reasonable and well thought out. Frankly, I would endorse S Marshall's closures all the way out to the edges of the Universes and back, but that's just me. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    Note: Moved from the "Subpage" section. How do you think the format can be improved? This kind of sectioning has been the default recommended by the closure review template for a little more than 8 months now.
    Are there any comments you'd like to make on the reasonings of the editors who opened this discussion? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know about this format – it seems the more subsections there are, the more confusing it gets. My endorsement comment is complete, thank you. Perhaps my confusion should be taken cum grano salis since I have spent no time at all on this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    Well, the same arguably applies to your entire comment then. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps. If I had to defend the rest of my words, I would begin by using "irrefutable". I've seen far too many great closures by Marshall, and much of what I've learned about closing I've learned from him. I don't think you'll be able to make me understand what motivates such a statement... arguably :>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    So his closes are so great in general that no matter the arguments made about this specific one, it should be maintained? Not sure Wikipedia should work that way, and very much hope whoever closes this review gives no weight to this !vote whatsoever. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    Not at all. I just disagree with non-endorsements herein. This closure should be endorsed not because the closer is correct, but because the close is correct. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think you can disagree with an argument if you haven't even spent enough time to read the subheadings. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    I will endeavor to persevere. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Participants (Telegraph)

[edit]
  • Support close. So, technically speaking, the Telegraph may have "only" supported a clearly false assertion that is very similar to the litter boxes in schools hoax, depending on how narrowly you read that page. However, IMO this is a nitpick. In practice what they said has all the important elements of the litter boxes in schools hoax: the important bit is that they claim a school officially supported students identifying as animals, and not the literal litter box part. If you object to the wording at WP:RSP, then edit that. Loki (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I object to the wording of the part of the close quoted at RSP. As long as the quoted content remains part of the close, I'm pretty sure arguments for removing it are unlikely the gain ground.
    Regardless of whether the hoax includes the situation in the articles mentioned, casual readers are likely to misinterpret what the misrepresentation is at first glance, which is something a summary should avoid. This "nitpick" has been raised at the closer's talk page and he has refused to change this wording. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    As was clearly and prominently refuted during the discussion, the Telegraph did not claim a school officially supported students identifying as animals. They reported, as a reliable source is allowed to, that the parents of a suspended student claimed that the school was doing that, and citing that belief to the parents themselves. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    If you think that was refuted at all, much less clearly, you're wrong. In fact I personally think you're lying, since it very clearly wasn't. Loki (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    It very clearly was, based on the relative amount of “legitimate” !votes for 1/3/4 after it was (legitimate meaning not based on “it’s biased” or “I don’t like it”), and for you to accuse me of lying shows a massive lack of AGF. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    It should be pretty clear that you can't just count votes to decide on a factual claim. Many people weren't convinced by my argument as a whole, but also many were, including several who were specifically convinced by the Rye College thing. Conversely many Option 1 voters, like the closer noted, waved off the Rye College articles as a single mistake without denying they were false. Loki (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Yet significantly more people were either not convinced by your claims in the first place, or - and this is the important part - were convinced by the refutations. The mere fact that a relatively small proportion of editors claimed to still be convinced by your evidence does not change the fact that there can be consensus on reliability. If 10% of editors think it’s unreliable, but 90% were happy with the refutation, then it’s laughable to suggest it should be listed as “unclear” - that would be one of the clearest consensuses possible. Yet the closer didn’t even attempt to evaluate how the discussion evolved or the relative strength of the arguments. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I've just re-read every bolded "Option 1" !vote, and and while I may have missed something I can't see any who waved off the Rye College articles as a single mistake without denying they were false. If I did miss something, can you link the !votes? BilledMammal (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    For the record, I also do not think that S Marshall is INVOLVED based off personal experience closing an RFC while having previously participated in an RFC in the topic area, and having that firmly upheld on close review. Loki (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn, and reclose. The closer did not take into account, or at a minimum failed to explain how they took into account, the number of !votes (primarily on the "unreliable/deprecate" side, but also a few on the reliable side) that were based solely on "I don't like it" or "it's biased thus by default unreliable" standpoints. That fact alone should merit overturning the close, since the closer did not take the strength of those arguments into account and down-weight them accordingly. However, the closer also admits on their talk page that they basically supervoted. They didn't assess the community's belief, and especially Chess's refutation, of the claims regarding the "cat" hoax/"litterbox" hoax. They assessed, without explaining how they felt the community came to that consensus, that it was blatant misinformation, and they based their close in large part on the fact that, since the source published information about that, all arguments for unreliability must be accurate. In fact, Chess and other users (including myself), refuted the fact that it was a "hoax" published by the Telegraph - the Telegraph published what others were saying about it, and cited their sources accordingly when they did report the views/opinions of others. However, the closer did not take into account any of these arguments made. Lastly, there was a clear turn of the discussion after Chess and others discussed and refuted the claims at length during the discussion. Before Chess's comments and the ensuing discussions, there were people claiming that the evidence presented at the start was grounds for unreliability on its own. Many of these people admitted that Chess's refutation was valid, and that their arguments were much less strong. But even more damning for this close, after Chess's refutations and the ensuing discussions had been discussed, there were virtually no !votes for unreliable/deprecate that were actually based on the evidence presented at the beginning. The vast majority, if not all, of the !votes after the discussions were based on the improper arguments such as "I don't like it" or "It's biased thus unreliable", which were not properly weighted by the closer. Ultimately, I thank the closer for making an attempt, but it is clear that the close failed in three primary ways: It did not evaluate the strength of the arguments, it did not evaluate the "turn of the tide" after the opening arguments were largely refuted, and the closer injected their personal opinion as to the "cat/litterbox" hoax into their evaluation. For these reasons, the close should be overturned. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The close is not close to a faithful conclusion of the discussion. The issues with this close are in the third and fourth paragraphs. In the third, the close takes as a fact The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax. Any reading whatsoever of the discussion will show that the idea that the Telegraph promoted some version of the litterbox hoax is contested, with many editors subscribing to refutations of this point.
    The next paragraph goes on to assert that On trans issues, Wikipedians simply do not have this level of confidence in the Daily Telegraph. The only argument referenced to this point has been the litterbox one. Editors who took issue with the third paragraph therefore found the fourth, which finds that reliability is disputed, to be invalid. However, the closer clarifies on talk that Fourth paragraph is independent of the third.
    The assessment that reliability is disputed was therefore not given any justification in the close itself, so closer expanded the close. The expansion provides but one reason why to give weight to the argument that the Telegraph is not generally reliable on trans issues: Although some members of the community have confidence that the Daily Telegraph is reliable on trans issues, this view is strongly disputed by significant numbers. In other words, closer is counting votes. Except closer tells me on talk that the point is not to count votes, and I didn't, but to weigh arguments, which I did.
    Closer has shown no evidence of weighing arguments (except in the case of the litterbox hoax claim, in which closer showed no evidence of weighing arguments fairly). Closer claims both not to have counted votes, but also bases their close of "Reliability disputed" on the claim that the view that the Telegraph is reliable "is strongly disputed by significant numbers". If closer is not willing to revert, close should be overturned as closer won't give a consistent account of what the reason is for the close. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support close because I think it's a perfectly reasonable close despite me thinking very negatively of The Telegraph. My emotions want it deprecated, but I know that this is the best we can get. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Seraphimblade, you can't reopen the discussion when it's still at AN... I would say the same if I wanted it overturned. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 11:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Oh, and that's misuse of rollback. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 12:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support close, but what the hell is (The Telegraph) is a willing warrior in the war on wokery. It gives platform to the most flagrantly gender-critical tracts by anti-woke activists. I'm not sure what "woke" is being used as a synonym for here, but there are better words for the Telegraphs "anti-woke activists". They are called transphobes. Most of them even call themselves "gender-critical", which is the same thing. Also, radical feminists like Julie Bindel are not "anti-woke". Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see gender-critical and transphobic as 100% synonymous although Julie Bindel certainly qualifies as both. I specifically wanted to say that the Telegraph is activist on this issue.—S Marshall T/C 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn - first I would like to thank S Marshall for their effort in closing such a large RfC, as they have done so many times before. Unfortunately despite that, I share the concerns of Berchanhimez and Samuelshraga particularly regarding the litterbox issue, it was far more disputed by editors than what the original and extended closures portrayed. Since this was a significant and prominent part of the close, that causes the entire closure to fall into doubt. starship.paint (RUN) 12:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Kind of overturn I agree with the closing in that when we have such a clear 1 or 3 split we can't just say no consensus so no change. Certainly such a gap means on this topic we need to use caution. I also agree that the closing was not a summary of the arguments and for that reason the closing statement either needs to be changed to align with a true summary of the discussion or another editor should close the discussion. That the source was biased seemed to have consensus but how much did not have a consensus. The closing suggests there was agreement on how biased the source was. I also agree that some of the language used in that part of the closing appeared to be expressing an opinion rather than summarizing the discussion. Since much of the discussion centered on the litter box hoax it is important to get that part of the close correct. I think all would agree that there was a clear dispute regarding if the source was just reporting or if they were embracing. As such the claim that the statement, "The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax" is clearly inaccurate. I don't have a strong view on the involved claim but I'm not sure I view that as disqualifying in this case. Springee (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn
    The close expansion includes: Towards the end of this, the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. I don’t see this in the discussion.
    Also, there is no mention of the general disparity between those who supported Option 1, who generally discussed the question of whether the Telegraph is reliable on transgender matters - which is what the RfC was supposed to be about - and those who supported Option 3, who mostly said we should not use the Telegraph on transgender matters because it is biased – which is not what the RfC was supposed to be about.
    On the contrary, the closing comment summarises the attitude of those who preferred Option 3, It is a willing warrior in the war on wokery. It gives platform to the most flagrantly gender-critical tracts by anti-woke activists.without making the obvious conclusion that such views are irrelevant to an RfC on reliability. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn, the weighting and evaluation of the arguments was done poorly, and the tone of the original close leaves much to be desired. Unfortunately, some of the summaries of the arguments (like the cat story) was either done poorly, or added onto through the closers own arguments trending towards a supervote. Lastly, whether or not the closer is clearly involved, there is definitely a strong appearance of involvement, which is enough IMO. FortunateSons (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support closer, oppose close. It's a real stretch to accuse S Marshall of being involved for having an opinion on a related matter (or even on this matter). We're not robots nor should we pretend to be - and I have previously seen S Marshall demonstrate high competence in separating personal views from the principles at hand in a discussion. However, I do agree that the close rationale erred in endorsing a point that had been thoroughly rebutted in the discussion, and in taking a bold interpretation of WP:ONUS. It is not clear to me that the policy on onus with respect to article content should automatically apply to discussions of general reliability. This is a point that could potentially be argued in the abstract, but in this specific case, when our starting point is a previous RfC finding general reliability, then the onus should very much be on bringing new evidence, and the focus of the close should be on whether or not that evidence has been successfully rebutted - not on whether there was a dispute. If there's no consensus that the new charges are valid, then they should be considered unproven, and the status quo should remain. Proving unreliability should be hard, as a countermeasure to the chilling effect of a downgrade. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The closer was WP:INVOLVED with respect to The Telegraph's reliability in the context of political topics, as their comment from April 2024 shows. And the sort of involvement does somewhat show in the close; the close does not faithfully represent the consensus attained on key points, and it doesn't appear to attempt to summarize what the arguments on each side were. Instead, the close reads much more as if it were a !vote in the RfC, where the closer inserts his own analysis of the source (It is a willing warrior in the war on wokery) and appears to give definitive weight to one questionable interpretation of The Telegraph's reporting (unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax) as if it were to have reflected the broad consensus of the discussion.
    Because the closure should represent the discussion faithfully, and this closing summary is more of an argument than an attempt to do so, it should be overturned. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • SMarshall was not INVOLVED. I'm not going to express an opinion about the close as a whole as I fear I would fail to avoid the relitigation that multiple editors here are doing) but I see absolutely no evidence that SMarshall was INVOLVED within the meaning of that policy and so that allegation should not be factored into the assessment of the close. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn - the finding that there was no consensus the Telegraph is not reliable, but the source should still be considered "not generally reliable" (in some unspecified way) is unreasonable. It is probably better to vacate it entirely rather than modify it to a pure "no consensus" close. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    No consensus (MREL) also means "not generally reliable" (GREL). It does not mean "generally unreliable" (GUNREL). Everything that isn't GREL is not generally reliable to put it simply, such as a "pure no consensus close". CNC (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    That's just how WP:RSP works. The normal rule of no consensus = no change doesn't apply. Instead "no consensus" is a status, and it's WP:MREL. Loki (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    This is ridiculous. If there is "consensus for no consensus" that is one thing, but a "no consensus at all so a specific change must happen" is a supervote. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    You might think it's ridiculous but that's how RSP works. "Generally reliable" is defined to mean "there is a consensus that this source is generally reliable". There is a specific category for sources about which there is no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think we're at the point of "beating a dead horse". I've asked below in the clarity section on whether this RfC should be an exception to the status quo, or whether RSP should be changed, and if so whether it should be retrospectively; but so far there are no proposals. Any closer of this discussion is surely aware of how RSP operates by now. CNC (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support close to prevent time-wasting: I supported option 3 but find the close a clear reading of the discussion. While it's not a vote count, we should be on the same page about the trend of the discussion. By a quick count: ~55 editors said option 1 (with many arguing it was biased but not enough to effect reliability), ~8 supported option 2, ~50 said option 3/4, ~8 said 1/2, and ~4 said 2/3. That leaves us with a clear majority in favor of "there are issues with calling this straight up reliable" (~8070(fixed per starship) v ~55, with, as I noted, many in the latter camp acknowledging it does have a GC slant). Editors presented RS that supported the claims of bias as well. When such a large outpouring of editors have significant concerns regarding a source's reliability, that must be reflected in the close - there was no earthly way this could have been closed with "the community agrees this is reliable on trans topics". WRT claims that those questioning it's reliability did so on WP:IDLI grounds - editors considered platforming anti-trans activists and talking points in every article a clear sign of unreliability/bias just as if their editorial line was obviously pro-flat earth or pro-race realism (please note that regardless of your opinions on whether the GC movement is correct or not, RS do overwhelmingly say it's a hate-based movement supportive of disinformation). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Addition error. 70 per your numbers. Not 80. starship.paint (RUN) 16:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    • P.S. Everyone should disclose how they voted Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
      I simply don't see how you think counting votes is an argument in support of a close, especially when the closer's only justification is that they counted votes. (Leaving aside the fact that counting 1/2 !votes as against calling it WP:GREL is a stretch. Those votes explicitly support calling it generally reliable, and are broadly saying they would accept/support adding a note in RSP, not downgrading the source. I conclude this by actually reading those comments, rather than counting them.) Samuelshraga (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Could you address the reasons we, or at least I, brought up the close review? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
      Gladly: to start, please take my comment in the context that the close review grew beyond your point.
      • Regarding the "overturn whole close": I do not believe the closer was involved (which would, in my view, entail either participating in the discussion or being generally active in GENSEX). I do not believe he misread the discussion in finding MREL.
      • Regarding your specific note on the litter box hoax: I actually agree with you it could have been better (though on procedural grounds I think it was fine and this 2 pronged close review is wasteful of editor labor). Being more specific:
        • The litterboxes were extensively discussed and would inevitably have been mentioned in the close. An uninvolved editor weighed up the arguments on both sides, and believed that the "hoax promotion" had better ones - but it could have been the other way or more equivocal and still be a valid close imo. To be clear, I think The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax is discussed could have been better phrased as Whether the Telegraph embraced the widely-debunked ...
        • That being said, I think it should have been a more general statement on misinformation: misrepresenting the Cass Review, incorrect statements on "desistance", use of meaningless scarewords like "gender ideology" or "trans agenda" in its voice, and etc. Particularly, as many noted, platforming FRINGE groups to make false statements on issues while portraying them as experts and disregarding more mainstream ones.
          • Sidenote to that, I disagreed with the extended close's statement about its historic homophobia and advocacy for conversion therapy (neither of which is the paper's current editorial position). - They no longer support LGB conversion therapy, but its blatant in practically every article that they support it for trans people, and I would further argue that their repeated framing of issues as LGB v T, as if they're mutually exclusive, is homophobic in itself.
      Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
      To your point on the "litterbox hoax" and their reporting on it, your recommended alternative sentence starting with "whether" changes the meaning completely. SM's close referred explicitly to the fact that many people "believed" they "embraced" the hoax, and did not address the fact that, aside from those whose !votes were based on their opinions on the underlying subject as a whole, the majority of editors did not see it as being reported as truthful in the reporting - and in fact a reading of the articles in question confirms that they are right to not see it that way. If editors base their !votes on "facts" that are disproven, whether before or after their !vote, then their !vote needs to be weighted down accordingly - not given full/extra weight as SM did. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
      This seems to be a bit of a point of dispute in these discussions. I think some of the endorse editors look at the yellow rating and reasonably say, "with arguments on both sides and a clear 1 vs 3 division yellow is the only reasonable outcome." I can get behind that. However, I also agree with editors who note that there were clear errors in the summary of the arguments. I don't see how a reasonable close could state as fact that the source embraced the litter box hoax. That was a clear point of contention and if neither side convinced the other then we shouldn't treat it as some sort of consensus outcome. When doing a closing it's not just that the color needs to be right, the summaries need to be accurate as well. We don't have that here. At minimum editing the summary to reflect the actual state of the discussion is warranted. Personally, I think having a new closing is better. Springee (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Two distinct issues here:
    1. Imbalance and inaccuracy in the summary. Rather than fairly sum up both sides of the discussion, the close is weighted towards the unreliability perspective to an extent that does not reflect the genuine course of discussion. Vigorously contested assertions (e.g. the notion of The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax) are treated as fact. At times S Marshall appears to be carrying on the argument in his own close (e.g. Towards the end of this, the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. And if the Telegraph has published a correction, then the "generally reliable" camp hasn't unearthed it.)
    2. The, um, let's call it "novel" interpretation of ONUS such that a supposedly "no consensus" close somehow ends up in effect a consensus to downgrade? I don't have much to add to what Barnards has already said: (1) ONUS is geared towards discussions about whether to include specific things like an image or a certain paragraph in an article, not broad discussions about the reliability of a source; and (2) there's an existing RfC finding consensus for general reliability, so that should be the assumed baseline we're working from.
  • S Marshall made an odd comment about the decision to adopt this interpretation: In doing this, I removed the first mover advantage that the "generally reliable" side expected and I think relied on. The part about editors advocating for reliability "relying on" a supposed first-mover advantage comes across to me as if he is taking the view these editors are abusing or at least leaning on procedure to get a preferred result. This does not seem to be a fair characterisation to me.
  • I don't see how S Marshall is INVOLVED, though. – Teratix 16:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support close. It was a very reasoned, balanced close. I would have preferred a "generally unreliable" close, but I accept that S Marshall made a good faith effort to close this RfC in a balanced and impartial manner. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn, and reclose per Berchanhimez. S. Marshall deserves some credit for stepping in where angels fear to tread, but a no-consensus outcome doesn't justify changes to the status quo. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    It explicitly does at WP:RSP, and in fact "no consensus" is part of the definition of WP:MREL. Loki (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Let's leave it for Part 2 to deal with. CNC (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse close and this relentless badgering of closers when a consensus doesn't go someone's way needs to stop. I've seen it a lot in the last year and if it's not stamped down on it's going to be next to impossible to find anyone to volunteer to close anything but the most obvious community discussion. Daveosaurus (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. It accurately reflects the discussion and the state of consensus (or lack thereof) on the topic; and the arguments it mentions are summarizing ones from the discussion, not new ones presented by the closer. The WP:QUO / WP:ONUS argument doesn't make sense to me - those policies are for article space, where we have no choice but to decide on one version even when we lack consensus. RSP isn't an article, it's a summary documenting where the community stands on specific sources; a lack of consensus can and should be documented there. No-consensus outcomes get lodged there as a matter of course; AFAIK that's how it has always worked. It would be misleading to do otherwise and would lead to disputes where people attempt to rely heavily on a source only to face conflicts and be told that there's no consensus on it. There is an entire category for no-consensus outcomes on RSP, and numerous entries on the table that use that specifically in their language; it makes no sense to not use that here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Summarizing a minority opinion that was strongly refuted, and the refutation of which was agreed with by a majority of editors commenting after the refutation, does not a no consensus finding make. Even if you believe that SM was not imposing their own opinion on the closure, the summary of the opinions presented and their relative strength was insufficient as it did not take into account the "turn of the tide" in !votes after the refutation, and in fact it tries to claim that after the refutation the reliable camp's arguments got worse - the exact opposite of what happened. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • endorse close. I think the language used could have appeared to be more neutral, but it is clear that there is no consensus on the telegraphs reliability on this topic. That some people seem to think consensus is needed to confirm there is no consensus seems nonsensical, unless we all do a close that could never be decided. I don't think the close is perfect but it's certainly good enough and every editor involved could probably be more useful spending time elsewhere. For transparency's sake I voted option 3 on the RFC and was deemed a SPA. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn The assumption that people saying that mistakes happen were conceding that the specific example brought up was actually a mistake was not supported. That leaves a fundamentally damaged evaluation of the wider consensus as to whether there were mistakes in this area, which is a key aspect of changing the assumed reliability of this source. The result is an artificially strong consensus not supported by the arguments. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The only policy-based reason S Marshall's close was based on is whether or not The Daily Telegraph endorsed the Litter boxes in schools hoax. The conclusion S Marshall reached is that The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax is discussed at great length. This is a WP:SUPERVOTE because it sides with Loki's original claim without any explanation. One of the central disputes of the RfC was whether or not the "Litter boxes in schools hoax" encompassed a student merely identifying as a cat, which is the falsehood The Telegraph supposedly said. The assumption that these were equivalent made it impossible to reach any other conclusion than Option 2 or 3, which I will show below.
    S Marshall's only mention of specific Option 1 arguments is that the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. This misses the point, which is that The Telegraph promoting a blatant hoax is not equivalent to getting a detail in a story wrong. S Marshall did not address this in this point in their close because of the aforementioned SUPERVOTE, which assumed equivalence between kids using litter boxes and kids identifying as cats. If the equivalence was treated as a disputed point, the concession that the article is misleading matters much less, since it is no longer a concession that The Telegraph promoted a blatant hoax.
    Closers are also supposed to disregard votes not based on policy per WP:DISCARD, and not judge on headcount. S Marshall's close does not obey this. Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, but S Marshall says Although some members of the community have confidence that the Daily Telegraph is reliable on trans issues, this view is strongly disputed by significant numbers. as an explanation of their decision. [1] The close also makes references to the controversy over homophobia, transgender breast milk, and other factors, but does not explain how those subpoints helped reach a decision. If the closer does not analyze a point I will assume it did not play a part in the decision.
    To summarize, the close began by assuming that Option 3 was correct on the most significant part of the discussion, and then judged the entire rest of the RfC on those grounds. This assumption should not have been made and a proper close would fairly summarize the dispute over whether implying a student identified as a cat is equivalent to saying students are using litter boxes in schools. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    It's actually worse, as S Marshall claims that the close is not based on the finding on whether the Daily Telegraph embraced the litterbox hoax. So there was no policy-based reason for the close. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn close. It is clear from this edit[2] that the closer had a POV that should have been declared. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC).
    The community has already found in a similar situation that voting in an RFC in the topic area does not make a closer WP:INVOLVED. Loki (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    This isn't just two discussions in the same topic area; it's two discussions about the reliability of the same source. BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, and in the previous situation I had !voted in an RFC whose result was directly relevant to the close. However, the community very clearly endorsed the close and overwhelmingly said I was not WP:INVOLVED.
    The thing you're missing here is that WP:INVOLVED is not about bias or opinion. It's closer to WP:COI: the point is that you cannot close a discussion that you participated in. But having an opinion on the discussion doesn't matter, that doesn't make you involved at all.
    In general, Wikipedia policies don't prevent an editor from doing something due to having expressed an opinion on that topic. Instead, they prevent editors from doing things because of concrete relationships with discussions or topic areas: you can't cite your own research and you can't close a discussion you !voted in, regardless of what you think of it. This is also the case over at the perennial WikiProject dispute where community consensus soundly rejected your interpretation, which I bring up to make the point that you appear to have similar misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy in multiple areas. Loki (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    There's situations where there's only one correct POV. This is one of them. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 19:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Whatever the criticisms of the body of the closure may be, and there seem to be some, the closure is tainted because the closer did not declare a POV (whether that POV was "correct" or not). Xxanthippe (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC).
  • Overturn (Option 5, but I would be happy with 2 too). Reading the original discussion, I thought that the accusations about inaccurate reporting of "litter boxes in schools" had been well argued against. In their initial statement, the closer appears not to consider these arguments, but simply labels the Telegraph's statements as misrepresentations. At the least the closer should have addressed these prominent arguments and explained why they did not agree with them. This implies to me an insufficiently in-depth analysis. The closer's revised statement says a little more on this topic, but I was shocked that the decisive step of their reasoning is an obvious non-sequitor: "The 'generally reliable' camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading." This seems almost flippant; Wikipedia should be able to do better than this in analysing the evidence and arguments. JMCHutchinson (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse and overturn (I did 'participate' in the RFC although I didn't comment on the reliability of the Telegraph in this RFC, but I did comment on a previous RFC that the Telegraph was unreliable on this specific issue). The close that 'there is no consensus on the reliability of the Telegraph on transgender issue' (or WP:MREL), is IMO the correct reading of the discussion (so I endorse it). However, with apologies to an editor I respect, I do think the reasoning in getting there is flawed. The close doesn't engage with all the arguments and rebuttals in the discussion, dissatisfaction with which has lead to this review (not helped with how the RSP was updated). Given this is now the third RFC on the matter in a short space of time, a close that satisfies all involved (even if it doesn't agree with them) is sorely needed. I do wonder if the RSP had simply been updated with the plain "In regards to transgender issues the reliability of The Daily Telegraph is disputed.", without the additional details then we wouldn't be here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I appreciate the sincere attempt on such a divided issue, but I believe that such a contentious non-consensus warranted a more conservative close, both in resolution and in wording.
    As others have noted, the close turned largely on one story, the notorious "cat" drama. That the closer refers to a story that categorically was not a "widely debunked litterbox hoax" in such terms does not inspire confidence that the arguments have been properly weighed. A story featuring elements of otherkin in schools is not automatically a "litterbox hoax". The incident in question happened, and absolutely nobody denies that. The school acknowledged it and reviewed its processes in the aftermath. I wrote out a transcript of the recording here for anyone still for some reason curious about this debacle. I won't rehash the arguments yet again but I don't think any fair weighting of the refutations can support a close describing this as a "debunked litterbox hoax" when there has been no hoax, no litterbox, and no debunking.
    As for the specific wording, as I raised on talk, the closer needlessly inserted the text "and gender critical views" into the closing statement, widening the unreliability notice beyond what was suggested. This was not part of the original RFC, and no evidence was presented either way as to the reliability of The Telegraph for "gender critical views".
    Editors may have personal opinions on how separable "gender critical views" are from trans issues or what the closer even means by "gender critical views", but that is a discussion in an of itself, and one which simply did not take place and whose outcome should not be assumed like this. This unsolicited addition is unwise in an already polarised RFC, and if this is overturned I would suggest a future closer stick to the wording of the RFC only and leave this particular can of worms unopened. Void if removed (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Support overall close because of what it isn't Overturn....needs another look per my post lower down Folks, let's look at what the structural result of the overall close is, which I think many folks have missed. It is "no consensus on trans issues" and "generally reliable on non-trans issues" I can't see people arguing for a close other than this. The "embrace of the cat story" statement should not be in there but that really doesn't change anything. And it probably needs a shorter more direct summary such as I just gave. If they were an admin, SMarshall would be in the top 5% of admins regarding knowledge and expertise to close this type of thing, so NAC is not an issue except maybe for the optics of it. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Arguing that the close is fine because while it misrepresents the discussion, it gets you the answer you want is ... refreshingly direct, though sadly not unique here. If you can't see people arguing for a close other than this, you might read this comment above. Not to mention many of the other comments supporting overturn. Are we not people? Or can you just not see us? Samuelshraga (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I encourage you to review the problems many of us have with this close. Similar to how an RfA that (pre-recent-changes to RfA) had a significant early support but was then followed by a “bombshell” that caused a turn of the tide, this discussion was started based on inaccurate representations of the source, which I will assume was not Loki’s intent. This was not called out immediately, and many people !voted while discussion of the initial claims was continuing. But a clear consensus emerged that the initial claims of misinformation were, to put it bluntly, wrong. They claimed the Telegraph said in their own voice things they didn’t, they claimed the Telegraph didn’t retract what other people had said and it merely reported on. And that refutation was widely accepted by a clear majority of editors who posted substantive comments after it was done.
That is why people are believing there was a consensus here - after properly considering how to weight the !votes that were based on the initial inaccurate information, and/or solely based on their personal opinion whether they like the source or not, or of if the source is “biased” or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@Samuelshraga: @Berchanhimez: I'd be happy to take a deeper dive on this and revisit but would like clarity on what I think you are saying that the correct close should have been. Is it that there was (simply) a consensus that they are a generally reliable source? (without the separate wording for trans issues) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
My personal reading of it, which I accept is not necessarily in line with what others may read, is that yes - those !voting for option 3/4, and many (but not necessarily most) for option 2, did not care about the veracity of the claims in the initial filing by Loki, and took them at face value. Very few of that group as a whole either provided clear arguments as to why the refutation by Chess and others should be discounted, and many of them admitted that their arguments fell apart once the refutations started coming through. Further, the “turn of the tide” to significantly more option 1 votes, and significantly more (if not all) votes for option 3/4 being based solely on bias or flat out lies, I believe that this all comes together to lead to a consensus that the source is, by our own policies, biased but generally reliable, even on the subject of transgender issues. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Ugh, wrong link there, it’s supposed to go to the page about bias of a source not generally affecting its reliability, but mobile. Hopefully you know where I’m talking about, will fix later when I’m home. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@North8000, I'm probably one of the less experienced editors here. I didn't come because I felt I would have been competent to close myself (had I not been involved), but because the close we got was so clearly flawed. That said, I agree with Berchanhimez's reading of the discussion. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
So the difference between your thoughts and the close which I supported is that the close said that there was no consensus on trans issues and your thought was that the result was that they are reliable on trans issues. (BTW my sentiment expressed at the RFC was that it should be #1, with #2 also being OK.) I took a harder look. IMO there was a plurality for #1 between #1 and #3 bordering on a consensus and if you include #2 sentiments regarding suitability to use on trans issues (a sort of "sufficiently reliable") then there would be a clear consensus for confirmed usability ("generally reliable") on trans issues. So now I think thhis sould get a second look. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that was my “rough count” too (remembering that it’s not a vote count). Combine that rough plurality for “reliable but biased” with the fact that the main arguments in favor of unreliability were contested and refuted and many editors agreed with the refutation, there is really no path to “no consensus” here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The analysis that caused me to reverse my position is this: The operative results regarding trans issues were in essence: 1. Prohibit use on trans issues (RFC choice #'s 3 & 4) 2. (RFC choice #'s 1 & 2) Don't prohibit use on trans issues. By this analysis (if arguments roughly follow head count) "don't prohibit" was overwhelmingly favored by a factor of 1.73 to 1.
No, those weren't the options. There were four options, three if you exclude 4 for being essentially impossible to implement. 1 != 2 != 3, and people who voted 2 should not be assumed to support 1. Indeed many of those people explicitly said they were voting 2 because they did not support 1. Loki (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support close, this is a very tough debate to find any resolution for and I think that S Marshall's decision is a pretty fair and balanced choice. S Marshall highlighted the key aspect of the debate which is a general agreement on the bias of the Telegraph but a disagreement on how much that bias affects the paper's journalistic integrity. Saying that when dealing with the subject of trans people the Telegraph should be used carefully seems like a reasonable precaution. (I voted for option 2 on the basis that reviewing a number of the linked articles showed a fairly strong bias on the topic, my primary concerns being their deliberate misrepresentation and laundering of sources. If I was working on material related to the subject, I would want to cite more neutral and nuanced sources that had clarity and more journalistic integrity.) Gnisacc (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn per JoeJShmo, The Wordsmith, Berchanhimez, Samuelshraga, Teratix, Chess, Void if removed, etc. The close is frankly an inadequate and inaccurate summary of the discussion. Others have already noted multiple issues with the "litterbox hoax" paragraph, which treats one side of a hotly disputed point as fact and proceeds from there. Almost no weight is given to the rebuttals, which disputed not only whether the Telegraph "embraced" the story, but whether the story was an instance of the hoax and whether it even was a hoax at all. I do not believe the original text supports the bizarre claim that these users were "reduced" to arguing that the Telegraph is "allowed to make mistakes". The next paragraph that summarizes the rest of the RfC is equally bizarre. It devotes no attention to the handful of journal articles which were held up multiple times as evidence of the Telegraph’s supposed "unreliability", but in actuality explored only the source’s bias. It highlights a single brief comment one user made about Julie Bindel (whose "platforming" as an opinion columnist would indicate bias, not reliability) but fails to mention more significant points of debate such as the Thoughtful Therapists issue, which was brought up in the RfC's opening statement and rebutted at length by multiple users. And it elides the well-reasoned rebuttals by simply saying that "there was discussion", while neglecting to evaluate the relative merits of those discussions. I do not have confidence that the close properly engaged with the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments being made on both sides. Rather, the close seems to treat the fact that the source's reliability was vociferously disputed as justification enough. Astaire (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The close was a reasonable read of the discussion and came to a very narrow decision. All of the arguments for overturning focus entirely on process wonkery & nitpicking word choice in order to try and unravel the close by tugging on a loose thread. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    I brought this here because the closer refused to amend his egregious word choice on his user talk page and insisted that he came to it after weighing all arguments. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    "egregious," please, let's not be hyperbolic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, so you think that unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked [conspiracy theory] in place of saying A teacher at Rye College, a state secondary in East Sussex, was recorded telling a pupil who refused to accept her classmate was a cat that she was despicable., of which all they got wrong was that the cat was a rhetorical device, the latter being consensus, is a mostly fair and accurate representation of the discussion. I do not see how one could arrive at that conclusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Look, I'm not going to lose sleep over some minor changes to the wording per the OP's concerns, if that's the ultimate result here, but for my part, I think this was a mostly reasonable summary of the results of the discussion. Did I feel there was a bit of unnecessary color commentary with pointed observations about the source frame as objective facts? Yeah, I did get some twinges about that while reading the close, and I think it's worth S Marshal taking that into consideration in the future. But I rather suspect that, rather than this being a case of the closer trying to interject unnecessary personal perspective into the result, it was a conscious rhetorical method for acknowledging the understandable and unavoidable emotional subtext of the dispute. I get the feeling that S Marshal recognized that there was really only one way to close this discussion under existing policy and consensus of the discussion itself, but was uncomfortable doing so without paying some recognition to the circumstances under which some editors have come to dislike the source. So he called the spade for the spade in a way that would make the Telegraph skeptics at least marginally less likely to feel that their sentiments had been dismissed wholesale.
    But any caveats not withstanding, I think S Marshal did an adequate job with this close, given the complexity of the issues and the highly divisive nature of the discussion. Personally I would have been marginally more supportive of a straight "no consensus" result as opposed to "reliability disputed", but this a fraught area, and we have to start finding a way to come together on these issues (or at least reigning in the constant relitigation of habitual issues. In that light, I think we could have gotten a lot worse here. I understand the quibbles, and I came close to casting a different !vote here, but considering all factors, I don't think S Marshal's something-for-everyone approach here was arbitrary, unintentional, or ill-advised.
    Further, I think there's more to be gained by just embracing an overall reasonable close than by micromanaging every last sentence into a form that is most pleasing to the majority, even if I was a part of that majority and even if I feel that the result would be more ideal. For the benefit of procedural efficiency and community harmony, I think we need to start leaning back towards the traditional tendency of just letting the initial close stay, warts and all, so long as it does not obviously and massively misrepresent the actual consensus. I don't love every syllable of S Marshal's close, but I still think that it was a well-executed one made under difficult circumstances, in the final analysis, and I don't blame him for trying to pay some lip service to the concerns of the minority. SnowRise let's rap 19:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think most Overturners here are objecting mainly to the colourful commentary. I have no problem with the willing warrior in the war on wokery or even the gives platform to the most flagrantly gender-critical tracts by anti-woke activists comments in the close. The narrow overturners object to unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax because it clearly misrepresents as consensus what was only one side of a very prominent part of the discussion. The broad overturners think that given that practically all of the RfC nomination's accusations were directly misrepresented and were not, on any examination, evidence of unreliability, the arguments for unreliability were entirely without weight and should have been discounted (in this context, the question of whether they feel that feel that their sentiments had been dismissed wholesale is immaterial, as long as the dismissal is explained).
    Whether you stay endorsing the close or not aside, I don't appreciate the idea that this is about micromanaging every last sentence into a form that is most pleasing to the majority, it seems like a baseless minimisation of actual concerns that directly concern what you think close reviews should be about: that the close if allowed to stand would obviously and massively misrepresent the actual consensus. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse: I don't want to spend too long saying things which have already been said, but I know in recent discussions and here some users have opined that anyone saying ~"I'd just be using the same rationale as X, let me just say 'per X'" should be discounted and people should be required to be repetitive, so with apologies to whichever panel of three admins has to close this discussion (to avoid it being challenged) for making it longer ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ : both the "involved" argument and the argument that the close was a supervote are unconvincing. The "involvement" is not only tangential (as amply discussed above), but in the other direction, so unless the implication is that another closer would've found outright consensus that the source was unreliable(?), the argument doesn't make sense. In turn, as many users have noted above, while closing this as either "option 1 because I know option 2 voters really meant option 1" or "option 3 because I know option 2 voters really meant option 3" (as some people want) would've been a supervote, "there was no consensus →means→ close as no consensus" is just reading the arguments (and "no consensus →means→ no consensus" is just following WP:MREL).
    It is unsurprising that much discussion here is relitigating the same points as the RFC, as if saying "actually they were never wrong, it was proven they were never wrong, by me saying they weren't wrong" several more times will make it true. Indeed, re the suggestions below about ways to align how closes should occur and be reacted to vs how closes are actually reacted to, and the issues with those suggestions (e.g.: mandating multiple people volunteer to find time to close discussions would mean discussions go unclosed for even longer, potentially until stale, wasting/filibustering the effort), the other obvious possibility is to write down in the guidelines that all closures are only "prospective, non-finalized" closures until sustained by an AN discussion where the participants relitigate positions a second time: while I'm not sure that would be the best option, it seems like it could be the easiest one to get people on board with because it's how we see many people already operate... -sche (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    If you say "per X" and X's original claims have been proven inaccurate/misleading, and you don't address that fact, then your !vote will be downweighted accordingly - just as the initial claims should be downweighted when a refutation that enjoys broad support from those actually discussing the topic (rather than drive by !voting) would. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse close - As has now become clear after further discussion here, while some people had issue with some of the wording of the close, the ultimate outcome of it being a "no consensus" seems to be agreed upon here and is a good reading of the original discussion, since there simply was no consensus on the topic, so the close to no consensus and marking it MREL for transgender issues is the appropriate outcome. Raladic (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • At least amend the third and fourth paragraphs to reflect the actual consensus. In cases where there are comparable numbers of good-faith !votes, finding in favor of either of them (or splitting the difference) should necessitate a close summary mentioning why a given argument did not prevail. The close should summarize the reasoning of any significant minority/non-plurality, but should also make it clear what the major arguments against that reasoning were and how they were weighted. In cases where the closer finds consensus that does not align with a non-trivial majority of good-faith !votes, it is particularly imperative they explain why arguments in the majority camp were downweighted.
    In this close, only a rationale of Option 3 !voters is presented at any length, and it is implied there was consensus agreement with this rationale. However, the close does not address the various refutations of that rationale that, necessarily, were strong and numerous enough to result in Option 3 not gaining consensus. This is especially problematic given that there was a solid majority against Option3/4. Even if we count every "Option 1/2" !vote toward Option 2 and count every "Option 2/3" and "Option 4" !vote towards Option 3, we still have roughly 60 Option 1 to 49 Option 3 (and ~16 Option 2). A more charitable accounting (for example, assigning any "Option 1 or maybe 2" !votes, like my own, to "Option 1") yields a more lopsided result, and splitting the options into 1/2 vs 3/4 reveals something approaching a 60% supermajority ~75 1/2 to 49 3/4 (and that's still counting all "2/3" !votes toward Option 3). Any finding against Option 1 should thus expand on why this wasn't enough for consensus (which could be perfectly reasonable if the strength of the !votes just wasn't there--but that still should be explained!), meanwhile any finding for Option 3 would absolutely need to demonstrate a very substantial imbalance in argument strength. JoelleJay (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that there was not consensus for Option 3, but the closer did not claim there was. Meanwhile, you've missed the obvious reason why there wasn't consensus for Option 1: by your own count, there were 60 Option 1 voters but 65 voters who were against it. Since there wasn't a consensus for any option, there was no consensus, which has special meaning at WP:RSP and isn't just "status quo wins". Loki (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    I’m interested, since you seem to want to vote count, for you to do a few things. First, split the proportion up into “before the refutation” and “after the refutation” to examine how the discussion evolved over time. Second, count up how many of the 65 votes on the “against it” side were based solely on bias, or did not address the refutation of the claims at all. Thirdly, count up how many people agreed with the refutation after it was posted versus disagreed - without assuming what anyone who didn’t comment directly on why would’ve said.
    If you do this, rather than trying to shoehorn the vote count to your favor, you will see why many people are arguing there actually was a consensus present. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    What "refutation"?
    Also, obviously all the things you are saying are simply not how closing discussions works. The closer can evaluate the arguments but they are under no obligation to pretend that an argument that you happened to find particularly convincing was objectively strong. Loki (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Closers are expected to determine consensus based on the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
    In this context, a good close will need to give little to no weight to !votes that argued the Telegraph endorsed the litter boxes in schools hoax (as this was disproved by the articles provided in support of it, and thus is not a quality argument), and little to no weight to !votes that argued that it should be considered unreliable on grounds of bias (as this is contradicted by policy). BilledMammal (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    Whether or not it "was disproved" is a matter for the closer to decide. The closer decided it was not disproved. All you are saying is that you disagree with the closer. Loki (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    This case is unusually clear cut. You said "this source endorses this hoax", and provided an article where the source said "this is a hoax". It is not possible for a reasonable close to say that it was not disproved. BilledMammal (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    If I say that a source endorses the conspiracy theory that the moon landings were faked, and the source says "There's a common conspiracy theory that the moon landings were faked, which is not true. However, look at this evidence that the 1969 moon landing was filmed on a sound stage in California.", is that or is that not "endorsing the conspiracy theory"? Loki (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    Obviously not. It's called presenting all sides of a story. Otherwise, we'd only hear half the story. You may think that hoaxes are never newsworthy - what would the news report on if not saying "it's a hoax, but look at the evidence that the other side uses to try and convince you it's not a hoax"? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    It could, depending on the specifics. However, it's a false equivalence.
    What the Telegraph said after calling it a hoax was say that people do identify as animals. This is true, and nobody in the RfC claimed otherwise. BilledMammal (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    Ah, but they said this specific student identified as an animal at this specific school with the support of the administration, all of which is false and which fulfills all the pillars of the hoax except for the literal litter boxes. Loki (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    Everyone, regardless of your views regarding this, it is clear that (maybe a little less than) half of the RfC participants agreed with Chess's refutation against that incident being an endorsement of the litterbox hoax. Let's accept that and move on without directly arguing the RfC again. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) The issue is you proved none of that:
    • they said this specific student identified as an animal - based on your mistaken understanding of presuppositions
    • with the support of the administration - based on your definition of "support" (which you extend to "calling students despicable" - in other words "telling students off for bullying")
    • all of which is false - The school said one thing, parents said another, and the Ofsted report declined to comment
    • fulfills all the pillars of the hoax - based on your definition of the pillars
    For a closer to say that your close was not disproved they would need to say that every one of these four claims was true. No reasonable close can do that. Aaron Liu does make a good point, and so I will step back from this discussion now, but I felt it was important to make this point clear. BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that no reasonable person who reviews all the facts could conclude Loki's claimd (there's a freakin' TAPE RECORDING OF THE TEACHER calling the girl "dispicable" for not accepting a cat identity, FFS! How much more evidence is needed here?!).
    I suppose the real question here is, what happens when a large MINORITY of Wikipe#ians all assert something that is objectively false, in lock step with each other? (Which does not have to be in bad faith, and I do not say that it is, here). I'm not sure the mechanisms exist to deal with this effectively, which is a dangerous precedent, and expect more of it, and not only on this topic from this POV, either. 73.2.86.132 (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    It was later clarified that the recorder brought up the scenario of a student identifying as a cat for her rhetorical devices.
    If that happens, the WMF and checkusers first see if sockpuppetry or states are involved. If not, then we simply assert that "something" is true, since the scenario of them all being wrong at that specific time is unlikely and we have WP:NOTTRUTH. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think if you really wanted to step back you wouldn't have insisted on getting the last word, but regardless I think that this argument is going in circles enough that I'm not even bothering to read your comment fully. Loki (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    by your own count, there were 60 Option 1 voters but 65 voters who were against it.That's not true -- a significant portion of the 16 "2" !votes included in the 65 were "1 or 2", which clearly are not "against Option 1". 67 people considered Option 1 to be acceptable, at most 61 did not. Whether that warrants "NC, therefore Option 2" should actually be explained by the close in a way that accurately summarizes what the arguments were and how they were weighed; this is not achieved by repeating a major contention from Option 3 as if it had consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn per @JoeJShmo—and maybe we need some language in policy discouraging NACs on RfC’s of certain length or impact. Zanahary 04:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    This should be posted in the Participants section. Parabolist (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Parabolist: WP:Be bold. I've moved it to the correct place. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Red-tailed hawk.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse The overturners over-read the close. It was patent from the discussion and the evidence from the paper, that the paper mishandled and was irresponsible with people's lives in the so called 'litter box' series. By policy, Wikipedia values living people's info and their lives more than that. The paper was either incompetent in reporting on a delicate classroom discussion unaware of what that context means for classroom control and student safety, including, fighting, harm and self harm risk of young people, or the paper was malicious in favour of whatever hobby horse it is on, perhaps both, and either way, unreliable by the standards Wikipedia needs. The close followed from the discussion and properly read consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    A competent close would need to factor in that half were not convinced. The close review is not for you to re-argue the RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    No need for your repetitious condescension. Were your arguments any good, you would not have to keep repeating them, especially to editors with significant experience in RFCs. It's the overturn argument that is trying to re-argue that the evidence did not show what it indeed showed. Your repetitious link is not even responsive to what I said, and merely shows bad arguments about a so-called half in regard to basically nugatory, when not irrelevant observations. But the evidence was significant, as I said. And the well argued consensus, drew the correct close, no matter your now odd and senseless appeal to counting heads, or your quibbling over phrases in the close. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    @Alanscottwalker this is by far the most condescending message in this discussion and the closest thing I can recall seeing to a personal attack. I suggest you withdraw it and make your point without needlessly personalising things. The repetitiousness is the presenting of opinion as fact that is being done almost entirely by a small number of those in favour of the Telegraph being regarded as generally reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Not in the least, I have not repeated anything,I only made two comments, and I'm not the one saying SMarshall was acting incompetantly.
    In the past few months, we now have a history you and I where you come and complain about facts and opinions. It should be plain to you that in a forum for securing things like, 'endorse someone's else's statement', it necessarily a matter of opinion. Perhaps you just either don't or just refuse to understand my comments in these context, perhaps it is cultural. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Apologies if I was unclear, but only the first two sentences were related to your comment. I agree you have not been one of those being repetitious or presenting opinion as fact. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    It's the overturn argument that is trying to re-argue that the evidence did not show what it indeed showed. No, what it (or endorse arguments) should argue is whether what is "shown" has much hold among an existing discussion's participants.

    Usually, reviews are initiated because someone disputes the outcome stated by the closing editor (e.g., a summary statement that some editors find confusing or incorrect), rather than the decision to discourage further discussion.


    Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.
    — WP:CLOSECHALLENGE

    I linked to my prior comment so I wouldn't have to copy-paste how I explained this idea more.
    your now odd and senseless appeal to counting heads I have never counted nor do I intend to count to show that an argument has hold among the participants. You can take a sample from the discussion and see !votes that argue similar to or per Chess.

    7_template� It's not quibbling when it asserts a consensus that isn't there and people directly quote it from RSP. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    What the closer drew was the correct conclusion of consensus from the discussion and the evidence. I know you don't agree with it, you have said it over and over. But your arguments did not convince me or others before me, you will just have to live with that. And yes you are counting when you say half, and contend it by implication of some else's statement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    There were many before you that agree with my argument. To say that I or Chess did not convince a substantial amount of participants is simply not true, and just in my opinion which you need not to satisfy (nor do you need to satisfy anything), you need to address that. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    It's true that you and Chess convinced a substantial amount of participants. However it is also true that you did not convince a substantial number of participants. What matters is not which group was the larger but whether there was, overall, a consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    But you were not convincing enough. So consensus was against your position. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with Thryduulf's comment. However, I don't see how anyone could come up with the conclusion that there is a consensus for GUNREL after a good reading as you claim, as I have seen no arguments for that conclusion. After reading the rebuttals against claim of perpetuating the litterbox hoax and the proportion of !voters convinced (call this "counting" if you want, I think it's correctly measuring consensus as it's towards evaluating an argument), I don't see how one can find consensus that it is patent that the Telegraph perpetuated the hoax. Additionally, even after you factor out the bludgeoning, it seems to me that the only rebuttals unaddressed are arguing against option 3. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if you're addressing me, but I advocated for MREL in the RFC and have argued in this review in favour of their being no consensus. I agree there is was no consensus for GUNREL. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, I take a similar stance and only my first sentence was addressing your comment. It's funny how history repeats itself onto others, with you also doing the same thing today. The unknown secrets of the universe. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    Since I am endorsing the close, I'm not sure why you are saying this, perhaps if I said 'counter-consensus against your argument', it would have been better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    Because it was patent from the discussion that the Telegraph did not embrace outright falsehoods such as the litterboxes hoax. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    Your view is your view, you saying the same thing over again, is no help. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    Neither is presenting your view without any evidence and refusing to provide them when asked. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    Stop your bludgeoning, Aaron Liu. You already know I referred to the evidence in the RFC. You already know you judge that evidencence differently, and you should already know that I don't think your view demonstrates any serious care about reliability for the encyclopedia, and you just think any source will do for the pedia, no matter the context. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    You are putting words into my mouth. I do not see how replying to one, conitnuous subthread is bludgeoning or where you've referred (or, preferably linked) to specific evidence or rules. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    While I don't think that you're bludgeoning either, I do think that this thread is kinda pointless and both of you should take a step back from responding to each other. Loki (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    Comments like this that consist solely of your personal opinion and are based on, at best, a misunderstanding/incomplete reading of the actual reporting they did should be down-weighted accordingly. This discussion isn't about "valu[ing] people's lives" or not. It's about whether the source was reliable or not. Being indelicate does not make them unreliable. And the vast majority of option 3/4 supporters were unable to actually provide concrete evidence of unreliability - as evidenced by the fact you are now "tugging at heartstrings" (multiple times) here to try and encourage the eventual re-close to ignore that fact. It doesn't matter how many people !voted for unreliability when their arguments were as poor and non-policy based as this comment from you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Really? So somehow contend you are not sharing your opinion? Opinion is what these forums are for and your opinion apparently is the other sides arguments are poor. And I think your arguments are poor and I have stated why. I already said it is about reliability in issue and why the paper is an unreliable narrator based on the evidence. That the closer did not see what you claim to see, happens, you just have to live with it sometimes. And sometimes accept, no you were unconvincing, to the closer, to me, and to others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    When the only "evidence" produced is a blatant misrepresentation (whether intentional or not) of what the source actually did/said, and that point is correctly brought up during the discussion and not refuted, then the closer needs to take that into account. If you only convinced editors by misleading/misrepresenting the source, that needs to be taken into account. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I've lost count now of how many times people have told you that what arguments were and were not refuted is a matter of opinion, and no opinion on the matter is shared by an overwhelming majority of participants. Can you please stop presenting your opinion as if it were somehow factual. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    When the arguments of the side arguing "but it's not false" are reduced to "well I want it to be true so it must be!" after they are refuted, then that refutation succeeded. This is regardless of whether the "losing" side openly admitted it or not. It is not a vote count. It is about the strength of the arguments. And arguments that people don't openly agree with but have no refutation to are the weakest type of argument there is.
    You have continued to claim that because many people did not "openly" voice that they were wrong, they can't be considered to have been wrong. And that's simply not how consensus works. If they were proven wrong, and they couldn't disprove that proof, they were wrong whether they admit it or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Once again you are claiming your interpretation as if it were objective fact. It is not and it does not and will not become so by virtue of repetition. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    And you're still not providing any evidence that the refutation was refuted. The onus is on you, who is claiming the refutation was not strong, to provide some evidence of that which was present in the initial discussion other than "not enough votes agreeing with it". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    The evidence is in the discussion, that you are wrong about what it portends does not make it disappear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Then you should be more than capable of providing diffs or quotes of that refutation. Claiming something is true doesn't mean there's evidence just because you want there to be. This has been the common tactic of yourself and others repetitively claiming "but the discussion" without being able to provide any evidence whatsoever of your claims that there was a refutation of the refutation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I did no such thing. Your statement is unreliable. And you are wrong in your characterization of the evidence. I assume you wish me now to say IMO, as if drawing conclusions is not a matter of inference and implication drawn by the individual. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Your comment, like the close, is a bizarre reading of the discussion. Loki's opener, and the discussion, didn't turn only on the "the litterbox series", and the outcome of even that section of the discussion was not simply acceptance of the claim of unreliability.
    RfC nomination contained 14 links to Telegraph articles, alleging they are examples of going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things about trans people or trans issues. Of those 14, from the discussion at RS/N, at least 9 of them did not in fact directly say false things. As far as I can tell this is now uncontested. The remaining 3-5 ("the litterbox series", though 2 of those don't actually directly make the cat claim) are contested about a single claim. Somehow closer took this to mean that the parts of the discussion worthy of mention concerned only the (single) subject of the remaining 3-5 articles, not the (many more) unreliability claims that were debunked, nor the secondary sources that did not say what closer claimed they did. Closer goes on to misrepresent the status of the outstanding claims of false reporting as accepted, rather than contested.
    You might have important points to make about journalistic ethics vis-a-vis whether paper was either incompetent in reporting on a delicate classroom discussion unaware of what that context means for classroom control and student safety, including, fighting, harm and self harm risk of young people, or the paper was malicious in favour of whatever hobby horse it is on but these opinions are irrelevant to the topic at hand - did the close reflect the consensus at RS/N - and are even irrelevant to the underlying topic of the reliability of DT for this site. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Did the close represent the discussion. I already said, yes. Your counts may be interesting to you but it is your counts that are not relevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    It's not actually any counts that matter. It's the strength of the arguments. And arguments (like yours) that are based on blatant misrepresentation (read: lies) about what the source did/didn't say need to be weighted accordingly (i.e. next to no weight). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    There is no strength to your arguments, because what you argue is just not true, or you misunderstand or mistake. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not counting votes, I'm counting false claims. It turns out that Loki made more false claims in the opening to the RfC than he could find in all the Telegraph stories about trans issues put together, but if that's not relevant to you... well I don't think we will reach any form of agreement. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I think you misunderstood and then over read him. It is like your somehow not understanding why my comment addresses the so-called litter box unreliable reporting because that part of the close where some think they have a smoking gun against Smarshall. Its just a bad day for the pedia when some go to the mat for such bad sourcing for the encyclopedia Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    They didn't report the "so called litter box" as fact. They reported it as the claims of an involved individual. Or are you saying that news organizations should be unreliable if they report on what Trump says that turns out to be false after he said it, but is plausible and neither proven nor disproven at the time of reporting? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    They didn't report the "so called litter box" as fact. They reported it as the claims of an involved individual.
    I don't get what you mean. They didn't report anything about a litter box, nor did they attribute it to someone instead of reporting it as fact. The article text in question is A school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat. (not to mention that all of us should be arguing the close itself) Aaron Liu (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    That's my point. That's why I put it in quotation marks. They reported that the schoolteacher said something, and that was what was said by the student's parents. And that is not some failure of reporting - they reported what they were told by a reliable source (the student's parents) about what the teacher told them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I dispute that I made a single false claim anywhere in that RFC. Loki (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    Loki, you claimed they endorsed the litter box hoax. Not only did they not do so, they explicitly called it a hoax in one of the sources you presented in support of you claim BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    Here is an article that you accused of directly saying false things. And this one. And this one. When what it transpired on examination were these were all articles that did not contain a single objective factual inaccuracy, but simply quoted people you don't like and described them in terms with which you don't agree. Or tell us in which sentence they are directly saying false things in this article for example? Should I go through the rest?
    Because since you've felt free to accuse people of lying, I wonder at what point does this misrepresentation become blatant dishonesty? Maybe you have abysmal reading comprehension skills, or you were so motivated to find evidence against the Telegraph that you somehow misrepresented these articles unintentionally at first. But after it's been pointed out? So many times? Feel free not to answer. I already know, nothing's been refuted, your evidence all still stands. I didn't write this for you, I wrote it for anyone who wonders why some editors are so outraged by the downgrade being made on such shoddy evidence from such clearly bad-faith actors. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    This thread got extremely combative, extremely quickly. Nobody is going to be able to convince anyone with a conversation like this. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    I already explained what false things they are saying, but if you need it spelled out to you:
    1. Maya Forstater, who is on the board of Sex Matters, a human-rights organisation that campaigns for clarity on sex in law and policy: I didn't even catch this one the first time TBH, but Sex Matters is not that, it's an anti-trans hate group. The original thing I identified as false in this article was the implication that James Esses was a subject-matter expert.
    2. She said the tweet contravened the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979. where "she" is an activist being quoted as an expert. This claim they are repeating is simply and obviously false.
    3. Her comments were welcomed by Sex Matters, a women’s rights group. Sex Matters isn't a women's rights group, they're an anti-trans hate group.
    4. Milli Hill, a campaigner for women’s rights in childbirth, said: “Male people, however they identify or describe themselves, cannot breastfeed.” Again, claim they are repeating is simply and obviously false.
    I'd like to request you strike your accusations. I'm fine with people saying my argument was wrong or unconvincing, but we're crossing the line here into accusing me of directly lying. That's not true, I stand by every word I said in that RFC. Loki (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    The UK doesn't register hate groups as charitable organizations. Your opinion that their advocacy makes them a "hate group" is not cause to silence their opinions/views. Whether you like it or not, Sex Matters advocates for "clarity" in law that many people think matters.
    Nobody can force you to change your opinion on things. But Wikipedia does not censor ideas just because you don't like them. And you were unable to provide any actual evidence of your claims - so you were directly (whether intentionally or not) lying. The fact your lies garnered people "supporting" your opinion does not change the fact they are not and were never evidence of unreliability. Having people claim they agree with you does not change the fact your basis is not in line with policy. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    The UK doesn't intentionally register hate groups as charitable organizations.
    And I would again like you to strike the accusation of lying. Call me wrong or whatever, that's fine, but I very much believe and stand by what I'm saying, and I did provide evidence of my claims both at the time and just now, as well as several times in the middle. It's not my fault you refuse to accept it. Loki (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    Your evidence is not evidence of the truth of your statements. If I parrot Trump's lies of voter fraud, providing "evidence" that is not evidence of voting fraud, you would be right to say that I was lying. You are doing the same. You are free to have your opinions. But your desire for something to be true doesn't make it true. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    I really don't think this is lying as Loki seems (along with others) to still believe that his evidence sources his claim. I would concur that the accusation of lying nears the border of incivility as it's more not getting the point in good faith. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    Believing in a lie doesn’t make it any less of a lie. I don’t think Loki is necessarily lying in bad faith - but they are lying. I do not believe that calling out a lie as a lie is a personal attack, nor uncivil. If someone was parroting the “big lie” that the 2020 election was stolen, it would not be uncivil to call that out as a lie, regardless of how much the person parroting it believed it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

    lie2
    /lī/
    noun
    noun: lie; plural noun: lies
    an intentionally false statement.

    If you're saying that I don't believe what I'm saying is false, then I really need to insist you strike your comments because that means even you don't believe I'm lying. Loki (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    As has been quoted by Samuelshraga, you do know that what you're claiming is false. You're claiming things that are bluntly, untrue and provably so. And you've been pointed out how they're untrue. So continuing to parrot those things, you are intentionally making false statements. Whether this is "naivety" (i.e. you just refuse to see that you're lying), or whether you're intentionally trying to mislead others, you are lying by continuing to make false statements after they have been shown to be false. This is even worse because your own quotes show that you do not believe that they must only be a hate group. You disagreeing with them doesn't give you the right to label them that just to be able to discount their opinion.
    To put another way, it is in fact you that's trying to engage in laundering - you're attempting to designate an advocacy group as a "hate group" to state that a reliable source must not "platform them", you're attempting to use how they identify that group as an evidence of unreliability, and you're then taking both of those claims and acting like they are evidence that any information the source has reported is false.
    The only possible way to assume good faith at this point is to look at you as having such strong feelings on the topic that you can't see how absurd your arguments have been. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    That is a misrepresentation. It's more that there isn't an independent organization in the UK, such as is the case in the US with the Southern Poverty Law Center which tracks hate groups in the US where similar groups (such as Genspect) are tracked as hate groups and labelled as such on the Wikipedia article, which are often cited in the same sentence with Sex Matters, such as on the article on the UK Cass Review. Just as the UK has allowed the LGB Alliance to register as a charity with self designation with lots of opposition from LGBTQ groups in the UK several years ago. Raladic (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    People opposing an organization does not make it a hate group. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    As has been quoted by Samuelshraga, you do know that what you're claiming is false.
    He knows that Telegraph isn't saying it in their voice and attributing it. He's claiming that 1. the Telegraph is using false characterization to make the attributee an expert 2. that giving such prominence do non-experts should prevent the source from being BREL. He has never said that he doesn't believe any of these points.
    Claiming that he's lying is a belief in bad faith. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    They aren't using a "false" characterization. He thinks that the organization should be labeled a "hate group" because he disagrees with it. Furthermore, bias does not equal unreliability - so even if he disagrees with their attribution that does not make them unreliable. Yet he claims it does, even after people have pointed out repeatedly that even if that is evidence of their bias, it does not equal reliability. So yes, him continuing to claim "they don't label this group a hate group and that makes them unreliable" after being pointed that out repeatedly is at best an intentional refusal to accept that bias is not unreliability and push his belief on Wikipedia as a whole - which amounts to a lie when he knows (or should know) that his claims are false. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that this seems like IDHT. I strongly disagree that he is lying.
    While I agree that this isn't improper attribution, "even if the attributee is improperly cited as an expert, the source is not unreliable" has no grounds in policy.
    There's is currently a thread at ANI on the conduct row. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
    The original discussion highlights that there is confusion around the reliability of quotes in reliable sources. While IMO this article correctly highlighted the quotes and claims as from activists who are otherwise unaccredited, the closest thing to a guideline about the case of an uncharacterized quote is WP:INTERVIEW, an essay. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    If a newsorg regularly got quotes from both sides of an issue, or even portrayed what kind of activism their anti-trans quotes were coming from honestly, I wouldn't have nearly so much of a problem. But the Telegraph does the thing I object to in these articles constantly: pulling a quote from an anti-trans activist group, disguising the true providence of the quote by mischaracterizing the group it comes from, and not including any opinions from anyone who might call them on the deception.
    This definitely makes them responsible for their false characterizations of groups like Sex Matters and Thoughtful Therapists, and I would argue it also demonstrates enough of an intent to launder the quote that it makes them responsible for the factual content of the quote as well, which is almost always BS. Loki (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    The characterization isn't false. According to the UK government, they are registered as a charitable/advocacy organization. Your disagreement with their viewpoint doesn't make the characterization of them as such false. You don't get to censor viewpoints you don't like by calling them a "hate group" just because you disagree with their viewpoints. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    Points 2 and 4 are quoting sources. That you don't like the sources, and think the things they said are false, is irrelevant. You claimed the Telegraph was directly saying false things. There is no suggestion the quotes are inaccurate. You clearly understand the difference between the Telegraph making a claim in its own voice and quoting someone.
    Points 1 and 3 are positive presentations of Sex Matters, a group that you consider a hate group. As you yourself wrote: "Similarly the way they describe Sex Matters as a "woman's rights group" is arguably not false but clearly misleading." So is it directly saying false things or, at most, a misleading implication? By your own admission the latter. In reality, it is simply another point of view. In point 1 you reference your claim that James Esses was falsely presented, and yet here you agree that the way they described James Esses is not, technically, false.
    This was all pointed out at the RfC. And many times since. So no, I won't be striking my comment, and your pearl-clutching about accusations of lying are simply laughable. LokiTheLiar indeed. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    Some cat videos to hopefully lower the temperature. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Adding to Endorse: I'll have to add to my endorse down here, since the above interventions have brought it to my attention. Many of the overturns appear to basically have a more-or-less warped view of what is a "reliable source". According to good sense, and the RS guideline, context always matters. No matter what the newspaper writes, it is not reliable for medicine, for psychology, for science, for sociology, for philosophy, for history, and the list of disciplines it is not reliable for goes on and on, and indeed covers most of human knowledge. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    This view is unnecessarily scoped outside of this discussion and directly contradicts consensus that The Telegraph is generally generally reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    The reliable source guideline is not outside the scope of this discussion, and no this view does not contravene any consensus, indeed it is the consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    As an opener of this discussion, the reliability of The Telegraph outside of the transgender topic is verily out of the scope of this discussion. Ignoring the interpretation of WP:RS with consensus at WP:RSP#The Daily Telegraph only serves to significantly weaken your argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    You point to that out-of-context, further suggesting you confuse generally reliable with reliable about everything, at the top of RSP, it explains, context always matters. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    Ah, that's what you meant. By "list of disciplines it is not reliable for goes on and on" I thought you meant that it should be generally unreliable.
    However, I see no overturns arguing that the Telegraph should have a status below no consensus or mention such topics exempted under rules similar to MEDRS. The overturn argument is that the close summary was too biased towards unreliability, not the reverse.
    Also, isn't this a duplicate !vote? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    No. As I explained. But you an others decided you had to interject, it makes the addition where it is. As for the overturns, they are partly silly, since the interposing of the no consensus is the close. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    I do not understand. Why shouldn't we discuss in a discussion? How does that give you any reason to !vote twice? What's the interposing of the no consensus? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    You are confused. There is no voting twice. The close outcome is what I was referring to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    If it's not supposed to be a separate !vote, I'd recommend that you remove the bolded text.
    Overturning does not necessarily mean we think that the status of the source at RSP should change. In the case of my rationale above, I have explicitly mentioned that I agree with the new status and that I want to overturn because the closure summary is misleading and weaponized to do things the consensus does not support. That is also the most popular view here. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    And such fears are silly. And no reason to overturn the close, as it is the same outcome either way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
    Seeing closes as only outcomes is absurd. The fear is not silly, as the quote from the closure statement has already been cited to remove the Telegraph from articles (see above). That is also the most popular view here. The end isn't all that's in sight. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    What's absurd is the desire to drag this out to come to the same place. Nor should anyone care about what is popular. The end is the purpose of being here, at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    You're in a community, so you should definitely take notice to what most of the community thinks, which sets the rules. The closure summary will and has been quoted on RSP. An editor in interest of checking the reliability of this source will and has read the misleading quote of the Telegraph spreading a hoax and acept that as a consensus of the community and proceed to remove the Telegraph from the topic area. To claim taking care of that is absurd, is absurd. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    RSP summaries are determined by consensus at RSP, and this is an ongoing discussion at the talk page. It's true I did more or less as described, without any real push-back from other editors, but it's also notable that inclusion of the Telegraph RfC is under increased scrutiny at RSP at present. In summary, let's not use my initial edit of RSP as a scapegoat. This is an issue with an initially badly summarised RfC, not necessarily with the RfC itself. Thanks. CNC (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see how that discussion discusses the misleading closure statement. If the closing summary is not overturned, then inclusion of material from it perfectly plausible as the agreed-upon consensus. I also agree that the RfC itself doesn't have any issues and we're here right now to try and amend the summary. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    No. The popularity is still not something to care about. And the close is not holy writ. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    You are the only one who believes that the closing summary does not change anything (in your words, not being holy writ). This seems like a User:Guy Macon/One against many situation. The summary statement aside from the new status is still part of the summary, and summary statements are grounds for challenging a close per WP:CHALLENGECLOSE. Your arguments have no basis in any projectspace documents. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    I've been trying to avoid engaging here but seeing you talk past each other is quite frustrating so let me try to reach some clarity:
    @Alanscottwalker, do you think that a no consensus close will not alter the status quo for the Telegraph regarding trans issues? Are you perhaps under the misconception that trans issues are 100% medical issues and that because of this the Telegraph wasn't reliable for trans issues anyway? Because if so, that's not true.
    Alternatively, are you under the related misconception that because the Telegraph was generally reliable, a finding of general reliability and a finding of no consensus mean the same thing? Again, because of the special way "no consensus" works at RSP, also not true.
    Regardless of what it is you mean, I feel like speaking only in cryptic one-liners is not doing you any favors here. Please say at least once as clearly as possible why you are endorsing the close. Loki (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    I already endorsed the close and I already said why in two paragraphs, and my second paragraph was not limited to only medical. And contra your advice, my advice to you and others is don't continue to drag this process out, saying it once, and with brevity, is enough. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    The reason I am asking you to be clearer is that a closer gets to evaluate the arguments and not just count votes. Your current argument is cryptic enough that the two other people who have responded to you don't know what you're talking about, which bodes poorly for how a closer will evaluate it. Loki (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    I have more faith in that the closer knows what they are doing, the BLP and CONTEXT values should be well known to them. Alanscottwalker (talk) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Telegraph)

[edit]
  • @Aaron Liu: If you are only concerned with amending that sentence, do you mind withdrawing this request so that those of us are who are concerned with the close more broadly can submit? The issue is that it makes it difficult to focus on the broader issues if you start the discussion with a narrow scope, while the opposite is less true. BilledMammal (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    If we really need multiple requests, then maybe those could be in parallel? I feel like we could do all of them here and hopefully find "express" consensus for that sentence while the rest of the discussion continues.
    Unfortunately I'm ill-equipped to discuss this out right now as I have to go to sleep, sorry. I sure have planned my day well. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I've attempted to make it parallel as you propose; if you feel that isn't an appropriate way to handle it, please move my comment. I've also renamed the sections "participant", "non-participant", and "closer". BilledMammal (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 09 July 2024 (UTC)
    The original sections were how {{RfC closure review}} prefilled it. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    A close review can and should result in discussion of all the issues present, as I've done in my comment above. Ultimately, the one issue Aaron Liu identified should be grounds enough to overturn this close, as it amounts to a supervote, but I doubt this is going to be closed quickly and you (BilledMammall) should feel free to identify your issues in your !vote for people to consider. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Aaron Liu: you wrote a couple of times in your reasoning that you want amendment to the first paragraph with reference to the litterbox claim. Just wanted to nitpick that it actually appears in the third paragraph, if you want to edit for us pernickety types. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    By first paragraph, I meant the first paragraph of my statement. It seems that this has been... misrepresented! I'll fix that soon. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @BilledMammal: You commented 44 times in the original RfC; now you've opened this close review and you are already badgering people here, seven replies in a few hours. It's wearysome. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I didn’t open this, and I’ve commented less than other editors involved here - I don’t think my participation has been unreasonable, although if you disagree I encourage you to raise the issue on my talk page as this is the wrong location for that discussion and I won’t reply further on that topic here. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    The threading makes it look as though yourself and AaronLiu opened the close review together. If that's not the case, then perhaps your long section should be under a separate Level 3 subheading. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    To simplify the maybe-confusing structure of this, I think claiming that we both opened it would be for the best, as with retaining the current formatting of rationales. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment As a close review I think we need to focus on the mechanics of the close. An editor who endorses or rejects the close because they agree with the outcome doesn't add weight to the discussion. Specific concerns were raised with the closing. Endorse responses that address the concerns with reason should be given weight in these discussions. Responses that simply endorse (or reject) the outcome without addressing the concerns raised should be discounted. This is like a legal appeal where we aren't arguing the case, rather we are arguing that the process was or wasn't followed (with supporting evidence). I feel this is a standard that should apply to all close reviews which often seem to devolve into a second round of litigating the original question. Springee (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Just a comment for non-British editors who might not know: The Daily Telegraph is one of the most prominent newspapers in a country where a large proportion of the population still read newspapers. I think you'd struggle to find an adult British person who doesn't have some sort of opinion on it, even if it's just "as absorbent as the rest of them, in a pinch." If the contention is that nobody with an opinion on the Torygraph (damn, there's me out) should have closed this discussion, you're likely disqualifying all British editors. Kind of like saying that an RfC on Fox News couldn't be closed by an American. Which may be fine, I just thought I'd mention it. – Joe (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    As a Brit, I can confirm this sentiment. This is also true of The Guardian, The Independent and The Times. We have a small selection of notable left-leaning and right-leaning broadsheets, and most Britons have an opinion on them. This is potentially similar to WaPo and NYT that are widely known, as I assume most Americans have an opinion on these either way as well. CNC (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I assume that most Americans have never heard of, or would not recognize, the majority of British newspapers. I would even wager that more would confuse The Times with The New York Times than would know what The Daily Telegraph is. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Precisely. The point was that S Marshall is from the UK (maybe that wasn't obvious), so naturally they would have some sort of opinion on The Telegraph without necessarily being bias. The "as well" was in reference to the overall comparison, not Americans knowing British newspapers. There's a rationale for having non-British editors close this one. CNC (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think that (non-)Britishness is required here; it isn't reasonable for us to ask people to not close something on the basis of nationality. Instead, As WP:INVOLVED reminds us, people are at times incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. When one is able to put their feelings aside and objectively read a discussion, this is less of a problem, but having strong opinions to such an extent that one's ability to faithfully summarize a discussion become colo(u)red by them is incompatible with our expectations for a closer. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    But nobody has demonstrated that Smarshall does have such strong opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I've admitted in this discussion to having strong opinions about some of the Daily Telegraph's political columnists. Fact is, the Telegraph gives platforms to people who want to privatize the NHS and bring back the death penalty, and I find that abhorrent. I don't (and still don't) have a personal opinion about the Telegraph's view on transgender people, and I deny that gender and politics are the same thing.—S Marshall T/C 15:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Just thought I'd point out that the (now-reverted) new entry on RSP has already been used to justify content removal with unwarranted stridency: [3]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I mean, yes? WP:MREL is not WP:GREL. Almost everyone in the RFC including the vast majority of Option 1 voters agreed that the Telegraph is biased, which would mean that citing them without attribution is inappropriate. So I don't know what your point is here. Loki (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    There was WP:INTEXT: "The organisation has said". Based on attribution, it's not necessary to state the source if you are stating the author(s) of the claim. Overall, kind of a moot point when it's not due in the lead anyway. CNC (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I agree the text was undue, and I have removed it. The point of mentioning it here was that the wording of the RSP entry was being used to support strident assertions about reliability that were in no way reflective of the much more circumspect discussion. If that's what people take away from all this, the process has failed. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    While I see your point, the misinterpretation of source reliability listed at RSP isn't exclusive to that entry (as you may well agree). The RfC itself was also used a source, which is merely what the RSP entry was summarising. It's fair to say that misinterpretation of MREL sources is widespread, and this example just provides more weight to that argument. CNC (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think what's notable is that it took a mere 2 hours from the update to Perennial Sources to an edit war breaking out, and this does not lend to an interpretation of "no consensus" that favoured stability. Void if removed (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I agree to a degree, but also don't think any GREL to MREL change ever intends to favour stability, or necessarily makes things unstable. Personally I think we should favour reliability of sources over stability, meaning context-based rationales in this case. I don't believe editors misinterpretation of MREL is a good reason to change the status quo though; the cause of the problem is a lack of understanding, the edit warring is just a symptom of that. CNC (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    The issue is how RSP works; its very subjective how we assess sources, and that means that the interpretation of our assessments is also very subjective. I think we should rework the process, but that's a different discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Given that the party employing that rationale was WP:INVOLVED in this RFC and voted 3/WP:GUNREL, I wonder: if you don't understand what it is you're voting for, is the vote valid? Void if removed (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Yellow doesn't mean attribution is required nor does it mean Green source beats Yellow source. Instead it means we need to use caution when deciding if the material is being given undue weight by the source in question (which can effect how much weight it should be given on Wikipedia). It also means we shouldn't take interpretations as always correct. However, it doesn't mean we should question basic facts taken from the source. If they say 500 people attended or the topics were X, we should assume they are correct. This by the way is a general issue issue with RSP's buckets, not specific to this topic. Springee (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    WP:MREL is questionable as it stands because it is unable to distinguish "no consensus on whether a source should be used" from "consensus that it's unclear when a source is used". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    What is the practical difference between them? Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: None, right now. That's the problem, since WP:MREL is seen as "unreliable with exceptions" in practice. Editors !voting "Option 2" can win by default simply by preventing a consensus from emerging. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    Well, why would that be harmful? If numbers are filtered and weighed into a close, I don't see what's wrong with that. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    If there is no consensus, why is it harmful for RSP to state that there is no consensus? If there is no difference in practice between between "no consensus for general reliability or general unreliability therefore it's medium reliability" and "consensus that it's medium reliability", why is not distinguishing between the two harmful? Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Are RfC participants supposed to reply in the Non-participants section, or should they keep comments in their own section and/or §Discussion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I’ve never seen a close appeal where it doesn’t happen, so I assume they are allowed to. BilledMammal (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    In fact, I haven't seen any close review with the headings format of the {{RfC closure review}} template, lol. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I have no objection to participants replying in the non-participants section. I think the goal of the headings is to group the top level comments together, which is accomplished even if those top level comments are getting replied to. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • As expected, people are already using this outcome to try to shift the balance of articles, and are also angling to go down the slippery slope and get other UK news media also declared unreliable on this issue, so that ultimately only one side of this active political debate can be covered as mainstream and non-fringe. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    That's completely irrelevant to the close. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Not entirely. That this was the motivation of certain editors on the RfC and the expected result of a non-WP:GREL close was brought up in the discussion. The fact that the closer ignored this in their close (and that it immediately turned out to be spot on) is yet another demonstration that the closer didn't do a very good job of weighing arguments. If they did, they certainly didn't show their working. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Editors are putting a lot of thought into closer's arguments about whether a "No consensus" finding on the RfC moves the Telegraph into WP:MREL or preserves the status quo. I think this discussion is premature, given that the closer has given next to no justification for a "No consensus" close - they explicitly disavow that it depends on the (misrepresented) summary of the litterbox hoax discussion in the close, and in their expanded close their only argument is a count of votes (which they also explicitly disavow on their talk).
First we can determine whether we have a valid close - and if not we vacate and somebody else can close by weighing the arguments. Maybe they too will conclude "No consensus". Then the discussion of what exactly that means will be ripe. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
There is no discussion needed about what a no-consensus close means - it's explicitly defined at WP:RSP (that wouldn't make sense if the lack of consensus was only between options 3 and 4, but that's unarguably not relevant to this discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Wonderful. I very clearly said that I don't think we should have that discussion now, and the first issue at hand is whether the close itself, meaning the judgement of "No consensus" and the reasoning given (or not given) for it should stand. Afterwards we can discuss, or not discuss, whether further discussions are or aren't needed on any topic that becomes germane. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I've requested clarity below due to the popular argument of "no consensus = no change". It seems pretty clear that this is a discussion that needs to take place, based on support for this proposal. CNC (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@CommunityNotesContributor I understand that. However I think that relevant points unrelated to the "no consensus = no change" debate have been raised, and call into question the validity of the "no consensus" finding itself. This seems to me to be a logically prior discussion that could potentially make the "no consensus = no change" discussion moot. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Granted, and if anything it's intended to draw these arguments out of this discussion and instead clarified below. Even with the RfC overturned, in the meantime, there is a valid discussion of whether this RfC should be exempt from the RSP status quo, or whether there needs to be a more thorough discussion on reviewing how RSP lists sources. Given this discussion has already surfaced, I see no reason why it wouldn't surface again regarding another NC close. CNC (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
True. I just don't want the discussion about this close - especially the arguments about it's basic failure to in any way weigh the arguments from the discussion - to get lost in the procedural discussion in what to do if the NC close is upheld. Of course that's more complicated because some people have now supported Overturn referencing closer's positions on what the outcome of NC is... and anyway now we're in a discussion about discussions about discussions.
Hopefully people coming to this review will still put appropriate weight on those who point out that the close is a supervote, that it doesn't weigh arguments, that it counts votes, and other failings, notwithstanding that more and more of the discussion is about the "NC = change or no change" issue. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the comments here seem to be implying that partially overturning by amending language isn’t an option? Can we at least obtain consensus that the language I mention should be amended? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to removing the language you want amended. I just think this is very secondary to the much more serious problem. There is no argument here that the close weighed the sides of the discussion in any way. Some people endorsing the close have asserted that it was reasoned, but they haven't elaborated on its reasons. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I was talking about many of the endorse !votes. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I think at minimum the removal of "and gender critical views" from the note, else what's the point in having a per topic discussion if a closer can unilaterally widen it?
For example, this is a story in The Telegraph about a social worker who won an employment tribunal on the grounds of her gender-critical views. There seems to be no exaggeration or inaccuracy. It also does not mention the word "trans" at all. It is entirely a story about the legal protection of those views, and the discriminatory acts of the council and regulatory body. It is a notable legal case (ie, the first time a regulatory body has been found to have committed unlawful discrimination) and as such not given undue prominence.
As written, this would come under the purview of this note, because the note has been expanded beyond anything discussed in the RFC. Why? Void if removed (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Without commenting on whether is should come under the close, a single accurate story (assuming it is, I haven't looked) is not at all incompatible with a finding of MREL or even GUNREL. Neither category is saying that all stories (in the relevant topic area) are inaccurate, heck even the Daily Mail gets things right at times. At the most basic level GUNREL means they are generally unreliable, MREL means they are sometimes unreliable - often enough that they are not generally reliable but not often enough that they are generally unreliable. In the same way generally reliable doesn't mean infallible. Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The point is that this is a story that is not a "trans issue", it is a "gender critical views" issue. The RFC was "unreliable on trans issues". If people wanted this to be part of the RFC, it should have been part of the RFC. Adding it in in the close without it being raised in the RFC and with no discussion is a WP:SUPERVOTE. Void if removed (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
That is nonsense, Gender critical, or its original non-whitewashed term TERF, which even has it in the name, is a trans issue and whether specifically called out or not, it's implicitly covered under the topic.
There is no change in scope, so the accusation of a supervote for this is arbitrary, but simply WP:COMPETENCY is assumed on an obviously linked subtopic that the closer simply chose to call out. Raladic (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
And all of that is of course extensively disputed (including the crack about "whitewashed") and none of this was discussed in the RFC, and your framing of the issues in this particular POV exemplifies the problem with closing in this way. ("call out"? is that the role of closer?).
To make this clear, consider a hypothetical RFC brought claiming that "Pink News is unreliable on gender-critical views", which plays out as a mirror opposite of the Telegraph one.
Ie, where the Telegraph is claimed to present trans issues in a biased and misleading way, and overly focuses on trans people in a negative light, inflating non-stories into breathless ragebait, the inverse claim is made that Pink News behaves the same about people with "gender critical views". Lets say that the arguments all play out exactly the same, in the same proportions and a closer decides it is a no-consensus result.
Do you think it would be defensible to say that the reliability of Pink News was therefore disputed on "gender-critical views and trans issues"?
These are distinct subjects with some overlap, and with a huge amount of conflict where they meet and even what terms mean, but here the POV of the closer has widened the scope of the close beyond the question that was asked. Void if removed (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Just simply no, it is consensus on Wikipedia (and as such the wider world, since we simply summarize the RS) that Gender critical views are a subtopic of transgender issues, as is very clear from the lead of Gender critical, so there is simply no leap here.
There is also no crack about whitewashing, again, we discuss this in Gender-critical feminism#Terminology, so I simply re-stated the consensus on Wikipedia on the issue.
Picking on words that were included in the close doesn't change the fact. Raladic (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
But WP:NOTSOURCE so, no. And given these are exactly the arguments the closer has presumed the conclusion to, based on no evidence, and the many, many protracted discussions on talk there, it would be much simpler not to have needlessly expanded the close to include this completely undiscussed POV, for no good reason. Void if removed (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Hopefully this discussion isn't stale, but recent coverage of Imane Khelif's Olympic victory made me realise that the Telegraph's reliability for reporting on the like of JK Rowling's attacks on Khelif would be considered MREL under the close, even though I don't think anyone involved would consider it a trans topic. It is not impossible that this will be a relevant question for editors in the immediate future. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe that this is much less damaging than "unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for clarity

[edit]

Part 1

[edit]

To those of you who say "Overturn" -- overturn to what? Please be clearer. It would help if you distinguished between:

  1. Overturn to a consensus. Please specify what consensus you see.
  2. Overturn to no consensus, defaulting to no change. This means you feel that WP:RSP should still say "generally reliable".
  3. Overturn to no consensus, defaulting to a change, but not the change that I specified in my close.
  4. Overturn to no consensus, defaulting to the change that I specified in my close, but change the summary of the discussion.
  5. Overturn by reverting the close, leaving someone else to close with no guidance from the community on how.

Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 15:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read enough of the relevant policies to have an opinion on the Wikipedia:ONUS questions behind option 2-3. My sympathy is to 1, as I think the Wikipedia:GREL choice got the better side of the argument once @Chess stepped in, and I saw many other editors thought the same, but I'm not nearly experienced enough in these to attempt to judge a consensus myself. So by default I will go to Option 5, because as I have argued here - the only reason you gave (and you only gave it in your expanded close) for giving weight to the view that the Telegraph was unreliable was this view is strongly disputed by significant numbers, but you told me on your talk page that the point is not to count votes, and I didn't, but to weigh arguments, which I did. There is no evidence of argument-weighing, and the close was not remotely a reasonable reading of the discussion, so the policy questions relied on to implement its outcome don't need to be addressed in my opinion. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn to allow someone who intends to actually address the problems with your close to re-close the discussion with the consensus (or lack thereof) they find after doing so. If a closer actually weights arguments appropriately and explains how their close takes into account that, aside from the “it’s biased” and “I don’t like it” !voters, the majority was solidly swayed by the refutations of the initial discussion, then that close will be sufficient. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
aside from the “it’s biased” and “I don’t like it” !voters, the majority was solidly swayed by the refutations of the initial discussion I think you must be reading a different discussion to me. Many people were swayed, to a greater or lesser extent, by some or all of the refutations. Many people were not. Even if you discount all of the "it's biased" comments (many of which were actually more complex than that and accompanied !votes of all options) calling that "a majority was solidly swayed" is a misleading oversimplification. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
When the refutations were based on the actual text, and nobody was able to actually present cognizant and clear refutation of the refutation, it does matter. Anyone !voting based on “I disagree with the refutation, even though it’s English language facts and provides the exact text of the article to support it, but I can’t say why I disagree” should have that opinion decreased in weight accordingly. Otherwise, those commenting early in a discussion have absolutely no reason to continue in the discussion to form a consensus - since their opinion, no matter how badly it’s proven wrong, will still count just as much.
If someone is proven to have based their opinion on inaccurate/misleading information, as many people commenting both before and after the refutation did, and they refuse to clarify/update to explain their opinion in light of new information, their opinion must be weighted accordingly. And that is what happened here, with people - including the closer himself - subscribing to an outright falsehood that the Telegraph said something that they didn’t, and nobody could ever provide proof that they did. If people are allowed to “win” discussions by blatantly lying and not providing proof just because enough people agree with that lie in furtherance of their political goals, then this is no longer an encyclopedia, but a propaganda machine.
The new close needs to take into account the fact that many (to use your preferred word) !votes for unreliability were based on falsehoods, that many more were based on not liking it, and that many more were based solely on bias in combination with these other things. And this goes for both sides - but the unreliable camp had significantly more !votes that were inaccurate at best. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 3/4 The result of no consensus can't be ignored by RSP as the status quo of RSP is to categorise sources (or topics by sources) with the relevant consensus established or lack of. The Telegraph can't be used as an example of "there was no consensus so there is no change", as this would have broader implications on other sources listed at RSP; Fox News and HuffPost (politics) come to mind as examples of GREL turned NC, but I imagine there are many others that were GREL by default prior to NC. It's unclear whether editors believe we should be making an exception for The Telegraph, or whether the proposal is to re-format how RSP categorises source discussions. If it's the latter, this requires a broader RfC on how RSP categorises sources and has little to do with this RfC. CNC (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Given that this section was opened as a way of disambiguating the intentions of people who support Overturn, I think it's a little unhelpful to have people who endorse the close choosing options as well (not that I think your arguments are unwelcome at all - I already said that I don't as yet feel confident or experienced to get involved on this issue and what you write seems cogent, even if it prejudges the idea that "No consensus" close will be retained). Samuelshraga (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
That's a very good point and had overlooked that, apologies. I've struck my comment and encourage anyone to collapse this discussion. CNC (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm neutral to Option 4 and would oppose everything else. I think the conclusion was the only reasonable reading of the discussion, and closing to any consensus (including, by the way RSP works, WP:GREL) would be inappropriate. I'm not particularly attached to the summary though, and honestly do think that the exact phrasing was stronger than was reflected in the discussion. Loki (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@LokiTheLiar, this section was to disambiguate the intentions of people who support Overturn, it could be a bit misleading to include the opinions of people who endorse the close. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 2. The default in a case of no-consensus is to maintain the previous status quo. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not, see comment above re status quo of RfC closures regarding source reliability. Are you suggesting that it should be, and should it be enacted retrospectively as well? This isn't the right venue for that proposal, but I'd appreciate clarity from the "no consensus means no change" crowd as to what they are proposing, so we can draft up an RfC for it and move forward. CNC (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
For WP:RSP that is not true. Look at the page; it has an entire category for sources on which there is no consensus, and sources are described as lacking consensus repeatedly throughout the table. Its purpose is to document the current consensus of the community (or lack thereof); it doesn't have the same need for stability or the need to reach a hard decision on some version that applies to article-space. We can't realistically leave an article in no-consensus state, but for RSP we can and frequently do. --Aquillion (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Since my preferred option isn't there, my ideal would be overturning the close for a re-evaluation, with no assumption that anyone who didn't assert that the specific examples of alleged reliability presented was conceding the unreliability of those specific examples. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that's 5? Samuelshraga (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I didn't think so since I'm not suggesting no guidance, but no guidance with the direction of making sure not to make what I personally feel was a particular previous error in determining consensus. I think a closer needs to approach the arguments about reliability more than the feelings about reliability, which I believe (again, my personal opinion) is more in line with establishing consensus and decreasing the chances that this becomes a whole new dreary casus belli in what is already a controversial area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 5. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 4 as per my statement above. I think you got the result right, but the reasoning (especially introducing ONUS) is wrong. Also to note I reject the premise behind Option 2. The RSP (and so RSN) does have a way of indicating that editors don't agree on the reliability of a source (MREL), so I also don't agree with editors that no consensus means no change. The RSP is not article content, and this wasn't an RFC on how to update the RSP. The RFC was on the reliability of the source, on which there isn't agreement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 5 Sweet6970 (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Well, okay then. I see nothing that tempts me to revert myself, so when, after the requisite amount of wrangling, someone else comes along and closes this, their entire menu of options seems to be either (1) no consensus to overturn or (2) consensus to overturn but no consensus what to overturn to, in which case the next closer has a great big problem. If you want, you can make this less of a headache for that hypothetical person by supplying with reasoned arguments for what the close should have been. It would help even more if you could take the trouble to ensure that these arguments are compatible with the rather idiosyncratic way that WP:RSP works.—S Marshall T/C 16:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The closer requirements involve being compatible with policies and guidelines. WP:RSP is neither so no arguer or new closer would have any obligation to be compatible with its idiosyncracies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm certainly refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.—S Marshall T/C 17:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
What polices and guidelines is RSP not compatible with? Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
If you would like to overturn a ton of our existing consensus and system, you may open that as a separate proposal. For now, let's please operate within the status quo. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps I've caused a misunderstanding, see reply to Thryduulf below. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
You explicitly claim that RSP is not compatible with policies and guidelines. It is not irrelevant to ask you to substantiate that claim by listing which policies and guidelines it is not compatible with (and ideally explaining why). Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I think I belatedly see where you got that idea and it's my fault. After the sentence "The closer requirements involve being compatible with policies and guidelines." I said "WP:RSP is neither ..." i.e. "WP:RSP is neither a policy nor a guideline ...". You seem to have taken it as "WP:RSP is neither compatible with policies nor with guidelines ..." So I should have written more carefully. Anyway, it's true that WP:RSP is neither a policy nor a guideline and your question doesn't relate to that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome to explain how you think RSP should be changed in discussion below. CNC (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps I've caused a misunderstanding, see reply to Thryduulf above. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Policies and guidelines aren't the only kind of consensus out there. RSP's consensus is not overridden by any broader consensus, thus it stands. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what that's arguing for, it remains true that no arguer or new closer would have any obligation to be compatible with its idiosyncracies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
The word you're looking for with "idiosyncrasies" is "consensus". Aaron Liu (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
The next closer does not have a great big problem, because presumably they will actually evaluate and weight the discussion appropriately, rather than taking the initial commenter’s claims at face value, ignoring the amount of support for the refutation of those claims, and in fact repeating those inaccurate claims as part of the close.
I respect you a lot S_Marshall, I really do, and your closes tend to be quite well crafted and explain your decision making very well. This one missed the mark woefully, however, as seems to be clear looking at the consensus forming above that your close was not appropriate. I don’t want you to think that I’m trying to say you intentionally supervoted here - but the fact is you seem to be unable to accept that your close amounted to a supervote, and you, to use your words, “unashamedly embraced” the initial, refuted claims, the refutation of which was agreed to in large part by most editors providing substantive comment after it. You also basically begged it to be taken here - I’m not sure if you did that because you felt confident that your close was not a supervote (when it was), or whether you just didn’t want to deal with it. But you were given the chance to expand on your claims in your close - and you instead posted basically the same closing statement with only a couple additions that did nothing to address the significant plurality (if not majority) of editors who directly discounted the claims you took as fact in your closure. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Well said. I believe S_Marshall almost always does a terrific job, and is extremely valuable to the movement. I disagree with the close, for a similar reason you do, but I really hope it's not taken as a personal attack, but as a polite disagreement on something that is important to get right. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
This user has struck his overturn !vote.—S Marshall T/C 07:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2. I think it probable that after properly weighing the votes consensus on reliability may be found, but failing that, I believe option 2 is warranted here, and every RfC should be determined on a case by case basis. JoeJShmo💌 21:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 5 except with a bit more direction as suggested by CoffeeCrumbs > Option 4 or Option 2. JoelleJay (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Could we be more specific about this "a bit more direction", please?
    This is a 36,000-word review of my close, so this close review is longer than Hamlet. It's also longer than MacBeth and The Tempest put together. (In comparison, the original discussion was 60,000 words or so. In total we've got a full novel's worth of text that we're proposing someone else evaluates.) Obviously, it remains my hope and expectation that the closer of this discussion will see that there isn't a consensus at this close review. But there's an unpleasant possibility that they will see it as consensus to overturn, and if they do, then I hope they will at least see that to revert my close as per option 5 and then give the new closer no guidance at all would be appallingly wasteful.
    So in that event, we definitely do need to provide this "a bit more direction" that JoelleJay and CoffeeCrumbs advocate. What should it say?—S Marshall T/C 14:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    The "particular guidance" would be to take into account the refutations to the nomination statement. Berchan's comment above expounds on this.
    I read the "no guidance" option as "leave it up to the closer what to overturn to". Aaron Liu (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    Me too. Levivich (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    Yep. The fact that S Marshall clearly views this as the least desirable option has no bearing on the fact that in the absence of a consensus otherwise, overturning would mean just that, and no more. And despite his framing of the question here, that seems to be where a lot of the overturn support is leading.
The crack about how many words have been spilt on this is disingenuous - it's not the fault of the Overturn supporters that S Marshall misrepresented the discussion so blatantly, any more than it is the fault of Chess and others at the RfC that there were so many false representations of the cited evidence in the RfC's proposal. There are a lot of bad arguments to dissect, it takes a fair number of words to do it. Personally, I'd blame the editors who clearly are here to right great wrongs by downgrading sources that disfavour their POV. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
It's definitely true that someone is making blatant misrepresentations to right a great wrong, although we differ about who it is.—S Marshall T/C 23:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
In case you thought I was saying you are here to WP:RGW, let me clarify that I don't make that accusation. I do think that of various Endorse and Option 3 supports here and at the RfC, based entirely on the content of their contributions (happy to bring specific examples if anyone demands them). My criticisms of your close have nothing to do with your motivations, I won't rehash those criticisms here, I think they speak for themselves.
But you're welcome to think whatever you wish about why I'm here. If you've written me off as acting in bad faith, that might explain why I find your responses to my criticisms so unsatisfying. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Part 2

[edit]

For !voters of Option 2, could you also clarify how "no consensus, defaulting to no change" should work based on the status quo at RSP:

  • Option 1: The Telegraph RfC should be an exception to the status quo, therefore the no consensus close wouldn't change previous consensus
  • Option 2: The Telegraph RfC and future no consensus RfCs should no longer replace any previously established consensus
  • Option 3: All sources with no consensus should default back to any previously established consensus, retrospectively
  • Option 4: No consensus RfCs should only be included on a case by case basis
  • Option 5: Disagree that this is how RSP categorises sources

This is not an RfC, simply trying to clarify how "defaulting to no change" is supported. Pinging additional editors who expressed this view or touched upon it for comment: @Amakuru @Walsh90210 @*Dan T.* @BilledMammal CNC (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is an easy answer here. If we had say 50% (by numbers and quality of argument) say a source is 1 while the other 50% say 2, I would be inclined to go with status que. However, if things are the same ratios but we are dealing with 1 vs 3 (green vs red) then it seems hard to justify status quo. Perhaps I'm thinking about it a bit mathematically, but if nocon shifts it a half point I would err on the side of no change. If nocon shifts a whole point, I would move it. I would also note that if we are talking about moving the source up vs down I would err on the side of more general source inclusion vs less. As this applies to the discussion above, I would say such a clear divide should be yellow with an understanding that we really mean case by case, not yellow is generally excluded but perhaps could be used here or there. Springee (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:MREL does state "may be usable depending on context." but nonetheless you make valid points, even if it's a big can of worms. If I understand correctly, what you're suggesting is a "case by case" assessment based on the RfC itself? The next question would be should this be decided by the closer, or by discussion and consensus at RSP? I've otherwise included another option for "case by case" basis of inclusion, which while I still think is a CoW, appears a relevant option based on your comment. CNC (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, when I was talking about case by case I was referring to a source that is decided to be yellow and how we use it in articles. This is a general complaint about how yellow sources are sometimes treated as less legitimate than green ones. Sometimes editors play a game of green source beats yellow source and ignore case by case usage context. For example, if a green source briefly said, "this is bad" while a yellow source offers 3 detailed paragraphs discussing pros/cons but mostly pros in detail I wouldn't presume the green source article proves the yellow source wrong. In this case I would say the yellow source is the stronger of the two. As for RSN closings, I think they will always be case by case but hopefully most cases will be easier to untangle. Springee (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
My mistake. Naturally I agree that a compilation or MREL sources is more reliable than a single GREL, depending on the context of course, but generally I agree with the concept. I'm not sure what you mean by "As for RSN closings, I think they will always be case by case but hopefully most cases will be easier to untangle". CNC (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Looking at WP:RSP, for several of the first "no consensus" colored topics, the discussions were closed with consensus (Anadolu Agency, AllSides Media, Apple Daily, Arab News). This "no consensus" supervote is not inline with general practice, and cannot stand. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
So Fox News and HuffPost (politics), among others, should be overturned, per Option 3? CNC (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_406#RfC:_downgrade_Fox_News_for_politics?: It is clear the overwhelming consensus is to downgrade Fox News to generally unreliable for politics starting in November 2020. Once again, there is consensus in the close. If the result here is "no consensus", it cannot be used to justify any change in treatment. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
No. Per WP:FOXNEWS: "Historically, there has been consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. However, many editors expressed concerns about the reliability of Fox News for any topic in a 2023 RFC. No formal consensus was reached on the matter, though." Should it be overturned then? Please tell me you otherwise looked past RSP entries beginning with A. CNC (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Would you like me to reference WP:HUFFPOLITICS as well? CNC (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I am strong on assuming that the status quo for no consensus at RSP holds for this discussion. I don't think we should be questioning the long-standing tradition at RSP, which has its own reason, to derail this CRV. If someone would like to change that, they should start their own proposal. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm also of the strong opinion that "the status quo for no consensus at RSP" is relevant, but the reality is many editors have expressed their concern over RSP listing prcoess and therefore it requires evaluation, here and now. This section of "Request for clarity" is not an attempt to "derail this CRV", but instead to refine discussion of this topic to this section. CNC (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that nobody wanted to destroy our efforts here. However, in my opinion, if we try and bite off more than we may chew, that is what's going to happen. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Putting aside policy questions around privileging "status quo vs MREL", I think it's relevant that many editors who supported Option 1 and Option 2 in the RfC found that - especially after the detailed rebuttals (by Chess and others) - that there was simply no case to answer on unreliability, notwithstanding that some editors continued to allege it.
The discussion wasn't framed around an open discussion of the question "Is the Telegraph reliable?" It was framed as "Do the examples brought by (mainly) Loki establish that the Telegraph is not generally reliable?"
Editors who supported GREL clearly thought that the case for GUNREL had been refuted, and saw little need to make positive arguments in favour of GREL. If a finding of MREL is really the outcome of this close (or the close which follows it after overturning) of this RfC, it's implausible to me that a new RfC will not quickly be generated to make the positive case for reliability on transgender issues (and gender-critical views, which the closer inexplicably included).
Quantitative arguments to do with the volume of articles published and number of factual inaccuracies, any retractions or corrections which have been published, Wikipedia:USEBYOTHERS and others spring to mind. I am sure that such evidence would have been raised if GREL supporting editors thought that the discussion would be interpreted this way. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
UBO was actually raised, though sources supplied to evince UBO were disputed; the dispute was not resolved by the time the second month came in and discussion fizzled out. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

An unrelated, modest proposal

[edit]

Between this imbroglio and the one about the ADL RfC a few days ago, maybe we should just write down somewhere that any RfC with more than (500kb? 1mb?) of crap in it ought to be closed by a panel. Obviously not as a requirement, but it just seems practical. Is this anything? Does this have legs? jp×g🗯️ 21:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Because based on your threshold, it will always be contested. CNC (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Before some offsite brane-geniouse[sick] [sic] adds to the red-string corkboard that this is some kind of veiled attempt at shady political ministration, I already commented in the RfC, and furthermore I do not particularly give a rat's what parliamentary hocus-pocus ends up happening here (or at XRV), it's just taxing to see one person try and sit down to close a Tolstoy-length RfC, immediately get massively BTFO at AN over the close, and then all their effort is wasted when a separate group of people sit down to write a panel close. jp×g🗯️ 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
This now sound like some kind of veiled attempt at shady political ministration. CNC (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Back in 2006 the phrase "muhahahahahahaha" was considered extremely random and funny, and I think we should have a revival. jp×g🗯️ 21:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about absolutely requiring a panel close, since that would mean that some of these discussions would take months and months to be closed, but I do think I'd support a requirement for either an admin or a panel close. I think this particular close was good, but I'd really rather skip the inevitable-closure-review part of the process in the future as much as possible. Loki (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think recommending (not mandating) that such discussions are closed by a panel or highly experienced, clearly uninvolved single admin would be good. Not because non-admin closures are inherently bad (they aren't - some non-admins are better closers than some admins) but because close reviews based on alleged minor procedural errors or the admin status of the closer (which are becoming more common) are a bad thing. Maybe some sort of restriction that said someone who was involved in a discussion may not initiate a review of such a discussion within 48 hours of the close unless they get agreement from someone uninvolved or someone who supported a different outcome to them that a review is justified. However I don't know whether this would actually work or how it could be enforced - it would need more thought before it could be a viable proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I do think recommending an admin or panel close would be good for RFCs over a certain length, but it would also be a good idea to tack on RFCs in WP:CTOP areas. Most of the contested closes I see are in WP:AP2, WP:ARBPIA, or WP:GENSEX; for those we actually could require it and I think it would help significantly. There are a lot of CTOP areas and many of them are pretty quiet nowadays, so we might just want to do it in certain ones like what I listed here. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there is solid evidence that panels (even admin panels) are less likely to be challenged these days. Also given the difficulties we already face in finding closers for such discussions I do not think it wise to add an additional procedural hurdle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Sure, it would be bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo in some cases, but I don't think the alternative is having no bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. The alternative, which we are currently posting in, is a hundred-thousand-byte AN thread paired with a twenty-six-thousand byte XRV thread (and this is just on the first day of both). jp×g🗯️ 22:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • If you do the heavy lifting then you're going to get close reviews, panel or admin or bureaucrat or founder. We need to think about how we conduct them. I've noticed that someone who doesn't like your close virtually always alleges involvement, as well as supervoting and all the other things that challengers pretty much have to say, because we have this weird culture where saying "I think the closer was wrong" always fails but "the closer made a technical procedural error" often succeeds. If we change that culture we'll make better decisions.—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, this is the most annoying part: even if the close is (imo) a correct interpretation of consensus, a single closer will often give rise to all sorts of objections along the lines of "well how do we know this random person is correct?" or "but they aren't even an admin!" or "they said while instead of whilst!" et cetera. This can give people a ready-made rationale to disregard or overturn the result later on because "well the close was half-assed" etc... in the example of the ADL RfC, there were actual think tanks and newspapers talking shit about the close, so I think that making it more difficult to raise objections to the manner of the close is overall better for the decisionmaking process.
    Of course this doesn't need to be done in all cases, but I think it would be condign to at least point out that people are prone to demanding it. jp×g🗯️ 22:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think the root of the issue is that closers are often vague. For example, in this close you say on the basis of scholarly sources and an Ofsted report, various misrepresentations contained in that article are noted. You don't explain what those misrepresentations were, which ones were supported with scholarly sources and an Ofsted report, or what the community consensus was on each of them. This makes it very difficult for editors to determine if your close is correct.
    Sometimes this is even done deliberately, to make it harder to challenge the close, something I very much disagree with - if there is something wrong with a close we want to be able to identify it. I'm not saying you do this but some closers, by their own admission, do.
    Because this makes it difficult to determine whether the closer is actually wrong editors need to consider the information that is available to them - whether the close appears to be a supervote, and whether the closer has previously expressed opinions on the topic that might have tainted their reading of consensus. I think if we fix that issue, if we expect closers to provide more detail, then I think the rest will fix itself.
    That's not to say every close needs such detail, but some, including this one and the ADL one, would have benefited from it. BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Nobody at all is ever satisfied by providing more detail about the closing method, in any circumstances.
    In the 10+ years I've been closing RfCs on Wikipedia, I've been asked to expand on my close more than a few times. Exactly 100% of the people who asked for this have gone on to issue a close challenge, and exactly 0% of them have been satisfied.
    I'm afraid that long experience of this tells me the only reason anyone ever asks for more detail is because they're hoping you'll say something they can attack at AN.—S Marshall T/C 15:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
    I haven't been closing discussions for as long, and I focus more on RM's, but my experience differs - I find that sometimes the editors are satisfied by my expansion.
    Other times, they do go on to use what I said in a close appeal - but personally, I think that's a good thing. If I said something wrong then that means I probably made an error in my close and I want the community to be able to find and rectify that error. When closing, my goal isn't to write a close that will survive a close review, but to write a close that will accurately reflect consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    To expand on this, I wanted to use the example of a question I asked you: What misrepresentations are you referring to here? As far as I can recall ... the only alleged misrepresentation raised was whether a student actually identified as a cat.
    If I was asked a question like this as closer I would be happy to answer it. This is because the nature of it means only two things can happen; either I can satisfy at least that concern, preventing or at least reducing the scope of any close review, or can I discover that my close was flawed. I see both these results as a positive.
    Honestly, I greatly respect you as a closer. In discussions about NACs I've previously cited you, along with Paine Ellsworth, as two of our best closers. In this case, however, I think you made a (very rare!) mistake. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    The legal system has tried to solve this problem by having a standard of review. We should implement this on Wikipedia by clarifying what level of deference we give to closers, given that we already have this as an informal policy. In my opinion, we should only defer to the closer when a closing statement considered an issue being disputed, and when the closer's judgement is based on the arguments people have made. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree with Barkeep49 that there is no evidence that having a group of evaluators of consensus leads to less followup discussion. I also don't think it's appropriate to treat admins as being specially privileged to evaluate consensus. In my view, the problem is that the community has certain expectations regarding how consensus is evaluated, and typically there'll be someone whose viewpoint didn't prevail that chooses to point out any deficiencies they see. I know the community historically dislikes bureaucracy, but if we were to introduce some, I'd suggest building up a list of experienced evaluators of consensus who can be asked to determine the result of divisive discussions. Note that the only way to become experienced is to evaluate some discussions, so the community needs to be tolerant of users stepping up to do so, even if they make mistakes. Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion could serve as a place to foster greater experience in evaluating discussions (at its genesis, I had feared it would be just another place to where disputes would spread, but up until now, that hasn't happened). isaacl (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    At one point I had thought about proposing a userright flag called discussioncloser that could be given out to trusted users like template editor and rollback. It wouldn't have any technical permissions, but maybe there could be an edit filter restriction non-discussioncloser users from using our close templates on certain pages. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Closes are legitimate when they consider the necessary facts and provide clear reasons for decision. Panels assist greatly in this, because editors can compare notes and ensure they're not missing any relevant information. Obviously, people are going to complain no matter what, but a good close will explain why certain !votes were disregarded and others were not. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this too. And especially when a discussion becomes lengthy, it is much more likely that whether intentionally or not, a closer misses significant portions of the discussion, or in other words, unintentionally falls into a vote-count just because one side may have significantly more words than another. It is not reasonable to expect one person to be able to read a lengthy discussion and not error in some way even if they take hours or days to read through it and attempt a closure. The beauty of a panel is that if one person, or even two, miss something, it is likely that the third/further person will catch it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
While panel closes have their uses, I think that generally the best way to catch issues is by having the closer be more verbose. It doesn't increase their workload significantly, and it makes it easy for participants to catch errors and raise them with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
One of the main benefits I found in doing a panel close on the ADL RfC was being able to workshop the close statement. Any of the three of us could have closed the thing in a way that was within a reasonable closer's discretion, but together we were able to talk through how the close statement would read to participants on both sides, to non-participants, to people looking back later, and to catch statements that might be too easy to take out of context, could be twisted to claim bias in one direction or the other, etc.
The downside of a panel close is you need to find multiple people willing to take the same level of heat—all three of us in the ADL close panel have been criticized in multiple publications—and then get those people to coördinate. We spent hours on voice calls. Others may exchange many emails. With most things in life, teamwork reduces the total number of person-hours required, but with panel closes it actually increases it. Because of that, I'm not sure to what extent our volunteer ecosystem can support a greater number of panel closes than organically emerges. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you make an important point about having at least a bit of review in the closing process, something the panel allows. Is there a way that we could have something like a RfC close, pre-close discussion for some of these topics? I think sometimes there is a level of momentum once the close is "official" but if the closer could state what they are thinking and allow editors some ability to chime in before the ink is dry, would that reduce some of the issues that you pointed out? I'm not sure if this is a practical idea or one that might cause more issues than it solves but perhaps it would help. Springee (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
As someone else noted somewhere in here, WP:Discussions for discussion exists. That said, when a major concern in closing a sensitive RfC is avoiding becoming part of anyone's narrative (to the extent it can be avoided), having a public drafting/review process, where everyone can see suboptimally-phrased past wording, would defeat a lot of that. But I think it's still better than nothing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@JPxG, there's already often a backlog of RFCs for close at WP:CR. I don't see adding a suggestion that any RFC over certain length be closed by panel is going to help that, in fact it may just give challengers more ammunition in their claims that entirely reasonable closes are somehow bad. TarnishedPathtalk 03:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I can think of 3 panel closes off the top of my head that I strongly disagreed with. I won't name them because I don't want to call anyone out, but my impression is that panel closes do not help improve RFC closing accuracy, so I don't think it'd be a good idea to require them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
What would be helpful would be a way to stop editors turning RFCs into huge walls of text. In every RFC that ends up this way there are always a small handful of editors (not the same editors, but rather the editors who most care about the issue) that generate the most text. The rebuttal of an argument happens each time that argument is used, but that shouldn't be necessary (it not being a vote). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Yet it basically was necessary here, and the closer still didn’t account for the rebuttal in their closure of the discussion. So if anything, this close, even if overturned, and the number of people supporting it shows that it is necessary to ensure people whose !vote is based on inaccurate information or an idea that has been disproven/rebutted strongly are aware of the fact their opinion is based on that and given a chance to review and expand upon it. And if they don’t, it can’t be claimed “they didn’t see the rebuttal” - it would have to be seen that they did see it, since pointed out to them, and chose to ignore it - which should result in a significant down weighting of their !vote indeed, as it’s basically an admission that “I can’t rebut that rebuttal”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Outside of Wikipedia, this is done by having someone moderate the discussion. The English Wikipedia community has so far placed a higher priority on ensuring everyone gets to weigh in, out of a concern that any moderation would be unduly strict. isaacl (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean, WP:BLUDGEON is a conduct issue; people can and have been ejected from topic areas for repeatedly bludgeoning discussions. (If it's just one discussion where they lost their cool then it's probably not worth worrying about.) There's always the option to look up repeat offenders, nudge them to stop bludgeoning discussions, then drag them to AE or ANI if they don't listen. Doing that more often would encourage people to not be so bludgeon-y in general. Another thing that might discourage bludgeoning: Make it unambiguous that closers may, at their discretion, ignore all non-top-level comments in an RFC, if the RFC is already massive (of course this would have to be combined by making it clear to everyone that if they feel some point is vital, they need to edit it into their one top-level comment), and should even say that they're doing so so people understand that their elaborate back-and-forth arguments aren't even being read - to be clear, I'm not saying "exclude them when determining consensus", I'm saying closers should be specifically empowered to say "I'm not reading all that, I'm only reading the top-level comments." RFCs aren't supposed to devolve into threaded discussion anyway, so "at a glance this all looks like pointless natter between people who just want the last word and I'm going to disregard it" seems like a reasonable thing to encourage. Maybe even some sort of "just the main argument" viewer that specifically removes all responses. Or we could flatly forbid threaded responses in RFCs, confining them to a separate comment section that the closer is not required to read. --Aquillion (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there is a consensus agreement in the community that requests for comments aren't supposed to have threaded discussion. Many of the editors who like to weigh in on how decisions are made think threading is important for facilitating efficient communications. (My variant on this is that I think we should consolidate discussion so the same topics aren't discussed in multiple threads, but that hasn't gotten a lot of support.) Since English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions are based on the idea of building consensus, I don't think enabling evaluators to say "I'm going to ignore the discussion" would gain favour.
Yes, extreme cases of swamping discussion can get addressed. But communications rapidly bogs down way before that point, and before any point where sanctions would be deemed reasonable. The N-squared problem of trying to hold a large, unmoderated group conversation (where there are up to N-squared interactions that can occur) means that everyone can be acting in good faith and yet it becomes very difficult to follow all the points being made. isaacl (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Bludgeoning is a lot different than asking someone to reconsider their opinion or explain it further in light of information that they did not address in their original comment - regardless of whether that information was already present or not. Closers should certainly not be permitted to ignore the threaded discussion - because that in and of itself results in "first mover advantage". People would be able to make whatever claims they want, or make their initial !vote based on inaccurate information, and then the closer should just be allowed to ignore the replies/discussion that points that out? Absurdity. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
You have to let people seek consensus by talking to each other and you have to pay particular attention when someone changes their mind after being persuaded by a convincing point. But you can't allow a passionate editor to have a disproportionate effect on the discussion by sheer volume of text when they're not convincing anyone.—S Marshall T/C 07:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
If I infodump a wall of text and a dozen other editors cite it, that's not bludgeoning. Neither is posting rebuttals on their own.
Bludgeoning is when an editor repeatedly makes the same argument. This is disruptive because redundant information does not add value to the conversation. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I've been trying to think of the way to address this - you say you have to pay particular attention when someone changes their mind after being persuaded by a convincing point - that is exactly what happened in this discussion, yet you not only ignored it in your close, you actually found the opposite to have happened. You took those not commenting on the refutations to be claiming that they were wrong, you viewed those arguments to be "stronger" than those refuting the original claims (when the discussion makes clear it was considered opposite by a clear majority of those commenting on the refutations, rather than ignoring them), and you then impressed your personal opinion of the claims onto the close. You seem to be trying to claim that you ignored the refutations and their support because the editors supporting that view were passionate - that's absurd. Just because someone is passionate and/or points out and asks for others to address a comment that a significant plurality of editors not only addressed but agreed with (and in quite a few cases, changed their !vote after reading) does not make it bludgeoning, and even if it was bludgeoning, it does not make their opinions null and void. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of panel closes either. The only concrete effect they seem to have is to make things take a lot longer. I also often get the feeling that the summaries suffer from the lack of a single author. Instead I'd encourage closers to make greater use of WP:DFD to workshop and solicit feedback on contentious closes before they post them. – Joe (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • For the concerns about backlogs noted above, I’m not sure mandating a panel closure for these long sorts of RfCs would be the best idea (having one person close it takes long enough, mandating that 3-4 negotiate a close would be a bit excessive) - that said, I’m supportive of mandating or strongly recommending that an uninvolved admin handle these closures. Yes, admins aren’t infallible, but it feels more appropriate to have someone who the community’s already entrusted with responsibility handle lengthy/contentious RfCs in CTOPs, rather than a normal user. The Kip (contribs) 18:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
    The credibility of people like S. Marshall should be the least of our concerns here. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don’t have any opinion on the Telegraph RFC specifically as I didn’t participate nor have I read it - just giving my 2¢ on the proposal regarding large RFCs in CTOPs and such. The Kip (contribs) 06:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    We have many credible non-admin closers, so I don't think this is something we should "hunt down". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Also not a fan of panel closes. It's anecdotal, but I think the ratio of bad-closes/all-closes is worse for panel closes than individual closes. At the very least, anybody thinking about mandating panel closes in any situation should first gather some data about whether panel closes are any less likely to be wrong, challenged, or overturned, than non-panel closes. My impression is that Wikipedia has a lot of non-panel closes -- like dozens or hundreds or thousands, depending on the time scale -- and like less than 1% are wrong/challenged/overturned. Whereas Wikipedia has very few panel closes -- like single digits, maybe a dozen or two dozen in the last like 5 or 10 years? -- and a huge proportion of them (like half) are wrong, challenged, and/or overturned. But my anecdotal impressions aren't data; data would be useful. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Any idea where to start looking to gather that data? Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not useful data to have. People don't even ask for panel closes unless it's really super-contentious, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that more panel closes get challenged or overturned (which I don't know if it's true, but it does seem likely to me).—S Marshall T/C 19:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
For individual closes, maybe Legobot's contribs, and/or the page history of WP:CR, to gather a list of RfCs/discussions. But then after that I don't know, seems like a difficult task to calculate the total number of closed discussions vs. how many of them were challenged (AN archives will find some official close reviews, but that wouldn't include those that never went past the closer's talk page).
As for panel closes, I don't even know... probably manually plucking them out of the gathered list of RFCs/discussions.
Overall it strikes me as something that would basically have to be done manually and would take many hours. For a single year, it's maybe doable, but that would leave a tiny sample size of panel closes (maybe low single digits). For this reason, the efficacy of panel closes may never be fully understood. Levivich (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
One place to start might be extracting RFC closes from {{archive top}} and {{discussion top}} and checking for more than one signature/timestamp/userpage wikilink. That would reduce a lot of the noise and manual work. I've also thought about having the bot add an RFC tracking template when it removes the current RFC template after the 30 days expiration, that would improve data collection going forward. But on this issue specifically, I think admin or panel would be better than just mandating a panel. I'd also endorse creating a group or userright flag for experienced non-admins who the community trusts to close controversial discussions, and S Marshall would absolutely have a place on that list. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Given that the attempt for a a single user to attempt a close ended up reverted and eventually led to a discussion where the user withdrew their close, I would say it needs more than one user to attempt a close. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I think we could, instead, just let a second person try to close it, rather than throwing in the towel on single-person closes after one close. There has been so much ink spilled over one person's close. Levivich (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Subpage?

[edit]

At the time of typing we're just over 30,000 words. I'm minded to move it to its own subpage?—S Marshall T/C 13:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the relevant discussion has already run its course, and now it's mostly people just venting their personal dislikes of each side at one another. Probably better to just shut down the side discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's worth adding that I read much of the discussion, researched some of the references given by the proposer, came the conclusion that they did not support what was claimed, saw that the inaccuracies had already been pointed out by other editors and decided not to contribute.

I'm now very confused. Since the allegations against the Telegraph were shown to be incorrect, I can't see how I could have added to the discussion according to Wikipedia practice, which is (or is supposed to be) don't simply repeat what has already been said. Perhaps the idea of consensus has now swung so far into the realms of "guess the majority" or perhaps it's "follow your political nose". The close to this RfC is not neutrally written - that's a shame. And it seems a political campaign has succeeded here, where it should not have.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC).

Discussion seems to have died down, any chance a passing administrator wishes to evaluate if there is consensus to do anything about the close so that, if there is consensus to overturn, it can be re-added to the RSN page or at least given a new closure? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

When you think a discussion should be closed, leave a comment at Wikipedia:Closure requests, which I've just done. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
A close appears to be in progress. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
That's not a close. It's a !vote in a close box.—S Marshall T/C 11:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that - not least it is based in part on a fundamental misunderstanding of RSP. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Why do you see it that way?
I will note that "personal note" sections aren’t uncommon - I’ve used them before to lightly trout participants - and shouldn’t be considered when assessing whether the close is appropriate or correct. BilledMammal (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
If you do, you shouldn't.
Duly elected sysops get to make personal remarks that trout people, in threads about conduct. You won't find a single sysop who would have made that remark in this context.
Except for sysops talking in threads about conduct, a close box isn't a space for putting down other people. It's not your role and it's not okay.—S Marshall T/C 12:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
For example, this. I feel and continue to feel it was appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
That's a different example. You didn't make 'personal remarks' about other people in that close. Even though you quoted Tamzin, it is still making claims about how you feel on a certain topic.
This close instead has a 'personal remark' that S Marshall at least seems to have a stronger opinion on The Telegraph which almost read like a diss to me. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
And there's also the substantive problem that Thryduulf articulated above. I know everyone's sick of the Daily Telegraph dispute, but this isn't okay and it shouldn't be allowed to stand because of discussion fatigue.—S Marshall T/C 13:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Then you’ll probably need to open a close review; for convenience, the template is {{RfC closure review}} BilledMammal (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, no, that's not right. Firstly, I have to give the closer the opportunity to re-think; and secondly, this wasn't an RfC and doesn't get reviewed in the same way. Luckily there have been previous times when we've needed to review a review, so there is precedent for a process. That template's not it.—S Marshall T/C 15:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Passive aggressively linking a veteran user a template like this is the sort of temperature raising comments that a discussion like this sorely doesn't need, and reflects poorly on you. Parabolist (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I did it with the intent to be helpful; it's an obscure template that I think is useful and has been under-used in close appeals. BilledMammal (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Tone is difficult over text, but I'm not reading passive aggressiveness from BM's comment. I'm also a veteran, and I don't have every rarely-used template memorized. I could probably find it with a few minutes of searching, but a convenience link to a useful template or documentation of an obscure process comes off as a polite gesture to me. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
To add: it's not just an obscure template, it's also new, having been created less than a year ago. I wouldn't expect many editors, veterans or not, to know about it. Levivich (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Since I do seem to be coming down with discussion fatigue, I'm not sure how I feel about it, though I do feel like the version in the closer's sandbox was more concise and nuanced. Hopefully I won't be reverted if I add a separate GREL entry to RSP that says we find it biased but still reliable for facts. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about it

Same. If someone appeals it I’ll consider it in more depth, but not until then. BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Compassionate727 § Telegraph RFC. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of closure

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Convenience link to Compassionate727's reverted close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

In case anyone has subscribed to this threads the close of the RFC review has been reverted by Hemiauchenia as WP:BADNAC #2. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

My removal of the close has now been reverted. It says that close challenges should be made at WP:AN, so I guess this thread can suffice as place to make my case. As I previously said, It is not appropriate for a non-admin to close a highly contentious discussion like this per WP:BADNAC criterion #2. The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. If an admin were to reclose the discussion I would accept the result regardless of the outcome. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
This revert appears to have been reverted. Flounder fillet (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Copying my comment from C727's talkpage, as it fits better here: That should be reverted. By longstanding community consensus, BADNAC by itself is not a valid reason to unilaterally overturn a close. I'd do it myself, but I participated in the close review. If someone thinks this close was bad, then challenge it legitimately. This is exactly what SFR did to the original close and got dinged for. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
That should be reverted. You may want to specify whether you support or oppose the NAC. "That" seems ambiguous to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It means the reversion of the NAC. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to include my comment I left over at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources over here too. Though the BADNAC #2 reason by Hemiauchenia also applies in addition to what I'm pointing out below.
"Funny that literally the entirety of the history of how RSN no consensus closes are done can be ignored just because of a controversial topic discussion happening. Someone needs to have the backbone to actually close with a determination on one side or the other or follow RSN rules on a no consensus close, because precedent is very blatant and obvious when it comes to RSN that no consensus means no consensus on reliability for the source in question. Since RSN is about affirmative reliability determinations, whether a source is reliable needs to be something we agree on. If we don't agree, then the source can't be considered WP:GREL by definition. Follow that link, it even says in the first line "Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise"." SilverserenC 21:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what the process is at this point. I had hoped the RFC and its close would be at least satisfying to both sides of the discussion, but both closes have failed in that respect. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I didn't really want to do this (I don't have a strong opinion on the reliability of the Telegraph on transgender issues) but the unilateral precedent that "no consensus=no change at RSP" to the contrary of years of RfC discussions like the 2020 Fox News RfC in my opinion sets a really bad precedent that could badly affect future RSN source RfC discussions and couldn't go unchallenged. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
While I'm not entirely neutral (my !vote in the original RFC was for additional considerations) I absolutely agree with Hemiauchenia. Compassionate727's close was muddled in what it was closing and, even ignoring the other issues raised by others, cannot be allowed to stand based on the fundamental incompatibility between it and the explicit definitions (which are backed by literally years of consensus discussions) at RSP. It's a shame that Compassionate didn't self revert, and it's a shame we're now verging on edit warring about it, but some things are important enough that they need to be done right or not at all. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I completely agree, but I didn't mean the process for RSN/RSP in the case of no consensus. What I meant was what process to follow given that it doesn't appear Compassionate727 is going to self revert their close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
No consensus always means more discussion (apart from anything else it might mean). Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
True in general but RSN discussion are not article content, and the RFC was not about how to update the RSP page. Rather RSP is a log of RSN discussions, which has always listed no consensus results as no consensus results. If it should list them that way and how RSP should work is a more generalised question than just the Telegraph, as it will effect more than just that one entry.
As it stands the close of the review, specifically The more urgent question is the practical one of whether a note ought to be made at RSP downgrading The Telegraph on transgender topics. On this question, I do find a consensus that the community did not articulate a sufficiently robust objection to merit that outcome. Thus, there is a consensus to overturn S Marshall's close and restore the previous status quo, is a close that overturns the RFC close and recloses it as the Telegraph being reliable on trans issues.
Whichever side editors are on that is the situation as it stands. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm confused by the outcome of this close. Did Compassionate find a consensus in this discussion that the Telegraph is generally reliable for transgender issues because opposers not articulate a sufficiently robust objection or is this a "no consensus" close defaulting to the previous "generally reliable" status (contrary to previous RSP handlings of no consensus discussions)? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Based on my understanding of what they wrote on their talk page, they found consensus to overturn the original close, no consensus in the original discussion and chose to restore the status quo at RSP (contrary to everything), the latter in part because of objections to downgrading based on no consensus in the close review (which were not actually that numerous despite being oft-repeated). Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Without reading any of this discussion, given the original RfC close still stands, then clearly it hasn't been overturned. The note at the top of it means jack shit, as the RfC was never properly overturned. CNC (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@CNC I quite dislike C272’s close, but the note to me reads as “the reclose is located in the AN archives, since the original closer didn’t want to modify the {{rfc top}} template At RSN”. That is a way to overturn. Mach61 22:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Right, where there is a summary based on a review of the close, where scrolling through you get what you're looking for; "I'll dither on whether there was a consensus that the original discussion should have been closed affirmatively in favor of option 1, [...]", so this isn't the RfC close then? "Thus, there is a consensus to overturn S Marshall's close and restore the previous status quo.", so this is quasi-close then? That's one hell of a contradiction, as no doubt others have expressed already. Apparently the more important aspect was regarding RSP, but there was no consensus there either. Respectfully, the entire close review is a mess, and for anyone reading it it makes fuck all sense. I understand the original point you were making, but that is not how an RfC top note is supposed to work. It's supposed to be conclusive. CNC (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
FWIW I also oppose this close, but I'd suggest if we're gonna do a close review of the close review we should probably make it its own topic. Loki (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
If anyone does this, please just focus on the inconsistent nature of the close itself, nothing to do with the original RfC. The issue here is with a close that makes little sense, not whether the intention of the close was accurate or not. CNC (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • This was a BADNAC, and per policy should not be shunted into a sideline. Keep the discussion tight, and keep it here. SerialNumber54129 23:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm torn. I'm pleased Compassionate727's close has been overturned because I'm convinced that it was wrong both on policy and fact; but I'm also appalled that it's been overturned by one person straight up reverting it.—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not seeing much support for the close, and it has some fundamental problems. It's result, no matter how it gets there, is to say there is consensus for the Telegraph being reliable for trans issues, which is close to being a super vote. But nothing at BADNAC, other than #2 that can be controversial, covers overturning it. At this point I would support that SerialNumber54129 has reverted it again as IAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    I don't have an opinion about whether SN's removal again was appropriate, but I don't mind my original removal of the close being reverted either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • My goodness. There was a relatively clear consensus here that the initial close of the RfC got it wrong for a specific reason - that arguments were not weighted and examined in line with policy and the initial close treated opinions of bias as equal weight to those based on the "evidence" of true unreliability. The person evaluating the consensus here observed that reason and the consensus here, and rather than reopen it for someone else to close simply overturned to the consensus clearly present in the original discussion after accounting for the !votes that were not weighted appropriately. And now either because some people refuse to move on and accept that the arguments made were not accurate nor evidence of unreliability, or because S Marshall refuses to accept they got it wrong, we are saying that a non-admin can't close this discussion, nor the original discussion. I find it interesting that people are arguing that this closure was a BADNAC but not that the original closure was one. I furthermore question why a non-admin would be allowed to close the original discussion and it not be a BADNAC as "contentious", but now that another non-admin has tried to close the close review (and as a part of that re-close the original discussion) it's somehow suddenly an issue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    For the record, while I consider SMarshall's close was made in good faith, in retrospect it also seems like a BADNAC, which is why many participants in this discussion voted to overturn it. That why it's important an experienced admin closes the discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree with the statement that seems like a BADNAC was why many participants in this discussion voted to overturn it. Rereading this close review, there was a clear consensus that the reason it should be overturned had nothing to do with how contentious it was, but with the fact S Marshall did not properly weight !votes that were based solely on opinion, did not properly apply the applicable section of WP:RS to !votes based solely on their bias, did not properly evaluate the fact that the initial concerns raised (and which many participants based their option 2/3/4 !votes on) were refuted and were shown to be at best inaccurate, and at worst deliberately misleading/misrepresenting... and the like. I disagree that an administrator would've been any more or less likely than S Marshall to make those errors. In fact, I don't even fault S Marshall for making the errors (only for failing to realize it after it was pointed out to him) - because it was such a large discussion. Call this reply a "defense" of S Marshall (in general) if you want, but it was not a BADNAC for an experienced user such as himself to make an attempt to close the discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
While I appreciate Compassionate727's willingness to read and attempt to understand and close this discussion, after reading his rationale here and on his talk page, I see no way to square his (I find no other way to put this) supervote with either the discussion he was closing [here on AN], the original discussion at RSN, or the way RSP works. I was going to say that if he won't rescind to let an admin who understands RSN close this, then his close must be undone, and I was going to suggest that perhaps Thryduulf (if you're open to this: if not, I don't mean to volunteer you; I just think you've articulated the problems with the close most fully, of the many, many people who have now articulated them) compose the formal close challenge to Compassionate727's close (which, AFAICT, would be its own new level-2-headered section on AN). I see that in the meantime the BADNAC has been (re)undone by SerialNumber on NOTBURO grounds, which is reasonable. While the closure of the original RSN discussion was by all appearances made in the good faith belief that the discussion's (no-consensus) outcome was so abundantly clear as to be closable by a non-admin, all of the subsequent discussion has made clear that this discussion, especially this discussion here at the Administrator's noticeboard, probably needs to be closed by a knowledgeable administrator. -sche (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I am curious how you clarify your view, in light of the fact that the consensus of this close review was that the original closer did not properly weight opinions in line with the policies/guidelines in play. In what way can you determine, without re-closing the discussion and explaining your weighting, that "no consensus" was the appropriate outcome given the consensus in the close review that there was not proper weighting? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment about "the consensus of this close review": whether this AN close review of the RSN discussion found consensus for anything has not been ascertained. (Compassionate727 attempted to ascertain it, but made so many errors obvious to so many other editors that his close was undone, so as of the time of your and my comment, the discussion has not been closed as finding consensus for the position you state, or any other.) -sche (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I'll wait to question the conflict in your statement until this close review is accurately re-closed as "consensus to overturn". There is a clear consensus in this close review, and if you're going to call the initial close by C727 a "supervote" without expressing why you are ignoring that clear consensus, then I feel you should expect to be asked to explain that. It sounds like you've made a determination that the initial close result of "no consensus" was correct - I am asking you to explain that in light of the many people above in this close review who expressed (without being refuted) that that was not the correct result, if weighting was done properly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
There are a lot more people who disagreed with Compas's re-close to "retain status quo" than people who object to the "no consensus" assessment by Marshall. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I can't see that there are. There's maybe half a dozen in my count - to be generous, I'll call it a full dozen - editors who are disagreeing with C727's close. There were multiple dozens of editors who disagreed with the initial close by S Marshall. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
@-sche I'm honestly confused as to what the current status of C727's close is. If it does need to be formally challenged I could do that but I'd rather someone who has been less vocally involved in the discussion do it. Additionally I don't know whether I've got the block of time I'd want to spend getting such a challenge well worded before next week. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I think the argument that non-admins can't close contentious RFCs is a weak one. In practice, non-admins close RFCs, including contentious ones, all the time. If this was a newer editor closing this RFC, sure, that could be a BADNAC. But Compassionate727 has many tens of thousands of edits. If it had been pre-agreed that only an admin could close this, or only a panel could close this, then sure, that'd also make sense. But I don't see such a pre-agreement. I think we should restore Compassionate727's close, and then this can be handled in the normal way: accepting the close and having a de facto moratorium on discussing this for awhile, then re-RFCing this in 3-6 months. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with this - and I would also be very uncomfortable with us treating the revert of C727’s close any differently to how we treated the revert of SM’s. BilledMammal (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Conversely, I think this was a classic WP:BADNAC, and not just because the closer was not an admin per se but because they went out of their way to ignore policy here, such as how no consensus at RSP works, and make a WP:SUPERVOTE not just on whether the discussion should be opened but on how it should be closed.
    If the close is restored, I'm definitely going to make a close review for the close review, and if I don't someone else will. "Accepting the close" is not an option here since so many people think it's so bad. Loki (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    FYI, there is no policy about how RSP works. BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Of all the reasons why C727's close was bad, that they are not an admin is by far the least important and if I do end up writing a formal review request for it (as @-sche suggested above) then it is almost certainly not something I would even mention. An identical close by an admin would have been equally bad. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • To be completely honest, I don't have an informed opinion on the issue of the Telegraph's reliability on trans issues, nor do I have the time to read through the mountain of an RfC and discussion here to help develop one - however, as an outside observer of RSN and AN, what I do know is that it's been debated to death across these two boards over the last few months, and I find the idea of re-litigating the re-litigation to be a massive waste of the community's time at this point. Virtually everyone with an opinion has already had their say, and many on either side of the debate are continuing to beat the dead horse by restating their opinions ad nauseum, which is just as unlikely to lead to any sort of consensus as the prior two discussions. Therefore, I endorse Novem Linguae's proposal to restore C727's close with a moratorium on discussion - at least give it a few months before the next chapter of this mess, and maybe some fresher perspectives will emerge there. Either that, or have an admin panel give the final say here. The Kip (contribs) 08:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I very strongly oppose restoring/reinstating/letting stand C727's close unless and until there is a community consensus to fundamentally change how RSP works first. This is very significantly more important than discussion of any individual source as it alters the very definition of what "reliable source" means. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Well, now we've managed to make this so toxic that it can only be closed by a panel of three sysops, all of whom must be unsullied virgins who're intimately familiar with WP:RSP but have never expressed a view about how it works. It could be a fixture here on the AN for months.—S Marshall T/C 09:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    So far we have found no consensus in the original RfC and no consensus that there was no consensus; no consensus that the close was good or bad, and if it was, no consensus on why; no consensus that the close review of the close was good or bad, and if it was, no consensus on why; no consensus on whether there is a consensus about what no consensus means, or should mean, at RSP. I now see no consensus on whether the way forward is to open a close review of the close review of the close. Maybe we could open a subthread on whether to describe this all as a dead horse or a trainwreck (my vote is Option 1: dead horse). Maybe it's time for the current crowd to step aside, and let editors who have not previously commented on the matter take it forward. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I didn't participate until recently, to me nocon means discussion continues. As to what to do in the interim, I agree with Thryduulf, viz MREL = no consensus that the source is generally reliable or generally unreliable. Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I think this comes down to how should a no consensus discussion be handled at RSN/RSP. I know there was a recent discussion on this question (talk:RSP ?) and answering it would probably be most helpful here. That said, it also highlights one of the big issues with RSP where we treat the colors as if they are rock solid vs what RS and NPOV say, asking if this specific source is reliable for a specific claim and should this claim be in the article. Anyway, at RSP we all agree that a consensus that a source is marginal/other considerations apply = yellow. The case of no consensus is less clear and I can see both arguments. Additionally, while some no consensus topics have gone to yellow, I suspect of we look back at some of the green sources that contain notes about bias concerns, some of those might also be no consensus if we are strict about the reading. It would probably be best to come up with a clear path for cases like this. That or tell people that RSP is only a guide and shouldn't be given much weight when deciding case by case questions. Springee (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The case of no consensus is less clear this is a claim I've only started seeing since the Telegraph RFC was closed. The definitions used uncontroversially for many years at RSP actually make it explicit: GREL = a consensus that the source is generally reliable. MREL = no consensus that the source is generally reliable or generally unreliable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion at RSP about the colors of NOCON. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • After reading everything here too, I'm going to rescind my close. It's clear very few people actually understood what I was trying to do, which is my fault for being vague and noncommittal. I had found a consensus that S Marshall weighed the votes incorrectly and the discussion should have been closed in favor of option 1, as well as a surprising lack of consensus that a result of no consensus should have resulted in downgrading at RSP. I tried to restore the previous status quo on the basis of both of those things; in hindsight, I should have stuck with the former and made the latter just a comment or something. Lesson learned, and I'm terribly sorry I put everyone through this circus. Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for making this decision, I think it's the right call. I don't doubt the original RfC could have been correctly closed as Option 1, and it seems clear now there was rough consensus for the original close should be overturned due to numerous issues. My main issue, similar to others, was with the RSP decision that had much broader implications without the consensus to support it. If there was lack of consensus that the result of NC should result in downgrading at RSP – personally I don't think there was as arguments were well refuted, but let's assume there was – then the status quo should remain for RSP, that of categorising as MREL. Naturally this puts this status quo, based on lack of consensus, in conflict with overturning the original RfC to the previous status quo, based on lack of consensus also. CNC (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me the obvious thing to do is to revert the RFC close and let someone else close it. Until that happens, all this other discussion is unproductive. Levivich (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Need admin to delete this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Za%27ura&redirect=no (Za'ura)

Im gonna start a new article with this name shortly. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Just overwrite the redirect, there's no need to delete it in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I want it to be connected to my account. Cant you just delete it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Assuming that's an invalid redirect, does overwriting it to a Draft in your space work? Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
It certainly appears to be a valid redirect, though having some rcats would help to figure out the issue. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
If the current target is the only or primary topic the redirect and article should be swapped and at first glance it looks that way, however from creation in 2020 until about an hour and half after this section was started it redirected to Zoora, which notes that "Za'ura" is an alternate romanization. I'm going to take it to RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Your edit will still be in the history. People's obsession with having the "N" next to their stats still surprises me. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Primefac: Being the author of the first undeleted revision is, as far as I know, still the only way to get notifications when an article you created is backlinked. In this case SD could have avoided that by creating in draftspace/userspace and then requesting a move-over-redirect at WP:RM/TR. But the desire to get those notifications is reasonable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 14 § Za'ura. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC). Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am prevented from adding content

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


here from a User:Montigliani who fantasizes that I'm doing canvassing. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super_League_Greece#Remove_cited_content D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a longer history behind this and a more neutral summary might be "two editors using Wikipedia as a battleground after warnings about this issue, and after edit-warring blocks". I created a report at WP:ANEW without being aware of this section here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Historical Elections ArbCom case

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


On 6 August, ArbCom opened a case on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections, after preliminary discussion as an ArbCom Motion (rather than, as is more common, after a case request). In preliminary discussion, ArbCom said that the case would be a "hybrid" case because it would involve private evidence as well as public evidence. I submitted a preliminary statement saying that I urged ArbCom to make as much of the evidence public as possible, in order to maintain the trust of the community. If evidence of off-wiki canvassing or off-wiki harassment was mailed to ArbCom, as may have been the case, that evidence should be made available, even if the name of the submitter is withheld for privacy reasons. ArbCom opened the case on 6 August, with a closing date for evidence on 20 August. At this point, on 14 August, the Evidence section consists of one statement that is not really evidence but only a statement, and there has been one entry in the Talk section, mine. One reason for the lack of response may be that ArbCom did not post a notice on WP:AN of the opening of the case. Some community members may not know that there is a case. Another related reason is that ArbCom has not stated what the scope of the case is. Even persons who know that the case is open may not know whether they have relevant evidence to provide.

I can think of three reasons why ArbCom might not have publicized the case:

  • 1. ArbCom intends to deal with the case quietly.
  • 2. ArbCom has been preoccupied with other matters or distracted.
  • 3. ArbCom has been busy behind the scenes dealing with email submissions.

The first, dealing with the case quietly, is a mistake, unless ArbCom is deciding to close the case as improvidently opened. If ArbCom concludes the case with little or no public evidence, and takes action against editors, the community will be dissatisfied with the Star Chamber proceeding. If ArbCom concludes the case with little or no public evidence, and takes no action, the community may see a whitewash.

If either the second or the third explanation, which are the good-faith explanations, is true, then ArbCom should, in my opinion, extend the dates for the case, and should make a statement as to what the scope of the case is. I know that much of the work of ArbCom is invisible. But this case is now partly visible and partly invisible, which is problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

When was the last case opening that ArbCom created a central notification for? Doing so is not part of the usual procedures and the only one I could find with a quick search was Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_12#Fram_case_opened from 2019. The case's scope is "Conduct in the topic area of historical elections" and displayed at the top of the case's pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
And the only reason that happened for FRAM was because of WP:FRAMGATE; the community had been demanding very vocally that ArbCom take it up, and the WMF acquiesced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The ArbCom didn't announce on this noticeboard that they had opened the case, but they did post here that they were considering doing so and invited comments, so it's hardly as if they were trying to keep the case as some sort of a secret. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think that ArbCom was trying to keep the case quiet. That was the least likely explanation. But if there was private evidence, then ArbCom should make as much of the evidence public as is possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
This not a matter for the admin noticeboard. Make your point that 'ArbCom should make as much of the evidence public as is possible' on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections/Evidence. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it's a shame Robert that you start from a false premise - ArbCom did not advertise this case - and then use that false premise to cast aspersions upon the Arbitration Committee. I also am surprised you're unaware of how ArbCom works with evidence in hybrid cases in expecting the evidence to be public at this point. In the last several hybrid cases - including this year - ArbCom makes public the private evidence that can be made public at the end of the evidence phase. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Subject Called for Edits to Remove Critical Material on 13 Keys/Allan Lichtman pages

[edit]

Apparently the subject of two pages The Keys to the White House and Allan Lichtman directly called for edits to the pages concerning them to remove critical material (material which had been there for a couple months as a result of our own research and independent reporting) on his YouTube stream tonight, which has resulted in a swarm of edits to both pages to remove all of this material. This has made it untenable to permanently restore the previous material and reverting is difficult due to the deluge of edits; it also seems like a bad faith act to encourage edits personally in this way. I have done my best to restore the pages but anticipate more edits. Caraturane (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC) (updated to explain attempted reversion)

I've not examined this situation. But if there is an ongoing problem with IPs/new accounts editing this page because they were incited to by an influencer, the solution is WP:RFPP. Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I've bumped protection up to full for both pages. Folks can hash things out on the talk page. Will keep an eye. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

New tactic from the Dave Plummer Troll

[edit]

Previous discussions:

In this edit[4] it appears that the Dave Plummer Troll is now making the same accusations, but this time they ended up on Youtube. I don't think the Wikipedia editor who made the above edit is in any way at fault. I think they just found the link and posted it. I also doubt that the person who owns the Youtube account did anything except repeating the same accusations that the Dave Plummer Troll has been spreading online. All of the arguments in the above threads still apply. The new video once again assumes that if a prosecutor says it it must be true (odd that they don't treat filings by the defense the same way) and ignores the final settlement that the judge signed off on. Not sure what to do about this. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of the youtube link at Talk:Dave Plummer until the issue has been examined here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Nobody objected to the revert (I did notify the author), so I don't think anything else needs to be done here. I suggest that someone not involved should close this. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Edited to strike comment 02:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Guy Macon Alternate Account: I was looking at the discussion, but didn't really know what to say as again I'm not that familiar with WP policies. That being said, I think the revert wasn't justified, as it was essentially hiding a piece of evidence in my opinion.
I don't know anything about the "troll", but it is not clear to me why Enderman's link is considered invalid... again from the perspective of someone who doesn't know much. Leaderboard (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Guy Macon Alternate Account I'm not sure I understand what you want admins to do. If someone had tried to add the YouTibe video to the article, this would just be a normal content dispute, but it doesn't look like even that happened. Why is this here? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
This is here because false accusations against BLPs are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, including false accusations in the form of a link to a Youtube video that contains a false accusation. The BLP-violating content was removed and as long as nobody objected to the removal of the BLP-violating content, we were done.
However, Leaderboard has objected, so now I need to present my argument for why I believe that the link is a BLP violation, which I will do below -- please give me time to compose it. If I cannot establish that it was a BLP violation it most likely should be restored, but that is not my decision to make.
This is one of the two places I could have started that discussion. The other is the BLPNB, and I have no objection to someone moving it there and leaving a link here.
Once again, please note that I don't think Leaderboard did anything wrong - What I believe was a BLP violation was obviously innocent and unintentional. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
YouTube is not a reliable source and random YouTube videos are not "evidence." WP:BLP requires reliable sourcing for any contentious content, particularly for content alleging unlawful conduct. @Leaderboard: I'm a bit surprised you posted this, as you've been here long enough to have read BLP and know how carefully it should be applied. Anyway as Guy Macon has already said, please do not post material containing poorly sourced allegations against living people, anywhere on Wikipedia. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Euryalus: see my contributions - I don't have a lot of familiarity with BLP policies. I knew that YouTube isn't reliable, which is why I put it in the talk page (requesting assistance) and not in the article itself. The video did link to a lot of sources though, and it did appear that the author tried to be as neutral and research as well as possible (which is why I was confused with the "Dave Plummer Troll" as that sounded as if an organised group is trying to discredit him). Put it this way: the question was not that YouTube isn't reliable, but whether the linked evidence (such as his memoir and court files) could be valid, and I did not know the answer to that.
TLDR; you know better than I, and hence if the YouTube link violated BLP rules even on the talk page, I apologise. Leaderboard (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this a BLP violation?

[edit]

We know that the allegations in the video are poorly sourced for use in a BLP (see WP:YouTube), but are the underling accusations (found on many places on the web due to the tireless efforts of DPT) a direct BLP violation no matter where they are found?

The relevant Wikipedia policies are WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME.

Background: As detailed on his Wikipedia page, in 2006 Dave Plummer's company was sued by The Washington State Attorney General’s Office for alleged violations of the Consumer Protection Act. He ended up settling out of court, paying $150,000 in civil penalties and $40,000 in legal fees, and agreed to stop the practices that the AG objected to. A judge signed off on that agreement[5], and reliable sources that covered that primary document are the the main sources for our coverage of the issue.

Meanwhile, Plummer somehow made an enemy who I refer to as the Dave Plummer Troll. Every so often DPT tries to insert BLP-violating material into the Dave Plummer page, leading to long-term semiprotection. PPT has also posted the same material on Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, and a bunch of other places, and one place it ended up in is the YouTube video we are discussing.

DPT typically has the following message:

  • If an Attorney General accuses you of something[6], you are guilty and were convicted of a whatever crime you were accused of.
  • If an Attorney General releases a press release, everything in it is an established fact and you can ignore the actual settlement that the judge signed off on.
  • If you settle out of court and agree that you did some things, that means that you went to trial, entered a guilty plea for everything else in the AG's accusation, and were convicted of a crime.
  • You were also convicted of other crimes that the AG never mentioned. For example, deceptive marketing is upgraded to fraud and scamming.

In the YouTube Video[7] titled "Dave Plummer: The Man Who Scammed Millions (in 2006)" the narrator avoids the worst of DPT's claims, but does make the following claims:

  • Timestamp 3:08: "his villain Arc"
  • Timestamp 3:40: "he must be hiding something because naturally if the investigation accelerates and maybe some private investigator online takes on this he might get in legal trouble again how do I know he isn't doing Shady stuff with software if he did before and actively tries to hide it?"
  • Timestamp 26:25: "I want to say you'd be pretty pissed if you fell victim to software online being a child or part of some other vulnerable population you would hold the Vendetta especially when the person behind it doesn't feel any remorse and constantly tries to whitewash himself"

Those are legitimate opinions, but they have no place in a Wikipedia BLP. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Guy Macon Alternate Account The YouTube video has not been used as a reference in the article. It would not be appropriate to use it in the article. The question seems to be if it is a WP:BLP violation to allow it on the talk page of the article. I don't think it good judgment to post it on the talkpage calling it an "expose" but I don't believe it is a BLP violation. As you say, the YouTuber is expressing "legitimate opinions" even if those opinions are not suitable for Wikipedia articles.
I feel like you are fighting some sort of battle here. Do we usually doubt the press releases of Attorneys General, or is it just for this one particular case? This seems like a content dispute that could be handled on the talk page instead of an admin board. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The relevant policies on press releases are explained at WP:PRSOURCE.
I deny that I am Righting Great Wrongs. I contend that I am simply applying Wikipedia's rules for BLPs properly. When discussing accusations of crimes, we don't use anything from the prosecution as a reliable source. Not only is it primary, it is hopelessly biased. We also don't use anything from the defense as a reliable source for the same reasons. The only exception is when we use such statements as sources for themselves, as in "The prosecution said X" or "The defense said Y" with no implication in Wikipedia's voice that what they said was or was not correct.
In particular, in the initial charges the prosecution often overcharges to convince the defense to accept a plea bargain on a lesser change -- see Plea bargain#Disadvantages and issues. In addition, both the prosecution and the defense often publish biased press releases after the verdict in an attempt to put a spin on the actual results. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Guy Macon Alternate Account Are you sure we don't use anything from the prosecution as a reliable source? This external links search for just the Washington State AG suggests that maybe we do, despite what WP:PRSOURCE says. We're talking about a settlement here, not a plea offer, so overcharging doesn't come into it.
This isn't a case of someone being accused or charged with a crime but not yet convicted (the WP:BLPCRIME situation). This is an adjudicated settlement, but if you wish to treat the press release of a US state agency the same way you would treat a press release from Acme Widgets, That's fine. We can look at contemporaneous reporting:
A quick Google search found those and I am sure there are more if someone wants to look. I think you will find that they echo what is said in the Attorney General's press release. Again, this is a content dispute, not a BLP question. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Those are all examples of reliable secondary sources (Direct Marketing News, Computerworld, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Seattle Post-Intelligencer) reporting on the contents of press releases, which are allowed.
As for your extenal link search I started looking at the list.
  1. Page not found, Used to support the claim "there are 26,000 health clubs in the US", so not an example of a prosecutor releasing a press release after a verdict or settlement.
  2. Page not found. Used as an example of a bad page in a sandbox. Original was clearly a bio of Rob McKenna, attorney general of Washington state
  3. Page not found. This one is a link to an AG press release about a settlement that is found on the talk page of a BLP, (to their credit the editor paired it with a link to reliable source that discussed the same settlement) but the settlement was did not involve any BLP. It involved a tobacco company, and thus is not under BLP rules.
  4. Page not found. This was a standard user warning template on the talk page of someone who violated copyright by cutting and pasting from a www.atg.wa.gov page. (as an aside, I don't think it was a copyvio, because the source is a government page, but this was in 2007 so it is a bit late to try to correct).
  5. This one was used in a BLP to support the claim "State Supreme Court Denies Motion to Delay Sagastegui Execution" Again, not an example of a prosecutor releasing a press release after a verdict or settlement. (BTW, the link is wrong if someone wants to fix it. The correct link is https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/state-supreme-court-denies-motion-delay-sagastegui-execution )
I stopped there. I am not willing to check 138 links to find an example of Other Stuff Existing. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK allows for material that would violate BLP if used in mainspace to be discussed on talk pages for purposes about article improvement, but not anything else beyond that. In this case the user that posted the vid on the talk page appears in good faith asking if that was a source that could be used. Obviously the answer to that question is "no", but it is still a fair question to ask on the talk page. Unless there is further evidence the user poster the video is not acting in good faith and trying to plaster links to that video all over, it's nit a BLP to ask about it. Masem (t) 14:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, please note that I don't think Leaderboard did anything wrong - Their linking to what I believe is a BLP-violatiing video was obviously an innocent question about whether the information could be used.
WP:BLPTALK Says "For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating 'This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?' The same principle applies to problematic images." I don't think that any reasonable interpetation of those words implies that a link to BLP-Violating material must be retained even after the question is answered with a no. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Unless the material is grossly violating even if presented in good faith (eg the type of material that we'd used revdel to remove after reversion), I personally don't think BLPTALK implores removal of this material, and in fact would seem more logical per WP:REFACTOR to keep the material so that a later person, also acting in good faith to ask about such material, can search the talk page and archives to find that it was already asked.
If its the case the link should be removed, that doesn't justify removal of the whole question, and I would, in the case of an admin cleaning up that link, leave behind something like "[Youtube video by (name) about Plummer, link removed per BLP]", so that later that source can at least be identified with some extra work by an editor but still retains that the question had been raised previously. — Masem (t) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Much better than the way I suggested handling it. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Special:Redirect/logid/163858111

[edit]

Could anyone please un-revdel Special:Redirect/logid/163858111? It was likely a mistake to revdel the block log entry itself when revdel-ing the edits was meant instead. GTrang (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I goofed somehow. Fixed. Acroterion (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Request to Remove Private Information (BLP Violation)

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hello,

I am requesting the removal or redaction of a comment containing Asmongold's full name, posted in violation of the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. The individual has taken steps to keep their full name private, and it has not been widely published by reliable sources.

Here is the link to the specific comment: Talk:Asmongold#c-Skipple-20240821150200-SturmFernmelder-20240820164900

Additionally, I would like to request that the page be protected to prevent further BLP violations, as this is a recurring issue with people posting private information.

Thank you for your help! SturmFernmelder (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a rather ordinary content dispute to me. It might help your argument there if you substantiated your good faith basis for the subject's intentions with more than your assertion of such. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. There are a significant number of RS giving his real name and I don't see any evidence that the subject has "taken steps" to keep their name private. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your response! My good faith basis stems from the fact that Asmongold does not use his full name publicly in any of his businesses, social media profiles, streams, or other platforms. His pseudonym is what he is known by, and his full name is not widely published or utilized by him in any official capacity. SturmFernmelder (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
This does strike me as a content decision. The people suggesting the inclusion of the full name are doing so supported by sources which strike me as reliable sources for video game content. Wikipedia follows the lead of reliable sources. Including the full name isn't necessarily the right decision just because some include it, and here the BLP would help inform what that decision should be, but it also does not strike me as a violation of policies to discuss it. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sock-started RfC at Talk:Leo Frank

[edit]

A sockpuppet started an RfC at Talk:Leo Frank#RfC on whether a consensus currently exists regarding the innocence or guilt of Leo Frank in the murder of Mary Phagan. Even before the block/revelation, participants were questioning the RfC itself and calling for early closure. Would an uninvolved admin/closer be willing to evaluate whether early closure is warranted? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I closed it. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I was going through the new page feed and came across this article, is this article for real? Why must every battle be a massacre? I am not sure if anyone wants to go through the article or not. Do we have to have this sickness on wikipedia? Govvy (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's just part of a larger structure - Category:Massacres_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict e.g. List of massacres in Israel. There's a forest rather than a tree. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Calling almost every Israeli attack a massacre appears to be POV pushing. This is particularly the case because some are against consensus, and others are believed to not be the responsibility of Israel but of Palestinian militants. For example, consensus at Engineer's Building airstrike#Requested move 7 April 2024 was against massacre, while at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion reliable sources consider Israel unlikely to be responsible.
Unfortunately, it's a common issue in the topic area - both "sides" seek to label the actions of the other side as a massacre. In particular, it seems all but impossible to get editors to adhere to WP:POVCAT. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The main problem, as I already said at the talk page (which is where this discussion should be, not here) is WP:LISTCRITERIA, specifically define what can be in the list. Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I did some spot checks on four or five of the entries, and every single one of them failed verification on whether it's a "massacre". But I see (Redacted) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
That's helpful. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I was wondering if an article of this nature should be semi-protected. Govvy (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
For clarity, an article like this where there should be no content in it that isn't part of the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict topic area, so the A-I CTOP restrictions and therefore WP:ARBECR applies to the entire article, the correct solution should be to extended-confirmed protect it it as User:ScottishFinnishRadish did. ARBECR encourages but doesn't require such protection. But in any case especially in this case where it's "entirely" rather than just "mostly", the only reason to leave it unprotected would be for WP:BANEX which I'm not sure even applies to ARBECR, or to reduce work for admins who'd have to protect the article. I mean I guess you could also say leaving it open allows technical violations which are so obviously beneficial that no one is going to revert them or even weirder scenarios. Still compared to the risk of genuinely unaware non-EC editors, and intentional violators editing the article due to the lack of protection, IMO the choice is obvious. Especially at this time and given how contentious that list is article to be. I think even with the ARBECR element, if ECP is all you want you could just use WP:RFPP in future. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I've removed the personal attacks/aspersions you made against other editors. Focus on the content, please. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
You'll need to tell that to a couple of the admins at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#האופה then. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't often go to AE these days, but Administrators aren't immune from WP:NPA or from Arbitration Enforcement sanctions. I haven't read that long discussion so I can't say if anyone has crossed a line there. Regardless, that doesn't negate the fact that WP:NPA applies here. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I have little stake in this field specifically but as an editor of crime articles, IMO, the problem is the word massacre. Usage of it is almost always WP:OR unless it is the common name because its definition is inherently negative and carries a xintent aspect other terms don't have, which is fine when it's attributed by other sources but not when it's just applied by editors on the basis of their own judgment which is constantly. I have been irritated by this for literal years. Unless it is clearly the common name no article title should contain the word massacre. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
And then we have all these lists of massacres which are always a hybrid of mass murder incidents, group violence and state killings which are both nlist passing but are usually not conflated in sourcing, but the sources use similar words. Truly a mess. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Govvy, you realize that's not every battle, right? That's not every attack, or even every attack in which civilians are killed.
This article needs editing, not AN. As others mentioned, it needs a WP:LISTCRITERIA (post it on the talk page with {{list criteria}}). Listing the victims' names probably violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL; that is an old debate on Wikipedia, I'm not sure which side is currently in the lead.
@Stephan rostie: what you wrote on the talk page about using the definition of "massacre" given at "massacre" is a major problem. Each one of those entries needs WP:RS that explicitly call it a "massacre". Please remove the ones you added that don't have an RS that calls it a massacre. It doesn't matter if Wikipedia calls it a massacre, it needs RS that call it a massacre. Levivich (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Read the definition of a massacre. And what do you propose calling the whipping out of entire families of 18 and 60 members in a single strike ? Stephan rostie (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
^ that's the conduct issue: violation of WP:V and WP:NOR. Levivich (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Cited sources also call them massacres too, at least in the vast majority of the listed massacres Stephan rostie (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
"At least in the vast majority" isn't good enough. Every single one has to be sourced to an RS. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay i can provide sources for them too, no problem at all, but i still wonder even if hypothetically a source couldn’t be found, what do you propose to label the whipping out of an entire families of 20-60 individuals of three generations in a single airstrike other than massacre ? Should the definition of the word “massacre” like any other english word be considered here ? Stephan rostie (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
If a source can't be found, I don't propose labeling it at all. Seriously, read WP:NOR. We don't decide what's a "massacre" and what's not; we just follow the sources. I think what you're doing is valuable, but it must be done the right way: use the labels sources use, don't come up with your own (even if you're right). Levivich (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
And make sure it's a reliable source, nothing that's red or yellow at WP:RSP. Levivich (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough Stephan rostie (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
also can you elaborate how exactly do you consider something like Al-Tabaeen school attack a “battle” ? Because “battle” implies bilateral engagement Stephan rostie (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich: You did post my name above, but I am not sure I wanted to reply earlier, I felt like I wanted to stay away from the article because it disgusts me. I feel that is a fragrant breach of WP:OR and others have said it's a memorial, which shouldn't be allowed apparently (a policy I've never heard of). But I wasn't sure the article was getting the right oversight and could easily be abused. War is horrible by any means, but lists like that are macabre and I feel they should have no place on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
People seem to like them. They are quite popular. Just like war. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately or fortunately for Wikipedia, it likely traces back to "Boston Massacre" and I think it is or was enshrined in title policy, although that is not list. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the functionaries team, August 2024

[edit]

Pursuant to the procedure on CheckUser and Oversight inactivity, the CheckUser permissions of Courcelles and GeneralNotability are removed. In addition, the Oversight permissions of Wugapodes are removed at their request.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks them for their service.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, August 2024

Changes to the functionaries team, August 2024

[edit]

Pursuant to the procedure on CheckUser and Oversight inactivity, the CheckUser permissions of Courcelles and GeneralNotability are removed. In addition, the Oversight permissions of Wugapodes are removed at their request.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks them for their service.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, August 2024

DeletedContributions broken

[edit]

If you're seeing strange things looking at deleted contributions today, the answer is that it's WP:THURSDAY. RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I'm still seeing "strange things" when I look at a user's deleted contributions. For example, I delete a page, I look at the deleted contributions of the author of the deleted page, and it doesn't show up. OTOH, I look at deleted contributions of other users and I see deleted contributions - whether they are all of them, no clue. I have great difficulty looking at Phabs. Can you summarize (1) what the status is, particularly whether anyone has gotten closer to diagnosing the problem; and (2) whether there is an ETA for fixing this? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I only know as much as I can get from reading the phab ticket. If I understand the gerrit notes correctly, they've already got a fix, it's been tested, and merged back into the mainline code, so my guess is the fix will be deployed this Thursday. I expect @Pppery or @mszabo would be able to give you a better answer. RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you understand correctly. If there's a really important need someone could backport the fix as early as Monday morning. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
The fix has been backported now. WBrown (WMF) (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson's behavior at DYK

[edit]

A couple of weeks ago, Andrew Davidson showed up at WT:DYK with Special:Diff/1231899272, in which he called a hook "nonsense" and the nominator "The main culprit". He implied that DYK was not "a respectable publication" and expressed a desire to "shame" DYK in order to "deter sloppy work". Since then, he's been posting reports on WP:ERRORS#Current DYK almost every day complaining about something. Some of his complaints are legitimate, some are not, but the overall tenor seems to be the shaming theme. Yesterday he wrote It's puzzling to me that others have difficulty in spotting such issues which leap out to me.

Multiple people have requested that instead of waiting for the problems he spots to hit the main page, he could be providing a more valuable service by pointing out mistakes before they get published. Yesterday I requested on his talk page that he stop. In response he gave a long excuse why he's going to keep doing what he's doing, and took another dig at the DYK crew, calling out "careless oversights". He even saw fit to take a dig at how we organize the page we use for our internal discussions, asking "How hard is that?" with reference to his doing something his own way. I guess because he knows better what works for us than the people who work here every day?

All of this would normally not be enough to drag somebody to AN, but I see he's got a long history of this kind of disruptive behavior and is no stranger to WP:AN. In 2017, he avoided any official sanction but was chided for being disruptive at RfA. In 2020, he was warned about bad-faith editing and "advised to take seriously the feedback (and in some cases warnings) offered by many, particularly around personal attacks". In 2021, he was TBANNED from deletion discussions.

It seems inevitable that what's going on at DYK will end up here eventually, so I'm bringing it up now in the hopes of avoiding additional disruption. Nobody's denying that errors get made at DYK. I've certainly complained about my share. But Andrew needs to understand that just standing on the sidelines throwing darts at the people trying to get the work done isn't useful. Like so many parts of enwiki, DYK is understaffed and overworked. We don't need critics, we need more people helping to do the work. RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If those responsible for creating DYK content aren't prepared to do the necessary work to get it right, why should anyone else feel obliged to fix it for them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the previous few days of ERRORS I don't see anything actionable. Pointing out issues at the forum for noting such errors isn't disruption: speaking as someone who has only infrequently dealt with the DYK system, it's byzantine and not a great place to browse discussions on hooks. I don't think his behavior counts as "standing on the sidelines" in this case (he is contributing, just not to the degree or in the venue you would prefer.)
Andrew might be occasionally more pedantic about aspects of the criteria than the regulars at DYK, but I don't see how calling out facts about DYK's regular issues is disruptive on the face. It seems like the fact there isn't any sort of disincentive for posting sloppy or erroneous work to DYK is one of the problems with the process, and should probably be explored if improving the quality of what gets posted is the main goal. I'm not a fan of much of Andrew's conduct, but I don't think poor behavior in deletion discussions is really germane to this situation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Waiting until the last moment to raise issues is a long-standing problem at DYK, and incredibly annoying. But I was rather surprized to see this complaint being initiated by a regular offender, though he doesn't wait until they are actually on MP. Pot and kettle? Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Having problematic or plainly wrong DYK entries on the Main Page is a long-standing problem of DYK, and incredibly annoying. Today, Andrew Davidson raised a complaint about the island hook at WP:ERRORS. But that hook was only in the DYK since yesterday 16.29, earlier there was a different hook[8]. Doesn't give people much time to check these... Fram (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
      There are many excellent editors involved with DYK, both writing/nominating and reviewing/administrating but the structure and institution of DYK has perennially prioritised quantity over quality, which results in poor hooks and poor-quality articles repeatedly hitting the main page. And historically, DYK has failed to get its own house in order, leaving it to others to point out the problems. While I'm sure we would all appreciate it if Andrew was more constructive in his criticism, DYK is probably more of a net-negative than he is at this point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
      It may be partially a time-on-task matter, rather than quantity, but with humans involved, mistakes, miscommunications, misunderstandings are going to happen, all the way until it roles off the page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
      Sure, but DYK is about filling sets regardless of whether the article is 1500 characters thrown together from a few marginally reliable gossip sites or 15,000 words built from days research using book sources, and the compulsory quid pro quo makes superficial reviews by people with no interest or knowledge of the subject a feature rather than a bug. And instead of requiring higher-quality articles, we just have an extremely complicated set of rules, additional rules, and supplementary rules. All because DYK is designed to keep the backlog down, not encourage quality. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
      Interesting, I wonder if anyone really involved in DYK would care to comment, with ways to address, it seems like there could be ways to address some of that (although since there is no real system to qualify writers, qualifying editors seems a real stretch) but 'better articles' might still be a point to go for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
      There are steps currently being taken to try to bring the focus away from pushing low-quality articles onto the main page. For example, we have started to "time-out" nominations that clearly aren't going anywhere and will cause nothing but controversy when actually on the main page. This may seem like a very small step, but it turns out that editors get rather unhappy at even the thought of their nominations not being accepted, and so we have to deal with the histrionics. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
      This is an incorrect assessment of what is happening at DYK, and nothing will be fixed if this is problem is misdiagnosed like this. DYK is not about filling sets, nor is it designed to keep the backlog down. DYK regulars would be I'm sure extremely happy to have less sets and less work. Those are both symptoms of the core issue, which is that nominators don't like being rejected, and reviewers don't go out to upset people. Quite basic, people-focused issues (the same that cause trouble occasionally at GAN), rather than some apparent desire to push out sets. CMD (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Well, just from watching over the years, volunteer editor-general for Main Page DYK is probably bound to happen. I suppose counseling him to tone it down (and telling him, we are almost all sometimes less than satisfied at what others do, here) might help, as such annoyance, particularly when strident, eventually might boomerang -- there are just more chances to eventually fall down when doing such an in-others-face critiquing role, over and over again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Andrew violated no rules, I'm afraid. Just a matter of manners at worst, which isn't actionable. BorgQueen (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
    When I was a kid, bad manners earned me an early bedtime without supper. But I guess that has gone out of style. RoySmith (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • This all feels very similar to how Andrew interacts with ITN: raising a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate criticisms in what is almost certainly good faith but arguably the least helpful way possible; complaining that things should be done his preferred way - even when (sometimes multiple) consensuses have not supported his changes; and/or refusing to see if there is a consensus for his preferences. This in unquestionably annoying and has understandably pissed off multiple people, but fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your point of view) it rarely goes beyond annoying into actionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talkcontribs) 19:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Echoing this, pretty much. Unfortunately par the course for Andrew, it's genuinely annoying behavior but unlike his behavior at AfDs it's not disruptive enough to sanction. The Kip (contribs) 19:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I have wondered why he seems to prefer checking sets that are already on the main page (i.e. working against the process) to checking sets that are yet to appear (i.e. working constructively with the process). It seems he likes to appear as a lone ranger figure—turning up, shooting a few bullets and one-liners, and abruptly departing. Works for the cameras, not so much for the well-being of the Wild West town (to continue this increasingly involved analogy). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
If one of the goals is overall improvement of DYK, with error frequency the primary metric for evaluating the process, surely noting problems that did make it to the main page is still a solid positive even if it's too late fix them individually? JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think I've agreed with Andrew Davidson in any Wikipedia-space discussion ever, and yet somehow I don't see any problem at all with what he's been doing at DYK. In fact I think it's very important that if we're going to be gauging overall DYK process success by the frequency it has errors we should make sure that that percentage is actually accurate and not just a sampling of whichever hooks a knowledgeable passer-by happens to notice might be problematic during the narrow windows they run. I know there have been several occasions where I've seen an issue but then realized there were only a couple hours left or the slot had already passed and figured bringing it up wouldn't be appreciated. In retrospect I don't think that was correct; just because a hook can't be pulled anymore doesn't mean an error didn't make it to the main page, and it's still helpful to acknowledge that it happened. Also the first few times I noticed something I didn't even know where to comment...the nom on the talk page is already closed, and clicking on the DYK link in the talk page banner just takes you to the template page which is useless for anyone trying to find out what DYK is or where to discuss the hook somewhere other than a TP that is almost by definition going to have almost no one watching it... David is right about "Byzantine". JoelleJay (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I have long said, one of those "joking, but not really" sort of comments, that I avoid Front Page processes, preferring to stick to less contentious areas like arbitration enforcement. Personally I find DYK a really unpleasant process to go through precisely because of the tension on display in this discussion - and indeed this process once introduced an error into a hook I wrote which was just incredibly frustrating to have happen after jumping through the various hoops DYK requires. I have a great deal of sympathy and respect for the work Andrew, and others like him, who is doing his best to try and serve our readers by making sure that we are giving them accurate information and is investing real time, effort, and care to do this. I also have a great deal of sympathy for Roy, and others like him, who is also doing his best and who is doing so in a system that is designed to reduce errors with multiple steps and checks only to then still be criticized by someone who is making no effort to participate until it's "too late" despite the real time, effort, and care he has invested. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Please note that I have participated in DYK in a variety of ways over the years. I have nominated over 100 articles, including articles created by other editors at outreach events. The nominations require QPQ reviews and so I've done lots of those too. And I've participated in DYK internal discussions over the years too. The only thing I've not gotten involved in is set-building and promotion of the queues. That's because it's quite a complex process and I don't have admin rights.
So, the idea that I'm purely lurking outside the process waiting to pounce is mistaken. I had a DYK of my own on the main page recently (Doris "Lucki" Allen) and I have another one in the pipeline right now (Quintus Quincy Quigley). My activity at WP:ERRORS arises because I usually read the main page every morning and most of the DYK hooks are new to me as there are a lot of them. I like browsing them, take an interest in the ones that attract my attention and take it from there. Sometimes I thank; sometimes I give a barnstar; sometimes I report an error; sometimes I go down the rabbit-hole; and otherwise I just move on.
Andrew🐉(talk) 19:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson, re: That's because it's quite a complex process and I don't have admin rights, you don't need admin rights to promote hooks to sets. With over 100 nominations, and the amount of time you spend scrutinizing DYK on the main page, you should have zero problem with the complexity. It's not rocket science, and there is always someone around to tell you what you've done wrong this time. Valereee (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Helping to build sets has been a great opportunity for me to learn. I'm not perfect at it, but the people at WT:DYK, and especially the admins promoting sets, have been very helpful, kind, and patient throughout the process. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Roy and Andrew both agree that the error rate at DYK is too high. I would hope there would be a way for them to set aside differences and work together on solving that mutually-recognized problem. On the one hand, Roy, I don't think it's fair to expect Andrew to look at queues and preps and not the main page when there are still bona-fide main page errors several times per week. On the other hand, Andrew, pointing out main page errors doesn't help stop them from happening; there would be fewer main-page errors if we caught them in the queue or in the prep.
As always, I think everyone should listen to me: the reason this is happening is because we are running too many hooks per day. We don't have the human resources needed to create and vet 9 hooks every day. If we cut the number of hooks like in half, the same number of volunteers could spend twice as much time on each one in the review, prep, and queue stages, significantly reducing the number of errors that hit the main page. In the simplest form: if we cut the number of hooks in half, the same amount of time Andrew spends each day reviewing the main page hooks could be spend reviewing the main page and the next queue. That's the real solution here. Levivich (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich May I quote you the next time somebody suggests we go to two sets per day because we need to churn through the backlog? RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
YES! And ping me so I can take them to ANI. :-D I remember this being raised/discussed at WT:DYK before I did the May and June error reports, and it seemed nobody at WT:DYK really wanted to seriously consider this. But I am convinced: one month of half as many hooks, and we can all watch the error rate shoot up from 93% to 99%. Levivich (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I sincerely hope we never have a month with an error rate of 99%. RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I support the idea Levivich is proposing here. I think it would be helpful to 1) get consensus here or someone where else from a broader community to prioritize this so you're not quoting a single person but rather consensus and 2) for the DYK regulars to decide, broadly speaking, what hooks will be prioritized. I'm guessing this would default to First in, first out but I would suggest something that spread the wealth (in other words penalize the DYK writing regulars who might have multiple hooks in prep or who've recently had something run) would be a better method. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
For spreading the wealth, maybe a one-hook-per-nom-per-set rule? Levivich (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I would be fine with that partially. We would also need to figure out if it works the same way for editors who nominate articles started by non-DYK regulars or non-DYK editors in general. I say partially because it should be stricter than a one-hook-per-nom-per-set rule because a set typically already has one editor per hook per set. SL93 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
One-hook-per-nom-per-3-sets could work but it would be a pain to manage for prep builders, I imagine. Levivich (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
As someone doing a bit of work in prep over the last couple months, it really would be. That's the biggest issue from my point of view. When building sets, I'm typically looking at Template:Did you know/Queue#Prep areas, placing good hooks in appropriate preps to balance out bios, sports, music, etc., I'm not usually opening an individual queue and never focused on who already had pages in another prep or queue. This idea would involve opening up at least five queues at a time, to see two forward and back, in case anything in a slot behind that prep area has been filled. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I suspect people are too attached to WP:NOTPAPER. That's a great essay (whoops, I just checked, it's a full fledged policy) when applied to all of mainspace. But when it comes to the front page sections, there really is a space limitation; the exact number of pixels DYK is allowed to consume is a little squishy, but basically we have to play nice with our space or the OTD folks will want to know why. So, as I've said many times on WT:DYK, if we have a fixed output rate and the input rate (i.e. nominations) is bigger, we need to find another way to make it all balance. Any freshman engineering student who has taken Control Theory 101 knows that. As does anybody who has ever confronted a toilet which is draining slower than it's filling. It's all the same math. But people get bent out of shape over the idea that we need to judge submissions on their merits and reject the ones that aren't as good as the others. RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
People getting bent out of shape is why I suggested both of my ideas. A community consensus with a selection criteria that has at least some objectivity to it is going to be perceived as more fair by nomination writers. I do think it important to also remember the pride and importance nomination writers have in the DYK process so of course there is going to be disappointment at being turned down. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't "agree that the error rate at DYK is too high" because I don't think that we know what the error rate is. We don't know this because we don't measure or record it. For example, WP:ERRORS is a noticeboard that doesn't keep archives. Instead of keeping records and statistics, the culture at WP:ERRORS is to shut down and clear discussion and reports as quickly as possible. And also, as we see in this case, to shoot the messenger too.
I keep a personal archive for my own interest and reference but this is quite haphazard as I don't patrol the main page systematically. From this, it seems that I've discussed about 80 DYKs at WP:ERRORS over about 8 years. This doesn't seem especially high -- it's certainly less than 1% of the total.
Now DYK does put quite a lot of effort into statistics -- see WP:DYKSTATS. It systematically records the number of nominations made by editors (for the QPQ requirement) and it records the readership for hooks, which is the main metric and goal. We might do more but DYK is so high volume that some script and template work would be needed.
Andrew🐉(talk) 06:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
No, Andrew, this is not shooting the messenger. If you started with, "I see a problem, how can I help fix it?", you would have been welcomed with open arms. Instead, you started with "If DYK published regular corrections then the shame might be a useful check and balance, helping to deter sloppy work." You should take this as a life lesson: if you see a group of people who are volunteering their time to do a job, insulting them and holding them up for public shaming because they're not doing as good a job as you want, isn't the way to get them to do a better job. RoySmith (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 200#DYK error rate. But if you don't think the error rate is too high, then fine, go work on something else. Levivich (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • If I may butt in as someone who was very active at DYK and then stepped away for some of the reasons that have arisen above: the issue we circle back to in these discussions, the common thread across all the threads about sub-optimal behavior and structure, is the number of hooks DYK attempts to run. Fixing that means increasing the human resources we put into the problem, or reducing the number of hooks we run. Both these approaches have proved difficult; because we quickly run out of editors willing to do the review work, and because we are very reluctant as a community to approve fewer hooks. Until we change that, we're going to end up having these conversations (that give me a strong sense of deja vu); every so often. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Like Vanamonde I've been very active at DYK and have more or less stepped away. IMO DYK is a problem that can't be solved because the people doing the work are vastly outnumbered by the people making the nominations, and almost all solutions require either (or both)
  1. More work from nominators
  2. Fewer approved nominations
Both of these are unpopular with nominators. Which means we can't get consensus for any of them. Valereee (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • If Andrew's waiting until items are already on MP, or about to appear, there may be a good reason: if you're really good a spotting errors (or potential errors requiring some research to check), every step you move upstream (in DYK's fairly porous checking process) to apply that talent rapidly increases the number of errors/potential errors you find yourself uncovering and calling out. It can be overwhelming. DYK has always had one or two people who fulfilled the role of last-moment checker, and thank goodness for them. But it's a very dispiriting role, and people fulfilling it can become sour, because you come to feel like too many people upstream are asleep at the switch. EEng 18:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Perhaps come up with metrics to require the DYK factoid to be central to the article. What you may lose in quirky can be made up for with more natural focus on a supportable central article factoid (by writer and editor), better streamlined articles, and also prevent having the reader be less likely to go, 'what a way to misrepresent a subject' or 'I can barely find that factoid' in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Strongly disagree. That the facts presented are odd or intriguing, so that the reader is drawn in, is DYK's great strength. The single thing that would most improve DYK quality would be to drop the ridiculous "newness" criterion: articles have tobe nominated within 14 (?) days of creation. That pretty much guarantees that inchoate, half-baked articles are will be shoveled onto the main page. EEng 13:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    Well, to the extent it is some kind of "strength", that clickbait aspect has always been discordant and caused discord. Also, at least in the past there was no real way to judge interesting as a group, nor enforce it. At any rate, "central" is not a synonym for "uninteresting". (And a bit contrary to your assumption, it is more likely that most DYK articles are planned practically in full by their writer for the front page spot before it was written.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    The clickbait criterion does cause issues, but "central" seems open to similar vagueness. What is central to Johann Joseph Dömling? (It would also create more entries overall, as we do get at least some articles rejected for lack of good hooks.) CMD (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    That's why you come up with metrics, like naturally mentioned in the lead, or a paragraph, or type of fact. For example with Dömling, it might be something about their path breaking. Nor is my proposal about getting rid of 'interesting', its rather channeling it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • An important principle here is that being right isn't enough. Andrew Davidson and others aren't wrong that errors happen; errors do, and they should happen less. However, this doesn't justify being uncivil and disruptive about it. Some comments claim that this is just about 'manners' and that disrespect isn't actionable. But respect is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. If Andrew Davidson's treatment of other editors is disruptive, that is actionable under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which govern behavior as well as conduct. OP is right that Andrew Davidson could contribute without throwing in caustic digs at editors.
    OP also rightly notes that Andrew Davidson's complaints are of inconsistent legitimacy. Two of the more dubious "errors" he reported include arguing that a hook about a woman should've focused on her physical appearance instead of her actions and claiming that following the WP:EN naming convention guideline was a "gross error". While wanting things to be done his own way, to quote OP, is an understandably human desire, opinions like these aren't errors, and reporting them as if they are is unhelpful because doing so adds noise to pages and discussions, making it harder to see and talk about actual errors.
    I hope that Andrew Davidson will be willing to contribute this help with spotting errors while dispensing with disrespecting community members and claiming that non-errors are errors. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I side with AD here as the net benefit to the community. There's a LOT of sloppy work on the main page. Levivich' suggestion should be given serious consideration. Buffs (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

User edit warring

[edit]

The user @Bgsu98 keeps reverting edits on The Amazing Race Canada 10 stating that the episode name is not true when it says that on the show's website. They also put a talk page message on my page about me making harrasments to them abut living people (yes idk what that means either). Please block them for at least 24 hours (and hopefully more) as because they have a vendetta against me and as soon as I edit any genre article, 2 minutes later they take it down. Thank you. Jd101991 (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this user is posting unsourced spoiler information about the results of a reality television show which have not yet aired. Without a reliable source, that information is inappropriate. If someone could please instill in them the concept that fan sites and related spoiler sites are in fact not reliable sources for Wikipedia, that would be awesome. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jd101991, you should not add speculation about the results of an unaired episode, even in hidden text. Schazjmd (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
so then can you let me know why @Bgsu98 decided not to remove the province new brunswick in the first paragraph of the article? Of course i didn't write it, so they didn't remove it. If i put it there, they would've taken it down. Jd101991 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
This is, I just noticed, the wrong noticeboard. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
This isn't the right place to report edit warring. Please visit WP:ANEW for instructions/more info. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

TBAN appeal: Dympies

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


7 months back, admin Firefangledfeathers replaced my existing Rajput topic ban with a broader ban (that includes editing in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan related topics) after a discussion here. The primary reason cited for sanctions was the violation of existing Rajput Tban.

For last seven months, I edited pages which are unrelated to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I made 325+ edits including creation of 6 articles. My editing in the duration was quite peaceful and I didn't receive further sanctions. The more I edited, more I learnt further about Wikipedia guidelines. Today, I find myself much more competent in editing Wikipedia than before. I feel that I can constructively contribute in the areas to which I don't have access presently. Yesterday, I appealed to the banning admin's talk page but he advised me to appeal at WP:AN. So, I wish to appeal my TBAN here. I assure our community of following :

  • I will keep adhering to my one-account restriction as I have been doing for last 7 months.
  • Before adding any content, I will give more care to WP:DUE.
  • I will try my level best to avoid edit warring. In accordance with the WP:BRD, I will discuss the matter first with fellow editors and take them into trust before making edits which can invite contentions.

Regards, Dympies (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors (Dympies)

[edit]

Per WP:CTOP, this appeal will succeed if "a clear consensus of uninvolved editors" supports it.

  • Comment I'd be willing to grant another chance, but I'm hoping to hear more from editors who have worked with this user first. Also @Dympies: You've mentioned that you've made a number of good content contributions as well as created several articles. Are there any that you're especially proud of and would like us to take a look at? Being able to show off specific work that you've done is something that can give other editors confidence that you've put past mistakes behind you. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@ The Wordsmith: So far, since the topic ban, I have created Secularism in Taiwan, Secularism in Tajikistan, List of Afrikaners, Secularism in Azerbaijan, Tecno Pova 6 Pro, and Junichiro Hironaka. All of these articles can be expanded further. For example Junichiro Hironaka's entire episode with former Nissan's CEO Carlos Ghosn has to be mentioned yet.[9] Dympies (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors (Dympies)

[edit]

A quick procedural note: though I was the enforcing admin, the present TBAN was enacted via a consensus of admins at AE which included @Black Kite, The Wordsmith, and Firefly, with Abecedare expressing acceptance of the option. On the merits: I am neutral on this appeal, leaning toward accepting it based on a cursory review of the contributions since the TBAN was broadened. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bot to inform temp users of expiry

[edit]

I was requested to seek consensus at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Leaderbot#Discussion. Basically, I'm working on a (global) bot that informs users when their temp permission (which would normally be the non-admin rights on Wikipedia) would expire in a week (giving these users enough time to re-apply), and wanted to ask if the English Wikipedia community would be fine with it. This will be opt-out (opt-in is possible if the community would rather have that), with the mechanism for that not yet decided. If there is something else I need to do, please let me know. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Support in principle. I don't see an issue with it. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Support in principle. This seems useful and unproblematic, as long as opting out is simple and the ability to do so is clear (e.g. it should respect {{nobots}} templates). Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Support: As someone who grants a lot of trials for perms, I like it. It makes sense, and we have FireflyBot, which notifies users of drafts about to expire, which is a similar enough concept. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
As someone who grants mostly temporary IPBE, I'd definitely want to see an opt-in/out option, based on the log entry and not the talk page. A reminder for IPBE is in many cases likely to be uninformative or confusing (some people don't even know they have it). To give another example of a potential issue, telling someone that their confirmed status is about to expire when they're autoconfirmed is going to be misleading. Not objecting at this stage, just suggesting things to think about. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Similarly, any temporary permissions that form part of the admin toolkit granted to a non-admin who has become an admin in the meantime. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that would be a problem, because my understanding is that the temp rights are removed when the user becomes an admin so there would be no "reminder" since the flag has been removed. Leaderboard (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Not automatically, a 'crat has to actually un-check the boxes. Doesn't always happen. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The IPBE message could be customised for the flag that is to be removed (or excluded), and the confirmed flag can be excluded for reminding purposes. Leaderboard (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: and others, does this message make sense for you? Also: users can opt-out via a central page on Meta (example) - is that OK? (Note that the confirmed flag has been excluded) Leaderboard (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Looks good to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I would point out that trying to edit when logged-out is not a good method for determining if you need IPBE (unless you are competent at parsing block parameters). It would also be my preference not to have to list users on a page somewhere. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: can you give an example on when you would give someone IPBE and not want them to be notified of expiry? As far as I'm aware, you do get an email when the right is granted, so I don't get the "some people don't even know they have it" part. Leaderboard (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I think you have to remember that most users are just occasionally writing about their favourite sports team, or breed of dog, or their local geography, etc, and don't really care about administrivia and how it's possible they can edit. I also suspect many users don't have email, and blue notifications, especially ones which appear trivial or incomprehensible, are easily ignored by many users. So it's sometimes the case that checkusers will hardblock whole ranges (or also just notice a hardblock) and then they'll grant a bunch of IPBE to users on the range so that no one notices any difference. The users didn't ask for it, and I do believe many don't notice or care about it. I'd rather not name specific recipients, but examples of people likely to get IPBE in this way are anyone on a Wikinger range, historically anyone in Ghana, and some people on some proxy ranges. It's also been granted in this way to people on individual IPs or common ranges such as T-Mobile, when the need arises. Notifying them about what has been performed behind the scenes is IMO just going to be confusing. It's not everyone; some I'm sure would appreciate the notification. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: That's the tricky bit for me (as you say, "some I'm sure would appreciate the notification"). My opinion is that it's better if someone could help reword the message so that it captures the concerns you have. Having to check the logs is something I very much would rather not do since it would introduce additional complexity I doubt would be justified, and the reasoning for putting the opt-out on a central meta page is for scalability - the plan is for the bot to be global and I don't think it's reasonable for me to have to capture all wiki's local opt-out preferences (for example, there is no concept of exclusion-compliant bots on my homewiki). Does this make sense to you? OR I could just add ipbe to the list of flags the bot will ignore entirely if the community would rather prefer that. Leaderboard (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
zzuuzz Ghana: did you throw out a random African country, or have we historically had issues with unintentional autoblocks for Ghanaian editors? I know this used to be a problem for Qatar, with all traffic running through a single IP address, but I don't remember any other countries with a comparable problem. Nyttend (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
No, yes, Ghana. Things have eased recently with the retirement of proxy-bots, but for several years it was almost impossible to edit from Ghana without IPBE. Most of Ghana seems to go through about 2 IP ranges which are full of proxies and frequently blocked for this reason or another. Some other countries have approached the same level of proxy-blockage (eg Nigeria and Nepal) but none anywhere near as bad. Lots of people in Ghana have IPBE without any request or likely idea what it is. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The bot is ready for local testing: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Leaderbot. Leaderboard (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I'm not saying it can't be there, but this really seems like a tawdry and unnecessary hook and I think it would be much wiser NOT to have this on the main page:

"... that some LGBT people wear shorter nails on their middle and index fingers to allow for easier manual sex and to express a queer identity?"

Thoughts? Buffs (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not advocating for the article's removal. Buffs (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
No changes. Just keep it retained. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:ERRORS is that way. And as hooks referencing human sexuality go, this is as far from "tawdry" as possible—an academically-worded description of the article's central topic. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 04:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd support a more children-friendly main page, but it's probably a matter for the pump. Levivich (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
If we wanted to protect children from information, we should start with harmful things like war and violence, not lesbian sex. —Kusma (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not looking to "protect children from information" and Levivich didn't make such an assertion either. Information about wars and violence is generally not harmful, but that depends on the graphic nature of descriptions or pictures. Information about sex is titillating, but generally considered a cheap/low-brow way to get attention and inappropriate in academic literature. I think we could do better as a community than cater to basal human instincts. But that doesn't mean my opinion has to carry the day. In this case it doesn't. Buffs (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
You linking to WP:NOTCENSORED while complaining about this hook being on the front page is very contradictory. We feature wars, murders, etc. on the front page frequently but this is where you draw the line? Also as Tamzin points out, this is far from "tawdry". JCW555 (talk)05:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
"DYK has issues with tasteless or clickbaiting hooks" Fram said it, not me. Clearly my opinion isn't in the majority on this one. I'll consider it resolved. Buffs (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
DYK has issues with tasteless or clickbaiting hooks, but this seems to be a hook which is directly related to the topic. If you had complained about another original hookhere, which somehow got reviewed and promoted into the preparation areas before being changed, you would have had a good point. But the above, nah. Fram (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flurry of move activity from my account

[edit]

In the event anyone happened to notice a flurry of activity concerning moves and deletions from my account in the 60-90 minutes, I wanted to post to let the community know that I went to archive my talk page and accidentally moved all affiliated subpage talk pages to an incorrect title, then to an archive 24 title when I only meant to move my current talk page. Its the second time I've done this, but I do believe after a good hour of checking, deleting, and moving that I got everything back where its supposed to be. Sorry for any confusion or concern that may have caused. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive unregistered user

[edit]

User:2A00:8A60:C010:1:0:0:1:1016 has variously described me as a "mathematical crank" (in Talk:Axiomatic system (logic)) and "intellectually blind" (in their own talk page) for what they vaguely describe as "adding a bunch of false and misleading claims" to an article, but which I describe rather as replacing the article's tons of unsourced, unverifiable statements with content supported by, and sourced to, WP:RS. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

/64 blocked by Isabelle Belato. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The IP seems to have reiterated the personal attack at their talk page, and I suspect that the IP 95.223.44.235, who has been talking at Talk:Hilbert_system, is a sockpuppet. (Investigation opened here.) Thiagovscoelho (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Is reverting alleged OR from an FA exempt from the 3RR brightline?

[edit]

In this AN3 report Black Kite ruled no violation because there were less than 4 reverts in 24 hours. Fair enough. But they went on to say the reported user wouldn't be sanctioned anyway because

this is a featured article and [the user who was reverted by the reported user] is trying to add unsourced original research to the lead paragraph ... That's just disruption and even though it isn't technically included in WP:3RRNO

and

3RR is a technical bright line, and that metric has to exist, but equally I don't think you'll find any admin that will block any user (regardless of whether they're an admin or not) for removing disruptive material from an article (especially a fairly high traffic featured article) unless there is some other problematic issue.

Is that right? On their talk page Black Kite said that was common sense. I've always assumed WP:EW's Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense was taken literally but are there exceptions not stated in 3RRNO? Equally, I don't think the user adding the material was being disruptive merely by adding it. They might be wrong but not disruptive although they were edit warring as was the reported user. I'll notify Black Kite, the reported user (DrKay) and the reporter (John) of this thread - but I'm not looking to have anyone sanctioned or to change the outcome of the 3RR report - just clarification of admin practice in this area. Btw, just to be clear, I think Black Kite is a good admin and don't have any issues with them in that regard. I'm sure they acted in good faith. DeCausa (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Exempt? No. But 3RR isn't a rule that someone must be blocked for violating, just a point at which they can be blocked. It's still up to admin discretion whether blocking would be beneficial. There are quite a few times I've let technical 3RR violations slide with no action or a warning because the edits were obviously improving the article, or because blocking would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. (I have not looked through the edits from the report in question, so this is a general response to scenarios like this; I have no opinion on whether Black Kite's decision was correct.) —Ingenuity (t • c) 18:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Assuming your statements here are 100% factually correct:
  1. The user in question did violate 3RR; removing OR from a featured article is no exception.
  2. An admin who decides that a specific instance of a rule violation should be ignored is not out of line. Indeed, the admin may legitimately choose to ignore it if enforcing it would be bad for Wikipedia.
Animal lover |666| 18:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
The editor DrKay reverted was not following WP:BRD, which complicates this particular example. I think DrKay has the moral high ground here and it is hard to take the other editor's side. However it would be nice to see more respect for 3RR from DrKay; a third editor could have made the final revert and avoided some drama. Personally I am pretty self-aware of my revert count in situations like these and I like to see this self-awareness in others as well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that. The reverts are more than 24 hours apart. 3RR was not violated. It seems like there is no violation. Is this ANI just about Black Kite's statement? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not looking to have anyone sanctioned or to change the outcome of the 3RR report - just clarification of admin practice in this area. Levivich (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not ANI and right at the beginning I highlighted it wasn't a breach of the bright line. It's what Black Kite said in relation to what should happen even if it was a breach of the bright line. DeCausa (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • There's a decent chance I would warn or sanction users that violate 3RR, even if they're making a good-faith effort to keep original research out of a featured article. I took Black Kite's comments as his being transparent about how he exercises admin discretion. Please don't take it as a broader statement about policy enforcement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Four reverts in just over 24 hours. Warning the other editor in the edit war with a templated message mentioning blocks (DrKay is an admin). No BLP, copyvio or WMF considerations. No participation in article talk on the matter. The edits were clearly not vandalism. If this translates to "no violation", and if this is due to the article's FA status, I feel guidance should be added to the relevant policy page to allow a community discussion. There is already a mention there about TFA. I made the AN3 report because I thought DrKay acted poorly, very poorly for an admin. I would not have wanted them to be blocked but I believe a warning would have been appropriate under my understanding of current policy. I am absolutely certain that all three (the two edit warriors and the admin who closed the AN3 report) acted in good faith and believed they were improving Wikipedia, but this is almost always the case in edit wars. Finally, using "common sense" as a rationale sounds tempting, but one editor's common sense may be another's utter nonsense. This is why we have policies, guidelines, and discussion pages. If editors are allowed to get away with blatantly edit-warring, what could be seen as using (implied) threat of admin tools in a content dispute, and failing to discuss in talk, on the basis that it's an FA, I think that's a shame. Edit warring is bad; it creates unneeded tension, reduces the chance of collaboration occurring, and deters editors from improving articles that may need it, in spite of once having been peer-reviewed. I am agnostic on the material they were edit-warring to include or remove, but discussion is the way to go, not this, I think. Thanks DeCausa for bringing this here. John (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

    IMO the existing mention you raised "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the Main Page." is already sufficient to make clear that while there isn't a formal exemption, editors are less likely to be blocked if they are "maintain(ing) the quality" of the FA while on the main page and we should not push this any further.

    While I agree with you that having gone through peer-review is no guarantee the older version is better, I think it's fair to say that combined with the fact there tends to be scrutiny on a TFA before it goes on the main page means that it's significantly more likely that the status quo ante is indeed better. And at the very least, it's better to keep it while discussion ensures while there is dispute.

    Note I'm not saying this excuses edit warring but Wikipedia always has a weird mix of competing forces. On the one hand, we can all agree that edit warring is disruptive and bad. On the other hand, I think many would agree that editors shouldn't be able to have their preferred version as the main one just because they were more aggressive as edit warring yet it's likely to be the natural result.

    And then, we can say that even if it doesn't seem right, most of the time it doesn't matter much if for a few hours, days or maybe weeks while the issue is resolved it doesn't matter much if the WP:WRONGVERSION gets to stay just because one side was more aggressive in their edit warring with the obvious exception of when there are clear policy backed reasons e.g. WP:BLP.

    But if those don't apply, then with TFAs we get the more complicated case where there is actually a reason why it seems to matter a lot which wrongversion gets to stay in even the short space of hours namely the large number of visitors (I think in some cases even multiple years worth of average visitors in one day). And so if we circle back to my earlier point, since we have to chose a WRONGVERSION, while we don't want to encourage edit warring we should also consider that in absence of anything else, the status quo ante would seem to be greatly preferred as the WRONGVERSION.

    Yet because we don't want to encourage edit warring, I don't think we should make this a formal exemption. Instead it's better to keep the current situation where admins might consider it, but it's not a guaranteed exemption.

    WP:NOTBURO etc, our "rules" are normally flexible. 3RR is one of the closest to being a hard rule, but as others have said, even when there is a technical violation, there's still no "must block". And already we have the situation where outside of technical violations, there is no clear "rule" and what admins do varies depending on a lot of things. And likewise while it might be a bad thing, very many good editors occasionally get involved in what can be consider an edit war with editors using their judgment on whether they should revert even if there have already been multiple reverts by others and there's no clear exemption of policy reason why it must be their wrongversion.

    Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

    BTW I said all the above without having looked at the content. Now that I have, I will say IMO this is not the sort of thing I feel was a good idea to violate 3RR over even considering this was TFA. However if anything that IMO adds to our current guidance being sufficient. I'd much rather we leave it fuzzy so editors think careful and decide yeah not worth it in a case like this. Also while we don't generally want admins caring about content, I think this is one such case where it's fine if admins do consider it and so again if our current fuzzy guidelines mean look at what's happening and decide, well there is no formal exemption here IMO but the attempted change was clearly very bad so I think I'll just leave it; or in this case they look and go um yeah okay it's TFA and that change is unsourced however it's not the most terrible thing that I'll let the 3RR violation slide. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
    It wasn't TFA. John (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Apologies, I made incorrect assumptions because of the apparent urgency of those involved. In that case, I agree with you the edit warring was a particularly poor showing especially coming from an admin and even more when we consider DrKay didn't open a thread. I've long criticised the childish "they started it" mentality where editors expect the other side to start a discussion. I'd note that IMO even if you feel your version is so obviously correct that that any editor will agree, and because of that or whatever you intend to edit war, I think many of us find it more compelling if you can show you at least tried to discuss and the other editor ignored it as I expect might have happened here. (Of course if both editors take part on the discussion but edit war, you're no better off. And no, comments in edit summaries and talk page warnings don't count as discussion.) And while technically it's still true that even a brightline violation wouldn't require a block, I'm not convinced it's right for an admin to not at least warn. That said, without a brightline violation, I'm not convinced many admins would block, more likely to just warn. So I guess I'd like DrKay and Black Kite to change their minds on how to handle these things in the future. But I'm not sure the efforts required is worth it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of

    Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

    That language has been policy for a long time, and I think it's one of our core principles. If a policy no longer reflects how the community behaves, the policy ought to be changed, after a suitable consensus is achieved to do so. (descriptivist view) Or, admins ought to enforce the policies we have agreed to the best of their ability, without fear or favour. (prescriptivist view). This episode just doesn't seem right to me. John (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Another example of Wikipedia verb conjugation.
    First person singular, present tense: I am "defending an FA against disruptive editing".
    Second person singular, present tense: You are "edit warring".
It is always particularly annoying to me when an editor is actively edit warring, but feels it appropriate to leave their opponent an edit warring templated warning. DrKay's previous 4 blocks for edit warring were all more than 10 years ago, albeit all while an admin, so hopefully this is an aberration. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Lol, I thought the name seemed familiar. DrKay blocked me for edit warring many years ago! So if anyone wants to assume I hold a grudge and this is an "involved" comment of some kind, feel free, but the fact is I'm just forgetful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • To add to my opening post: I think that Black Kite jumped to some inappropriate assumptions that what DrKay was reverting was disruptive and OR. In summary, the content dispute was that the lead referred to the decolonisation of Africa during Elizabeth II's reign and what was being disputed was the addition of a reference to the decolonisation of Asia. As can be seen in the subsequent talk page discussion here, it's clearly an editorial judgment call as to whether it should be added - there are arguments for and against but it certainly wasn't disruptive or OR (or at least no more OR than the existing reference to African decolonisation.) I think this all goes to show the dangers of admin discretion/leeway to allow breaching 3RR when it supposedly "benefits" the article. Ther's a reason why 3RRNO is limited to obvious vandalism, copyvio and the other very specific siatuations. DeCausa (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • This isn't a 3RR violation, so the bright line rule doesn't apply. If it WAS a 3RR violation, a block might be in order, but we should take into account if falls under the listed WP:EW exceptions:
    1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
    2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, as long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
    3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users.
    4. }Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
    5. Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead of relying on this exemption.
    6. Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
    7. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
    8. Reverting unambiguous spam, where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion G11 if it were a standalone page.
Admins should also take into account if a person is protecting the Featured Article of the day. I was once briefly blocked due to a malicious report which failed to mention my "exact same 4 edits" were all to revert vandalism on a WP:TFA...in fact, that's why the policy exception is there. Buffs (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I've seen administrators ignore the 3Rs in a case like a featured article, especially if it's a recent featured article and not one from 10 years ago. But you talk of a 3R bright line... if you cross it the OR had also better be as bright as the sun with no wiggle room. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Which, as DeCausa argues above, was not the case here. John (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
No line can be so bright as to compel any individual admin to act. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
[edit]

When I checked the protected log in Japanese Wikipedia, there’s a lots anime, manga and seiyu stuff gets indefinitely or long term protected (you can see it’s [log in Japanese Wikipedia]) due to excessive vandalism by long term abusers especially from ja:LTA:203, ja:LTA:TAROSU, ja:LTA:ISECHIKA and ja:LTA:Iccic.

I have concern about those LTA from Japanese Wikipedia might bring its vandalism into English Wikipedia as soon more and more articles gets indefinitely protected, however, they have policy related to these types of LTA, should we also adopt this policy if they bring its vandalism into English Wikipedia?

By the way, here is my translation of these policies in Japanese Wikipedia:

These criteria have been agreed upon in related incidents for protection.

  • Article should placed on 3 years semi-protection if vandalism occurs after 1 year semi-protection is lifted
    • Article should placed on indefinite semi protection if vandalism occurs after 3 year protection lifted
  • From 2019 onwards, frequent semi-protection breakthroughs made by sock accounts, in which case extended semi-protection (Japanese version of ECP), officially operational from 2020, is required.
  • If semi-protection for more than three years and vandalism still occurs after it is lifted, or if they break through the semi-protection by using sock accounts, they should be moved to ECP and the deadline re-set, or indefinite semi-protection is required.

AussieSurplus1510 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

If articles become targeted, we can protect them. We also already have a policy on article protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Review of RfC close

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I am requesting a review of my RfC closure at RfC: Circumcision viewpoints. Prcc27 asked me to consider re-opening it, and I declined. Bon courage thinks it was a bad close and after discussion on my talk page, has indicated they believe the solution appears to be to ignore the close. So I am asking for a review of my closure. This is my initial response for my rationale for closing the existing discussion at the RfC. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

My main concern is the willingness of Bon courage to ignore the process outlined in CLOSECHALLENGE. They knew the next step after the discussion on my talk page, was to bring a CLOSECHALLENGE here to AN. Instead, they had already edited the article to their preferred version, and then said "the solution appears to be to ignore the close and follow the WP:PAGs". And the question asked in the RfC is not the question as Bon courage describes it, and when the content was re-added to the article after the RfC closed, it was reliably sourced, and then two minutes later, it was immediately reverted by Bon courage. Do we allow editors to ignore CLOSECHALLENGE, ignore a RfC close, make a self-determination on how they think the RfC should have been closed and edit the article to their preferred version? If this is the community consensus, please let me know, and I won't close anymore RfCs. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Non-participants

[edit]
Yes, the position of the closer appears to be that WP:PAGs should not be considered by a closer unless they have been raised in the argument. However, since WP:CON is by definition "a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" relevant WP:PAGs need to be considered in determining consensus in a close, otherwise we'd have untenable situations like where (say) a small group of editors could agree to insert libel into Wikipedia, and a closer then saying that must be done "since nobody mentioned BLP". This is really a key difference between WP:CON and WP:LOCALCON.
In this particular case the question was about some text in an article summary and whether it should/could be sourced and how it WP:SYNC'd with the detail article referenced. The issue in now moot since by doing a WP:SYNC anyway some equivalent text in included, apparently without objection.
As a general rule, I think this trend of using RfCs to mandate text (and then finding sources) is not a desirable substitute for the normal editing process. Bon courage (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Is that what happened though? While the RFC didn't directly mention sources, in discussion the RfC on the circumcision page (Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC) was mentioned as well as the Genital modification and mutilation page history [10]. Both locations seem to have several sources. Are any of the sources that supporters of the RfC wanted to use before your involvement, actually new or were they part of the circumcision RfC or already in the Genital modification and mutilation article or were used until removed? If it's the latter, then I don't see how you can claim RfC mandated text and sources were found later. Instead the RfC mandated text based on existing sources. I mean the RfC itself was structured poorly since people needed to go through either the edit history (which wasn't even directly linked) or check out the circumcision RfC etc to work out what sources were being used for the text. This might have reduced participant from uninvolved or less involved editors since those editors would see the text being proposed but need to hunt around to work out what sources allegedly support the text and so might not bother. So I'm by no means saying the RfC was perfect. But I'm unconvinced that the RfC was mandating text and then only finding sources, instead the sources were already there just not properly presented in the RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
To put it a different way, the main difference between this RfC and a good one IMO were that RfC only had the proposed text but not the sources. The sources were elsewhere but not in the RfC itself. If it had the proposed text and the sources, this would IMO be much more likely a more normal completely fine RfC. In some cases there might be two (or more) different suggestions possibly with different wordings. That is something that should have been dealt with via BEFORE which I admit I'm not sure how well was done here. OTOH, in some cases it might simply be that one "side" feels this this text belongs with these sources and the other "side" feels the article is fine without that and so it is simple a dispute between include this text and its sources or don't. It does seem to me that at least before your involvement, the most were focused on either including that text and sources or not. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The text is reasonable enough, as it turns out, but my concern about sources was that it seemed the tail was wagging the dog and they might not exist. The plan was apparently to use one particular source for this (doi:10.1353/ken.0.0279), but how one was meant to know that, beats me! You for example seem to think multiple-sources were in play. I've been operating a slimmed-down watchlist over much of summer so maybe missed some of the background to this which would help provide context? Agree a 'normal' RfC (proposing sourced text) would have raised no eyebrows. Bon courage (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You're right that only one source was used initially but it seem Prcc27 felt this was enough. I'm not going to comment on whether it was but my main objection to your initial comment is you made it sound like what Prcc27 was doing was saying "we should have this text, I don't know what sources support it, but I'm sure we'll find some". Instead, it seems clear that what Prcc27 was doing was saying "we should have this text" which was earlier in the article with this one source supporting it. The latter part was unfortunately only implied in follow up discussion rather than directly presented in the RfC. So yes they failed to present the one source in the RfC which isn't a good thing. But they clearly had a source in mind since the text and source was in the article not long before the RfC started. I just don't see how there can be any dispute especially given the followup discussion within the RfC, that Prcc27's main desire was to return to the earlier version with the text and source (which was only a few days or so before the RfC started). So a poor RfC yeah, sure, but not one where the editor started out with a wording they wanted and felt they'd worry about sources later. I may have misunderstood, but my impression was Prcc27 was also saying if that one source isn't enough, there are additional sources in the circumcision RfC we could consider using. Again not ideal, even if you feel that one source is enough, it's IMO better to present the other sources which might be used in the RfC itself. OTOH since Prcc27 apparently felt that one source was enough, technically they could have just presented the RfC with the wording and that one source if they were fairly confident the community would agree. If others in the RfC suggested that one source wasn't enough, then it might be necessary to hunt for more sources hence why it's better to either present these additional sources from the getgo or at least try and have more discussion before the RfC to work out if that one source is enough. But it can be hard to work out if there will be objection to your single source or the problem might be you need more or better sourcing before you start an RfC depending on the circumstance. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Reading the RfC more carefully, it does seem the latter two editors were probably unaware of the existing sources which is unfortunate. However it seems unlikely the editor who started the RfC was unaware of the source they wanted to use, and I suspect the next one to comment was also aware. Ultimately all this seems to re-affirm my point. No question that the RfC was poorly structured since it didn't present the source to be used. But the point seems to have been to try restore recently removed text which did have one source which the editor felt was enough although they did link to another recent RfC on the related page where more sources were available if needed. The RfC should have been better structured so editors could easily see which source was suggest, and offer objections e.g. this one source isn't enough or is too old etc. I think more before might have helped especially in establishing whether there might be objection to that one source. OTOH, I'm also cognisant that it's hardly uncommon that editor can ask for comments and receive nothing useful until an RfC happens. But ultimately it doesn't seem to me that the RfC was trying to mandate text and then work out which source/s support it; instead it was just a poorly structured RfC where the one source to be used wasn't properly presented in the RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree, now, that in effect a reversion to a prior state was being asked for. But it didn't look like that at the time, with just text and no source presented. Hence I got the wrong end of the stick. Bon courage (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

An RfC with four participants, three of whom said "yes", is being challenged, and I cannot tell on what basis. Bon courage has brought up a ton of paggies (WP:LOCALCON, WP:SYNC, WP:SS, WP:ARBGG etc)... but not given an explanation of what any of this stuff has to do with the RfC. It seems pretty simple to me. Here is a quick recap of the RfC: it's so short I can just put the entire thing here for reference.

Entire four-comment RfC
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus to include the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents in the article with the proposed wording. An editor also noted that reliable sources should be used to support the wording which is consistent with our policies and guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article?

Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”.

Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes: per WP:DUE, “neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.” Whether or not to circumcise (especially a child) is a significant debate; and ethics of circumcision specifically is a significant consideration given by major medical organizations (see previous RfC on the matter). Prcc27 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes per prcc27 Snokalok (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary RfC per WP:RFCBEFORE. Was there any discussion on the proposed edit, and if so could you please link to it? RFCs aren't meant for merely "anticipated" disagreements. If you think this should be in the article, put it in; if someone reverts it, start a discussion on the talk page to try to reach consensus. Only if you reach an impasse is an RfC the right way to go. Tserton (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, so WP:RFCBEFORE has been met. [11] A user recently removed the sentence in question from the article; if I re-added it, that would be edit warring. Prcc27 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes assuming sources will be added as well. Senorangel (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's really straightforward -- the RfC asked if the thing should be included, four people responded, three said that the thing should be included, the closer said that there was consensus for the thing to be included. Now one (1) editor has decided that this is all a big misunderstanding and the consensus is actually to have the article say the opposite? It's true that a four-participant RfC is not some kind of invincible ironclad consensus, but for Pete's sake, what possible objection could there be to this closure? This just feels like an editor not liking the RfC close and deciding to throw random WP:UPPERCASE at the wall to see what sticks. jp×g🗯️ 02:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the page in question, it looks like Bon courage just keeps on editing the article to say his own version, and then going to the talk page to demand that other people provide sources proving it wrong or else he will just keep adding it -- surely we have all been around long enough to know this is not how WP:BURDEN works. This feels somewhat tendentious to me. jp×g🗯️ 02:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that that is a summary section, meant to be summarizing the thing it points to. It shouldn't say "the opposite" of what the RfC proposed, it should just mirror the thing it's summarizing (which is not "the opposite" as it happens). The "random uppercase" things are WP:PAGs, and kind of matter. You can't have an RfC decide that, no matter what article A says, its summary must be fixed without regard to that; the WP:PAGs tell us that such material should be in WP:SYNC. My final edit is not really "my own version" but just excerpts from the articles-being-summarized, which as far as I know I did not write. Bon courage (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Withdraw
  • It seems evident from subsequent editing that my intervention here is hindering rather than helping evolution of this article, so with apologies to all I shall put my tail between my legs and withdraw my objection to this RfC/close assuming that sources are used in such a way that WP:V is respected, and hoping the WP:SYNCing shall be improved as the article evolves. Bon courage (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Participants

[edit]

I originally supported a re-open of the RfC, because I felt BonCourage’s edits went against the RfC and their concerns were not brought up there either. And because it was still under 30 days since it started. However, I think the sync is sufficient, as long as the viewpoints of proponents and opponents are articulated in a neutral manner. Re-opening an RfC may no longer be needed. For the record, I think the closer closed the RfC correctly, based on the discussion made at the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I also am concerned with Bon Courage’s actions. The wording I proposed at the RfC was actually a longstanding paragraph in the article. It had been there for several years (albeit the wording had been tweaked a little bit over the years). And it was reliably sourced as Isaidnoway noted. Bon Courage’s behavior does seem to be an example of a user taking ownership of an article, and unilaterally overturning an RfC. While I am not necessarily against the sync, I would like for an admin to determine how the RfC should be enforced. And maybe even give Bon Courage a formal warning for their disruptive behavior. Prcc27 (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The source was not part of the RfC, and a 2009 primary source is not great. You seemed to agree with this by then using a 'more recent' 2015 source.[12]. The only trouble then is that WP:V was not respected, and in fact the source you selected said pretty much the opposite of the text cited to it. Wikipedia simply cannot allow a WP:LOCALCON RfC to wave away the need to respect core policies like WP:V. This exemplifies the problem with having a RfC designed to 'enforce' text with the hope that sourcing can be found to support it, Bon courage (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
This is just more obfuscation. The RfC was not designed to 'enforce' text with the hope that sourcing can be found to support it. The RfC was about re-adding the sourced text which had been in the article for at least the last ten years, and had been recently removed. This reply in the RfC, makes that abundantly clear; the RfC was about re-adding the sourced text which had a long standing consensus. In fact, the sourced text was in the article, when you edited the article in December 2019. So for ten years, five years, the sourced text had been in the article and you didn't complain. It was only when the sourced text was re-added after the RfC ended, and there was consensus to re-add it, you swooped in two minutes later and unilaterally decided the consensus from the RfC didn't matter. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
This is just wrong. As anybody can see the RfC has no "sourced text" and said nothing about "re-adding" text but was presented with no context and no source. How are editors meant to know about an old discussion on a Talk page archive? And how am I expected to recall some text in an article I edited 5 years ago? And 10 years ago a 2009 source would be a lot less dated than it is today. As to "enforcement" the OP of this section is talking about "how the RfC should be enforced" just above. PMID:25674955 does not support the RfC text and WP:V cannot just be ignored. Bon courage (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close review: Nikola Tesla's birthplace RfC

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I am requesting community review of my closure of an RFC on the specifics of the birthplace of Nikola Tesla (closing diff), which was recently challenged on my talk page by the IP address 93.141.181.3, who believes that the close did not sufficiently assess consensus (their original comments, my reply). As an IP, they cannot edit this page, so I am starting it on their behalf. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Involved

[edit]
(from my talk page ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)) The closure haven't provided any explanation on how the consensus was determined. No explanation on how sources were considered when establishing the consensus. No explanation on other points from the discussion. Improper use of SYNTH and OR and unsourced claims, Gish galloping. The RfC stated 2 questions and the consensus was provided only on due weight. I would like an explanation on how a group of editors who disagree with the sources can have a valid stand against presented sources without any sources of their own. 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
From the closure explanation , I expect the following. Name all participants and name the points they made and sources they posted. Name couterpoints others have made to their points and explain how the points were evaluated in determining the consensus. 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I was the one who opened the discussion. I accept the closure. I accept that RfC was a mess. I accept that I'm solely responsible for that from start to finish. Yes my RfC wasn't neutral nor brief, often incorrect, initially proposing outright plagiarism, and following none of WP:WRFC. I admit that I have then proceeded to spend nearly 8,500 words bludgeoning the discussion. Everything was correctly closed. I would just ask for one thing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29, can you just explicitly write the consensus on the other question editors have voted upon. Something like "The consensus on the 1st question is NO. The consensus on the second question is NO". Trimpops2 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. You are one of the major participants. I'm glad we agree. Only one IP has complaints, but he didn't contribute more than 0.1% so I don't see why this shouldn't be promptly closed. Trimpops2 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I'll do that if others agree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought the close was carefully considered and judged. The conclusion of "no consensus" effectively keeps the longstanding status quo, which has been stable for six years. The IP here is very likely block evasion by User:Bilseric who has been consistently disrupting the process while using IPs from Croatia. I am loathe to allow a blocked editor to demand a review, robbing the community of even more of their time. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Binksternet. But, ~~ AirshipJungleman29, can you also write in the consensus on the 1st question? Trimpops2 (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Another admin needs to seriously consider blocking this user Trimpops2, because they've first endlessly bludgeoned this discussion, despite numerous warnings, advocating for one weird POV, and are now posturing completely differently, for another weird POV, as if it was all some sort of a bizarre online game. This is as clear a case of not actually being here to build an encyclopedia as it gets. --Joy (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
because they've first endlessly bludgeoned this discussion Yes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 said that in the closure. I have already admitted my wrongdoing there. advocating for one weird POV It was inapropriate to ignore numerous users who have tried to explain to me that Tesla has no connection to Croatia. My problem is that I was under influence of Croatian propaganda and I was confused by the statement that Tesla was born in Smiljan , present-day Croatia. I though that Tesla was born in Austrian Croatia, but as Binksternet has said, sources place Tesla in Croatia only because that's what it is called today. Tesla has no relation to Austrain Croatia. I didn't know that. Now when the consensus has been determined, I have accepted it. I admit it was a weird POV and I appologize. and are now posturing completely differently I'm just agreeing with consensus and comments other editos have made in their responses to me. for another weird POV It's not POV, it's the consensus. My problem here is that I found the article text confusing, but I have already accepted that article needs no change. Binksternet has provided an explanation why Croatia is mentione, because the sources place Tesla in Croatia only because that's what it is called today. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Since you keep pinging me, can I inquire as to what inspired your sudden change of heart? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
It isn't sudden. I never intended to contest your closure. We aren't enemies here. At some point I realized that I need to listen what other longstanding editors are saying. You are completely uninvolved editor and your closure is against my stand. Let's see what other longstanding editors have said to me. Joy has just now said that I was advocating for one weird POV. He is Croatian and longstanding editor and admin. I'm sorry Joy. I accept that me pushing that Tesla was born in Austrian Croatia is a weird POV. Pincrete said that Tesla wasn't born in any variant of a political Croatia. Binksternet, said that Most of the literature about Tesla and his family de-emphasizes Croatia and instead underlines his Serbian heritage. So the idea of pushing more "Croatia" has no merit. and Tesla biographies place Tesla in Croatia only because that's what it is called today. Croatian culture played very little role in Tesla's upbringing.. Sadko, said that Tesla's relation to Croatia in any way, shape or form is almost non-existing. Jalapeño is also Croatian as Joy, and he also voted against. I have to accept that both Croatian and Serbian editors are agreeing about this contested issue. This is good for Wikipedia. People have claimed for a long time that this article is a battleground between Croatian and Serbian editors. Sadko is Serbian. We have both Croatian and Serbian editors agree. I see that as positive. It's not an issue between Croats and Serbs. After your closure, and after I saw how many editors have tried to explain to me that I'm the own pushing Croatian propaganda. Chetvorno from the begginging have said that, but I didn't listen. Look how many editors tried to explain it to me. At some point I needed to accept that I'm the only one in the wrong here. I really don't contest your closure. I never planned to. There is one more thing , I did one wrongdoing today. I need to admitt that as well. I started a discussion to remove mentions of present-day Croatia from the article. I though that it might confuse readers like it confused me. I didn't think others who have disagreed with me in the RfC would complain now when I have accepted their stand. I already admitted in the discussion that I was wrong. The text can stand. It's only I that find it confusing , but as Binksternet explained, present-day Croatia is mentioned only because sources place Tesla in Croatia only because that's what it is called today.. As long as that is clear to the readers I don't have problems with mentioning present-day Croatia. As long as it's clear that Tesla has no connection to Austrian Croatia. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't want to relitigate this, but nb that I said wasn't born in any variant of a political Croatia. Where he was born may well have/have had claims to have been culturally/historically Croatian, I was reliant on sources presented. I would also have said that he was born in Croatian Austria, rather than the other way round as you have it, since Austria was the ruling power. But mainly my reasoning was that the simplest/clearest way was simply to say "born in the (Croatian) Military Frontier" and leave it to interested readers to 'deconstruct' that anomalous entity if they wished to do so. Pincrete (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I can now agree. Tesla wasn't borin in any variant of political Croatia. You have correctly pointed that out, I'm sorry I didn't listed to your arguments. may well have/have had claims to have been culturally/historically Croatian. This wasn't the topic that we discussed , but Binksternet and Sadko were very kind to explain that Tesla's relation to Croatia in any way, shape or form is almost non-existing. I have also accepted that. I would also have said that he was born in Croatian Austria Maybe there's some misunderstanding here. He wasn't born in Austrian Croatia (that is Kingdom of Croatia at that time). This is the consensus and, as Joy have correctly characterized it, weird POV coming only from my side, and you have in the next sentece said MF which is something completely unrelated to Austrian Croatia, as you have correctly explained in the RfC discussion. But putting aside all this, Pincrete, can you agree we can close this review? Trimpops2 (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't have any reason to either agree or disagree. I wasn't even aware that there was a review until 'named'. Pincrete (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Joy, if you want to block me, I really can't complain to much. Everything you said is true. I have been pushing a weird Croatian propaganda that Tesla was born in Croatia. I'm sorry I didn't listed to you and others who have tried to explain to me that Tesla has no connection to Croatia. If you start a report I will admit my wrongdoing there. At this point maybe it's time for me to bear consequences of POV pushing. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Again, no, you're distorting the argument into an argument ad absurdum. Please take a breather, because this is utterly pointless. --Joy (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I really don't have any objections to close this review. I have admitted I have been wrong and pushing weird POV, as you stated. I really don't know what else to do, so you would be satisfied. Can we just close this review and be done with it? I don't intend to ever argue that Tesla was born in Croatia and if someone comes to the discussion with such a claim, I will point out the consensus and explain that Most of the literature about Tesla and his family de-emphasizes Croatia and instead underlines his Serbian heritage. So the idea of pushing more "Croatia" has no merit.Trimpops2 (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologize. I was brainwashed by propaganda in my own country. I can now accept that was the case and what others have stated in the discussion, that Tesla wasn't neither born or has any relation to Croatia. I'm sorry, I wasted all your time. It was hard to accept that I could be brainwashed. Wikipedia helped. Thank you for that. I can agree with the closure and I don't think this review is necessary. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think ~~ AirshipJungleman29's close was well judged and absolutely correct. I have been an editor for about 10 years on Nikola Tesla and participated in several long RfCs on this single insignificant sentence about Tesla's nationality. I have never on WP seen the degree of POV pushing and nationalist extremism displayed by editors on this page. This mess of an RfC was typical.
I have to say I find Trimpops2's 180° change of opinion above suspicious. After initiating this whole RfC and tendentiously pushing the Croatian POV and haranguing every opposing editor with walls of text, then when he loses, instantly changing his opinion and claiming to be "brainwashed" --- it really looks like a salvage operation to mitigate sanctions against him. At the least, his actions during this RfC indicate he is not able to regard this subject with a NPOV, and I think a topic ban should be considered. --ChetvornoTALK 08:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I see many of you think I should be banned. If you open a report, I will admit I have been POV pushing nationalistic propaganda. There's simply no avoiding that. Even the closing editor has called that out. Binksternet was very correct when he said on the talk page that my Croatian nationality has to be taken into consideration when determining consensus. I was offended, but now I see that was the right approach. We always need to take into consideration someone's nationality because they can be brainwashed as I was, and don't even realize. Even before Binksternet , you have correctly pointed out that I'm pushing nationalistic content, I should have listen to you, but now it's too late. Trimpops2 (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
But, thank you for noticing 180 degree shift from what you and others have characterized as "weird POV" and "tendentiously pushing Croatian POV". I'm sorry it's suspicious, but at least I have done the shift and admitted that me pushing Tesla being born in Croatia is nothing but Croatian propaganda. Can we at least accept that we agree on that? Trimpops2 (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Joy, Chetvorno, Binksternet you are calling for my ban. Would you like that I open a report against myself? I really am ashemed of POV pushing nationalistic propaganda and ignoring you all when you tried to explain to me. All 3 of you are editors with 10+ years on Wikipedia. I really can't ignore that 3 of such longstanding editos think that my actions are inexcusable and that I should be banned. If any of you 3 confirms I'll procede and create a report against myself. Trimpops2 (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just unfair. You are calling for my block and when I offer to create a report against myself, you ignore it. I couldn't have been more objective. I haven't challanged the consensus. I have accepted the result that Tesla wasn't born in 19th century Croatia. I have admitted my wrongdoing for pushing, as Joy called it, that weird POV. I don't think anyone ever has offered to create a report against themselves. I don't know what more I can do. At this point, if you want to create a report, please do, I won't do it myself. I will admit everything and let uninvolved editos decide whether I should be forever banned from Wikipedia. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like this addressed. Thank you. I would like to point out that this review didn't address a single point of complaint. Several were made and not a single editor has addresed. Everyone just says I agree, but this isn't a proper way to have a review. Points should be addressed. We can't just say, yes I agree and neglect all the points. I will repeat what others have said in my own words. I hope that those points will be addressed in this closure.

The closure is improper. It states some very questinable things from the standpoint of objectivity. It states some claims which are easily proven as false. Most importantly, it provides zero explanation how the consensus was determined in the regard of addressing how the sources and various points in the RfC were considered when determining the consensus. It also has some very questionable actions by the closing editor which lack objectivity. The closing editor in the first part of the closing statement lists all things wrong with the RfC intro and with actions of various editors in the discussion. I'll circle back to that,because I wan't to address the most important thing. In the second paragraph it summerizes what the RfC is asking. Here we have one minor complaint. The closing admin claims that he had to sumerize the RfC questions which isn't true. Those are clearly stated. In the last paragraph the consensus is provided as "no consensus". The problem here is , and this can't be argues whether it is here or there as some other points later on could be argued. The problem is that the closing editor just says that there is no consensus. No sources were addressed, no points from RfC were addressed. Absolutely no explanation at all. The only thing that is said is that the RfC was ill-formed, which isn't correct, as I'll argue later and that he had difficulties because of POV pushing (here it was correctly pointed out that the responsibility of the closing editor is to sort out objective points vs POV pushing). The problem here is bigger, because this was pointed to the closing editor several times, and he still hasn't addressed this nor provided any explanation on how the sources and points were considered. This is still the main problem with this closure as no one yet has provided that explanation. We can't just close RfCs with "no consensus" explanation and refuse to provide explanation on points and sources.

Let's circle back to first paragraph. Several claims there are exaggerated to the point of being false. Several points are completely false.

Regarding whether RfC was brief. Guidelines say Outside of exceptional circumstances, the RfC question should not be longer than a few sentences.. The RfC isn't out of that boundaries. In the first sentence is mentions past discussion. In the sencond it mentiones the present article text that is pusposed to be changed. It then quotes 2 sources and it asks 2 questions. That's 6 senteces in total. This isn't outside the scope to call it "not brief". Certainly nothing to complain about and call it "not brief" to the point of being disruptive to the RfC discussion. Nobody actually from all editors in the discussion has complained it isn't brief. This was done only by the closing editor. It's more subjective whether 6 or 4 senteces would be the definition of "few", but as I said , nothing to complain about.

Regarding neutrality. The closing editor didn't provide any explanation in the closure to why the RfC isn't neutral. This isn't correct as this is a strong statement to make. When asked, he provided an example of how the RfC should have been formulated, which is exactly the same as the 2nd question of this RfC. Both his example and the RfC 2nd question perfectly follow the example from guiedelines Should the sentence [quote sentence here, with citations] be included in the History section of the article?. He was asked several times to explain how his sentence is neutral, but the one from RfC isn't. He still didn't address that. I think this is completely false to claim that RfC isn't neutral with such argument.

Claiming that RfC is often incorrect is exaggregation. It failed to mention that there was another previous discussion, but that was quickly corrected in the discussion. And yes, sources were known before. This were honest mistakes and swiftly corrected by other editors in the discussion. Nothing major that could be characterized as "often" and nothing what would swey the result of the RfC.

The closing editor claimed that there isn't a single bit of WP:WRFC that was followd. Here we have a major problem. We was challanged on that and he doubled down, and repreated that there really isn't a singe bit of WP:WRFC that was followd. This just lacks objectivity. I think WP:WRFC was followed, but since the editor dug himself into the claim that a single bit wasn't followed I will mention only this. The 2nd question is exactly of the format as suggested by guidelines Should the sentence [quote sentence here, with citations] be included in the History section of the article?. And All other things being equal, choose the question with the smallest number of possible answers. this was followed. Questions are of yes/no type. This is something we can't argue about whether it is there or not. This quidelines are proveably followed. This is just tip of the iceberg. Many others if not all of them were followed, and to make such a claim and dig into it, to claim that not a singel was followed, just shows the lack of objectivity.

The closing editor claimed sources were vaguely mentioned when asked about it he again dig himself into a strange statement that no-one...actually discussed them.. This is completely false as seem from the discussion. User ActivelyDisinterested had extensively discussed sources with Trimpops2 and IP 77. Others have also discussed sources. To claim that no one discussed them shows the lack of objectivity.95.168.116.29 (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

All of these complaints were addressed on my talk page. Before whichever Croatian IPs (there sure seem to be a lot about) next pop up, perhaps they can read that? Or perhaps they can join this interesting discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
But this simply isn't true that everything was answered. For instance You didn't explain the claim that not a single wp wrfc was followed. You said to go ahead any find any. And now when I have found, you say it's answered. Here agin a single exaple for your claim that everything was answered. Other things aren't answered as well. It isn't true that everything is answered 95.168.107.28 (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Haha. The Ip just said on my talk page that this is just like Monty Python The Argument Skit [13]. That's so funny. May I suggest a formal mediation on whether he has answered the question or not? :) "You can't just say no it isn't. Yes it is." This is so funny. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
But he really didn't answer. What can I now do? How about you point where you have answered it? 95.168.107.28 (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I see he didn't. Now, I'm interested in how this will end. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You're arguing that if you conveniently forget about one of the RFC questions, you can argue that it was phrased in the simplest way possible. Fantastic argument. Yeah, I think I'm done assuming good faith here. Bye. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes. That's how it works when you absolutely "dare" someone that there isn't a single one that was followed. But in fact, as I wrote , most if not everything is followed. There is absolutely no problems with wp wrfc. Your statement is false. Please address which ones weren't followed if you want to claim problems with wp wrfc. Also don't ignore other points I have made. You didn't address them all and some, like this one are completely false. You can't make such a closure and after such false explanation just withdraw yourself from the discussion. Your closure is improper and I want my points addressed.95.168.107.28 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trimpops2 (talkcontribs)
(edit conflict) The points which have validity have been addressed; those which have not, will not be. If you have problems with my conduct, ask an administrator to take action. I am satisfied that this review has upholded my close and will not be responding further, unless an editor pings me in good faith. Good day. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29. I need to be objective. I'm sorry, but all points need to be addressed. If some don't have validity, an explanation should be provided to explain why. Claims against your closure were made, and you can't be objective and claim that you can choose which points have validity and which do not. You may be satisfied with your closure, and you have the right not to respond. However, that actions should be evaluated by uninvoved editors. And even if you have answered some of the points, uninvolved editors should also provide an opinion. You can't be the sole arbiter. This is a community project. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Then I refer you to the community. Your comments are getting increasingly tiresome; if this continues I will do what I noted in the close and take you to WP:AE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, let's see what the community says. However, I have started to have serious doubts who's truly uninvolved and objective. I will not address why I said that in this post. I first want to see how the community will address the points. Your comments are getting increasingly tiresome Please, leave personal comments like this for yourself. At this point this is just inappropriate. I have personally found some things tiresome, but I have never complained. Deal with it. You chose to close this and if you don't want to address points of complaints to your closure, ok. I also refer this to the community. I do now know what WP:AE is. I will repeat. I'm not contesting the consensus. I didn't start the reveiw. I have accepted many things said about me. But at this points, if I'm not satisfied with the answers to the points I will respond. I have always claimed objectivity, and I'm calling your actions as not objective. Now, let's stop and see what the community says. I will poke the opinons of uninvolved editos as I have or anyone other has the full right to, without being threated of being banned. And I will seek for an appropriate board that can review all what has happened here. Wikipedia is a community project. Now let's see what the community says. I will participate, you as I understand you have chosen not to, you said that you stand by that you already say, and I will add that you also stand by what you have failed to say/address. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved

[edit]
Once again, I apologize. I was brainwashed by Croatian propaganda. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
voorts , I have started to change my opinion, promped by valid argument. Thus I'm asking you to address the points of complaint. Or not, this is your option, but lack of will also be evaluated. Thank you. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Trimpops2 seems to be trolling at this point, and is an SPA in the Balkans/Eastern Europe contentious topic area. A block or TBAN may be necessary.
    My first read of the discussion is that "no consensus" is a reasonable result; the complaints from the IP on AirshipJungleman's talk page are not reasonable. The alternative, once IP editors are discounted, would be a consensus against the proposed change (although not necessarily a consensus for the current text) -- which is functionally the same outcome. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
It is unfounded to ask an explanation on how sources and arguments were weighted when determining consensus? 95.168.116.29 (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
IP has said to the closing editor that he provided no explanation on how sources were considered when determining consensus.. Walsh90210 said that he has reviewed that and that this is unfounded thing to ask. What's not to understand there? Trimpops2 (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I know that. I'm asking Walsh90210, why is this unfounded? I think it isn't. I think it's common practice95.168.107.28 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
More block evasion, this time on an IP that has been blocked repeatedly as a proxy. Could a passing admin deals with this? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The latest 95.168.range IP has been blocked, I won't be surprised if they come back again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Again noting Trimpops2 blocked as NOTHERE (not by me) Doug Weller talk 10:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC) And Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bilseric Doug Weller talk 16:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

[edit]

Thanks for your time. You'll need a lot of it for this RfC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

See this. [14]. i have no evidence but woikd not be surprised if the IP is the blocked disrupive editor there, Bilseric. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. We shouldn't waste community time. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Doug Weller. In addition to Bilseric siteblocked in May, there was also an earlier similarly tendentious editor on the page, Asdisis who was blocked for socking. All three could be the same.
Here's a list of IPs that were started during the RfC or have only a few edits, are SPAs participating on the Croatian side:
Contributions/72.139.121.219
Contributions/93.141.183.145
Contributions/31.217.16.206
Contributions/95.168.116.17
Contributions/95.168.107.4
Contributions/95.168.121.44
Contributions/77.71.168.18
Either these are socks or someone has been doing some recruiting. Trimpops2, did you suggest to any others that they get involved in the RfC? --ChetvornoTALK 10:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't really know what's happening at User talk:Trimpops2#Tesla RfC review, but it appears to have something to do with this screed posted on my talk earlier. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

After all these years are we still arguing about Tesla? What does it matter where he was born, and in what country it was at the time or is now? He was notable for what he did in later life, not for where he was born. The only people who could be interested in that are people with such small minds as to think that claiming he was born in a particular country somehow brings glory upon themselves. It does not. Normal people laugh at you when you behave in such a way. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, this isn't about Tesla anymore. I don't suppose you have read everything carefully, but I'm affraid we have bigger problems here. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
No, we have a much smaller potential problem. Whether an RFC that had no chance (because of your initial statement) of leading to a consensus should be closed as "no consensus" is a tiny issue in comparison. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Trimpops2 has been blocked as NOTHERE. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Now see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bilseric. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Netherzone

[edit]

I object to actions of administrator Netherzone. I received on August 10, 2024 notification about deletion discussion of Trotter Museum-Gallery article which I wrote. We were discussing merit of this article with Netherzone. On August 16 he/she posted a "Managing a conflict of interest" on my talk page to the effect that "the nature of some of my edits suggests that you may have a Conflict of Interest with some of the subjects you edit or articles you have created" regarding articles that I wrote on Esther Bruton, Margaret Bruton, and Helen Bell Bruton. I explained that I wrote these articles because her biographer, who wrote a book about them, complained that they are excluded from the art history because they were women artists, and that Wikpedia doesn't have articles about them. She (Wendy van Wyck) even thanked me for this as documented on this page https://brutonsisters.blogspot.com/2023/11/new-discoveries-wikipedia-and-happy.html She wrote: "On another note, many times I have bemoaned the fact that the Bruton sisters don't have Wikipedia pages. It has always been my intention to remedy this situation, but I just learned that I've been beaten to it! Another individual -- who prefers to remain anonymous -- has written beautiful Wikipedia entries for Margaret, Esther, and Helen, as well as a page for The Peacemakers mural. As you know, Wikipedia pages are always a work in progress, and I will continue to monitor and update the Bruton pages as appropriate. It's wonderful that the Brutons -- who are so deserving of this level of attention -- are finally on Wikipedia!" Netherzone accepted this explanation (he wrote: Thank you for clarifying this.) but did not remove "Managing a conflict of interest" note from my page. Instead he/she escalated his objections to the effect that "Several of your articles including the ones on the three Bruton sisters contain unsourced claims (which may be original research), a promotional tone or euphemisms, and some of the photos do not seem to have appropriate licensing and are copyrighted to the original artists yet claimed as "own work". These statements are most probably not correct and even if they are, they are not "conflict of interest" related. Subsequently, when I asked for specifics, I received general instructions from Netherzone about copyright on Commons. I am, of course, familiar with them and tried to explain to him/her that some of Bruton's works were supported by the US Government and therefore are on public domain. There are other cases when art is on public domain - their mosaics on public building are most probably covered by freedom of panorama, but I could not get specifics from Netherzone of which images are my perceived "conflict of interest" so it is difficult for me to address his/hers concern; but for sure I do not have any conflict of interest here. Also, I feel uneasy about his/her action around this case. For example, soon after deletion discussion about "Trotter Museum" other discussions ensued (Bruton sisters, Ellen Hadden, Steve Hauk) as if through some concentrated effort. Also, I was asked by Netherzone me to review all my images on Commons and he/she started to enquire about my personal information on EN:WP. I would like that "Managing a conflict of interest" is removed from my page. Puncinus (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Netherzone has been nothing but polite and patient with you. There's no conspiracy because your article was deleted after a discussion that you bludgeoned. Additionally, it appears that Netherzone is not the only editor who has raised concerns with potential OR and sourcing issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Netherzone is not an administrator. There is nothing actionable about being advised of the conflict of interest policy (which is all the "Managing a conflict of interest" message is), being advised of copyright policy and similarly being asked to review your submissions to ensure they are compliant, or being asked if you operate more than 1 account (which is what I presume you mean by started to enquire about my personal information). You are not required to answer Netherzone regarding another account; if they (or any other editor) believe you may be using multiple accounts abusively they can submit an WP:SPI and that'll be handled appropriately. You do not need to ask others to remove the conflict of interest message from your talk page; you may remove it yourself. —Sirdog (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewing the user's talk page, Netherzone has been incredibly patient with this editor, who posted some of the more frustratingly obstructionist replies I've seen in a while, especially regarding copyright and needing things explained to the nth degree. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Daniel (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • This should probably be closed as unactionable. Netherzone was incredibly patient. Other editors have also tried to help them understand. The OP is not listening, not comprehending and being unnecessarily obstructionist. --ARoseWolf 08:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Any of us may, at any time, be asked about WP:COI and/or WP:PAID. It is our common practice to accept a simple, clear and unequivocal answer, to AGF. The question is a polite question and is inoffensive. I concur with ARoseWolf that there is no action that needs to be taken. Decorum and politeness have reigned throughout, and I think that bringing this here was a simple good faith error by the OP, who was seeking more explanation than necessary. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Involved as AfD !voter, although one who was hoping to find a reason to retain it. NZ's behavior is not remotely of concern here. Puncinus, if you want it removed, you're welcome to do so as it's considered acknowledging. The only thing a user may not remove is a declined unblock notice. Please take the feedback on board as you continue editing as it's helpful when looking at the amount of coverage organizations require and how to best present that. Star Mississippi 19:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Little Esther Jones with dog-1930.jpg

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


File:Little Esther Jones with dog-1930.jpg is {{PD-US-not-renewed}}, according to c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Little Esther Jones with dog. Please undelete the original version, so that I can copy it to that project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I've undeleted the original version. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 16:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Isabelle Belato: Thank you. Now on commons, and can be deleted from here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Done. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 17:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block appeal - Solaire the knight

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


As the block appeal for Solaire the knight (talk · contribs) has been open for several weeks without closure, I've volunteered to bring it here for community review.-- Ponyobons mots 21:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Begin appeal:

After additional consultations and conversations with administrators, I decided to submit an additional request, answering the necessary questions asked of me by the administrator Z1720.

An edit warring is when users revert other people's edits, especially repeatedly, rather than trying to reach consensus within the project's rules (this is objectively bad and prohibited because edit warrning destroys constructive work on the article and turns it into battlefield between users). My actions were rightly defined as a edit warring, because instead of opening a topic in the discussion of the page and showing reasonedly, with authoritative sources, why I think my edits are correct and reaching consensus through mutual discussion, I simply canceled the edits of my opponents and appealed to them " morality and justice." In the future, If my edit is reverted, then I will refrain from such actions as destructive and create a thematic thread on the talk page to discuss the conflict that has arisen and how it can be resolved within the framework of the project rules. Once the discussion is over, I will need to ask a neutral administrator to summarize it in order to approve consensus and avoid new conflict due to different views on the outcome of the discussion.
A reliable source is an authoritative source who and meets Wikipedia's requirements for authoritative resources and can confirm the information I add. For example, if I want to add a claim that a scene from a show has become a meme, I need a source that directly describes this meme and meets Wikipedia's requirements for authoritative sources on a given topic. If other users express doubts about this, then I should also initially create a topic on the discussion page, where convincingly demonstrate authority of the source or provide new authoritative sources, instead of using any emotional reverts. This can be done by showing that the source is considered authoritative in its field (for example, it is widely quoted and recognized as authoritative by other objectively authoritative sources), is not in the database of prohibited sources on Wikipedia itself, and is not engaged in the dissemination of unauthoritative or biased information such as conspiracy theories, etc.
I accept your reproach. Instead of drawing conclusions from the warnings of administrators and other users, and correcting any identified problems in my actions, I simply began to argue and complain about other users, although the topic of discussion should have been my behavior, and not transferring blame to other users or or another links to “justice and morality.” Now I understand that in such situations I should have at least adjusted my behavior and discussed in a polite and reasonable tone how I could correct this in the future. As a last resort, consult with familiar users. But definitely don’t taking this as an attack or a challenge against me.

To sum up the above, I ask you to unblock me by demonstrating that I recognize and understand the problems voiced and leading to my blocking. In the future, I promise to resolve any conflicts through constructive dialogue with authoritative sources within the rules on the talk page, avoid any edit wars, and take warnings as an opportunity to stop and correct problems in my actions instead of reacting hostilely to them. I hope that I have adequately answered the questions asked of me and can expect the block to be lifted. But of course, if any additional questions arise for me, I can always answer them.Solaire the knight (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  • It seems like a reasonably self-aware unblock request, so I'd be ok with an unblock. If unblocked, STK needs to remember that their edits are going to be watched more carefully for a while, so they should tread very carefully. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support unblock, hesitantly. I'd have liked to have seen some edits on other projects while they were blocked to show they can collaborate (August 2023 to June 2024, no edits anywhere). Looking at their interactions here and on their talk page at ru.wp, Solaire the knight seems to have been easily provoked. But they seem to recognize that in their unblock request and indicate they plan to react differently going forward, "definitely don’t taking this as an attack or a challenge against me". I hope they can adjust their approach to collaborative editing; their contribution history shows the potential for being a useful and productive editor. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I reviewed the first unblock request last year, and left a very detailed response on what Solaire needed to address in a future unblock request. I have no opinion on this, and instead endorse the community's consensus. I invite editors who are commenting on this to read my comments in the first unblock request and determine if this addresses those concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support unblock - STK seems to have good signs of activity. I hope STK will provide reliable sources when he returns. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this editor has adequately addressed Z1720's concerns. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Raegan Revord

[edit]

I want to use the name Raegan Revord for my page with different information Ctorres1995 (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking to create a userpage called User:Ctorres1995/Reagan Revord, go ahead (don't use for personal info). If you're looking to create a mainspace, you've already been warned against doing that [24]. Conyo14 (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
If we are talking about the actress from Young Sheldon, there is a well discussed draft at Draft:Raegan Revord. I think you know that. Trying to start new versions is not helpful. The last decline from March was "No significant improvement since previous submit in October. " Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
We don't have multiple articles giving different views of the same subject (known in the jargon as content forks). If, as I suspect you do, you want to write about the actress from Young Sheldon, then just edit the draft, or, if protection gets in your way, put a clear edit request, showing exactly what you want to replace with what, what you want to delete and what you want to add on its talk page. If you want to write about someone else called Raegan Revord then create a new draft with a descriptive term in parentheses, e.g. Draft:Raegan Revord (pilot) if she is a pilot. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Block/ban appeal - Cyber.Eyes.2005

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


As Cyber.Eyes.2005 (talk · contribs)'s appeal has been sitting for several weeks without a response, and given that they are considered a banned editor per WP:3X, I'm bringing the appeal here for community review. I have no opinion as to whether the appeal should be accepted but will note that I don't see any obvious evidence of recent block evasion.-- Ponyobons mots 20:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Begin appeal:

Requesting an unblock/unban request through WP:SO. I sincerely apologize for the mistakes I made in the past and fully understand that my previous actions, which led me to be blocked, were against the community guidelines of Wikipedia. I have since taken the time to thoroughly review and understand Wikipedias policies and guidelines, and I assure that I have learned from my mistakes and will not repeat them. The reason I got blocked as my first account User:Cyber.Eyes.2005, was due to getting involved in edit warring on a few articles, especially Brokpa. This eventually led to me being indefinitely blocked as I got involved in sockpuppetry. I didn't know much about Wikipedias policies at that time, and this became the reason I repeatedly made mistakes. During the past months, I have been working on other Wikimedia projects and have been a constructive editor on Simple English Wikipedia and Wikidata and I've become well aware of how Wikipedia works, policies like not abusing multiple accounts and edit warring, and how to contribute positively here. Moving forward, I am committed to making constructive and valuable contributions to Wikipedia only. I sincerely apologize for my past behavior and looking back, I understand that I lacked the maturity to edit constructively. I assure you that those mistakes will not be repeated and that my contributions will only be constructive. I am sincere about contributing on this wikipedia as well and I hope the admins would give me a chance. – Cyber.Eyes2005Talk 19:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

They also included the following follow-up:

I am reaching out to appeal an unblock/unban request through the standard offer. I sincerely apologize for the mistakes I made in the past and fully understand that my previous actions, which led me to be blocked, were against the community guidelines of Wikipedia. I didn't know much about Wikipedias policies at that time, and this became the reason I repeatedly made mistakes. I have since taken the time to thoroughly review and understand Wikipedias policies and guidelines, and I assure that I have learned from my mistakes and will not repeat them.
Original block
My first account on Wikipedia, User:Cyber.Eyes.2005. Since I wasn't an experienced editor and didn't know much about Wikipedia policies, I became involved in edit warring on a few articles, especially this one, Brokpa with User:Aman.kumar.goel and got blocked. This eventually led to an indefinite block as I got involved in Sock puppetry, both of which were in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I fully understand that.
Constructive editor
During the past months, I have been working on other Wikimedia projects and have been a constructive editor on Simple English Wikipedia, Wikidata and Urdu Wikipedia and I've become well aware of how Wikipedia works, policies like not abusing multiple accounts and edit warring, and how to contribute positively here. Moving forward, I am committed to making constructive and valuable contributions to Wikipedia only. I sincerely apologize for my past behaviour and looking back, I understand that I lacked the maturity to edit constructively. I assure you that those mistakes will not be repeated and that my contributions will only be constructive. I am sincere about contributing on this wikipedia as well and I hope the admins would give me a chance. If granted a second chance, I am committed to contributing responsibly and constructively to Wikipedia. I hope to be given the chance to demonstrate my dedication to being a positive contributor to this community. – Cyber.Eyes2005Talk 09:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Support unblock. Extremely new editor at the time they were blocked. The blocks were two years ago. They appear to have made constructive contributions to other wikis in the interim. The unblock request shows some introspection and I think it's reasonable to give them another chance, with a one-account restriction and an updated CTOP IPA notice. Struck support. The diff provided by Lorstaking below concerns me. Cyber.Eyes.2005 could have responded to the specific issues that had been raised here without personal aggressiveness toward the other editor, but chose not to, and characterized statements about specific edits as personal attacks. That level of combativeness is not conducive to collaborative editing, especially in the IPA topic area. Schazjmd (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Sure, unblock. Ponyo says there's no reason to think they've still been socking, and the edits at Simple and at Wikidata seem like they're in good faith. Schazjmd's caveats seem wise, as well as letting CE know that they're going to probably be watched more closely for a while, so they should tread very carefully. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
    I can see how this is trending, but for posterity, I guess I'll comment again: I could still support an unblock, but I think now I'd need to insist on some kind of IPA topic ban. I don't know if CE just wrote what they think we wanted to hear in their unblock request and their response to Ratnahastin is their "real" self, or if the unblock request was genuine but the response to Ratnahastin was made due to stress. But either way, that aggressive response, made by someone while they're appealing a community ban, was pretty self destructive. I still suspect most of the problem is in the IPA topic area, so I think there's still a decent chance they could productively edit other topic areas. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support unblock exactly per Schazjmd. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
    The simplewiki diffs presented by Ratnahastin are slightly concerning, but not nearly concerning enough for me to stop supporting the unblock. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
    The diff from Lorstalking is very concerning; I think some topic-ban will be necessary with an unblock. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support unblock - this is what we want to see in people who ask about the Standard Offer. --RockstoneSend me a message! 01:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - One needs to have a look at the edits he has made on Simple Wiki and they are disruptive. For example, he claims here that only Eastern Pakistan falls under the Indian subcontinent when whole Pakistan falls under the regional term. Here, he is edit warring to remove the Indian origins of Mughal empire. He created "Ancient Pakistan" there, even after knowing that such a POV article does not exist on English Wiki either.[25] He created "Middle kingdoms of Pakistan" on Simple wiki when no such article exists on Wikipedia because the country Pakistan was itself created only in 1947. He created "Indian naming dispute" there and used a large number of Godi media sources (see NDTV, Firstpost, India Today, etc.) which are notorious for falsifying history to fit the narrative of the current ruling Modi's BJP government. These are just some examples. He would be topic banned or blocked if he made these edits on English Wikipedia. I cannot think of supporting unblock with a topic ban from South Asian topics because there are no other topics which he has edited so far. I would rather urge Cyber.eyes.2005 to fix the damage he has done to Simple Wiki. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
    Reply below carried over from User talk:Cyber.Eyes.2005 per request-- Ponyobons mots 16:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

    It's clear who is engaging in POV pushing here. None of the edits you linked to are disruptive; they are well-cited, sourced, and I have provided reasons for each in their respective edit summaries. Your interpretation of them seems to be biased here. If you believe any of these edits or pages are disruptive, please discuss this on my talk page on Simple English Wikipedia. The guidelines there are similar to those on English Wikipedia: a page exists there if it is notable and well-sourced. If an article doesn't exist on English Wikipedia, it doesn't automatically mean it is POVish or shouldn't exist at all as you claimed (He created "Ancient Pakistan" there, even after knowing that such a POV article does not exist on English Wiki either.[11] He created "Middle kingdoms of Pakistan" on Simple wiki when no such article exists on Wikipedia because the country Pakistan was itself created only in 1947.).
    Your actions here appear to be WP:ATTACK, as seen in your comments on my talk page (Special:Diff/1241672518). Your statements about using "Godi media" sources and "edit warring to remove the Indian origins of the Mughal Empire" are infact WP:POV. The edit in question was even agreed upon by a Simple Wikipedia admin.
    Additionally, you claim that I haven't edited other topics is incorrect. Out of the 113 articles I've created on Simple English Wikipedia, only about 21 are related to Pakistan. This yet seems to be another personal attack.
    Note: I am genuinely committed to contributing constructively on this Wikipedia, just as I have done on other Wikimedia sites. My constructive contributions on Simple Wikipedia can be verified by the admins there, as it is the platform where I have been most active for the last year. I hope I can be given a second chance to contribute positively to this Wikipedia as well.

    Cyber.Eyes2005Talk 09:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per above. His disruption on Simple Wikipedia is simply too big to ignore. It refutes his claims of being "a constructive editor". Dympies (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Activity shows slow but growing signs of being productive. I urge Cyber to continue contributing elsewhere, even after the unblock. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Not for now. Retracting. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ratnahastin. There appears to be a huge number of unwarranted and unjustifiable edits from this editor, aimed at proving that Pakistan did not came into existence in 1947 but has existed as a separate entity for thousands of years. Creation of Hellenic Pakistan by mispresenting Indo-Greek Kingdom is another evidence of that. It is also the first time I am hearing about a "Indo-Pak subcontinent".[26] Nxcrypto Message 03:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ratnahastin; as someone who has contributed extensively in the area of the so-called "Hellenic Pakistan", a formulation which I don't believe has ever been used in scholarship, I oppose this unblock as a preventative measure. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The battleground mentality as evident from their latest response is appalling. Lorstaking (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose The appeal seems to say all the right things but in a non-specific, formulaic, unemotional and even impersonal way, much like an LLM's output. jpgordon's response to an April 2024 appeal included I suggest you write your own request rather than relying on chatbots for any part of it to which Cyber.Eyes.2005 replied, in part, The above request had some grammatical problems which I fixed through AI. This appeal still does not seem to be in their own words. Also, they socked several times a months for months, repeatedly being blocked; I got involved in sockpuppetry. I didn't know much about Wikipedias policies at that time, far from being a credible excuse, is an abnegation of personal responsibility. NebY (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POVPUSH removal of "Black"

[edit]
  • Task: Test for a no-insertion one-line removal of / ?[Bb]lack ?/. Tag or only log articlespace edits by non-autoconfirmed editors.
  • Reason: Some instances of this subtle POVPUSH may remain undetected for a long time. An EF can produce a list to review.
  • Diffs: [27] [28]

142.113.140.146 (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Deferred to WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, and similar. The diffs provided are a singular IP, but that can be dealt with via blocks and protection. Generally the disruption should be somewhat widespread for a filter to have much effect here. EggRoll97 (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Here are more UCR diffs, all by different IPs: [29] [30] [31] [32].
Those IPs did not edit more than 2 articles so WP:AIV would say "insufficiently warned". In the [33] that I caught, the page was over a year old so would not normally qualify for WP:RFPP, and it was undetected for half a month. Those edits were reverted by multiple editors with long edit histories. This hit-and-run disruption is attempting to hide the alteration of POV. A tagging EF will have the effect of revealing the full extent of the damage. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Moved here to WP:AN. No specific user so not WP:AIV. No specific page so not WP:RFPP. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
There is evidence of a systematic trend here; what about / ?[Ww]hite] ?/? –LaundryPizza03 (d) 15:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

According to MOS:RACECAPS :Ethno-racial “color labels” may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white). The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort (Asian–Pacific, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Indigenous, and White demographic categories). So a change from upper to lower case, or vice versa, is not a POV push, but a difference of opinion on a matter of style. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's poorly explained above unless you know regex, but if you click on the diffs you'll see this isn't about capitalization changes, but rather removing the word outright. As a log-only filter this would probably be fine, but would get a lot of false positives. (Removing "Black" from a biography's lede, for instance, is usually correct per MOS:ETHNICITY, although occasionally the word is appropriate as in the examples given of Massey and Scott.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Sorry for the distraction. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
And possibly also black and white as color adjectives. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Dear enwiki community

[edit]
I am saddened to inform you that BlackShadowG (talk · contribs) has passed away. In light of this, I kindly request the removal of their IPBE (IP Block Exemption) permissions.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely, ASId.

ASid (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Sad news, but done. Nthep (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Condolences, comrade. Ahri Boy (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@ASid a question though: do you have the news of her death personally, or it is something taken from her userpage in zhwiki as she had directed anyone on her userpage to mark her as dead if she had not edited for more then days there? – robertsky (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
@Robertsky:Sorry, I did mark it based on his request on the zhwiki's user page. However, the reason why I chose to mark it is because there are already Wikipedians in the zhwiki community who have tried various methods to contact him, but have not received any reply, including VRT info-zh (I am also a VRT member with info-zh access) and have not received any news about him. If my markup behavior violates enwiki's policies, I'm very sorry for this and please remove the template I placed, thank you. ASid (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
@ASid, I don't think the placement of the banner violates anything given that she left explicit instructions to do so in case of inactivity and why she would be inactive. I was just curious if you had further information other than what is available. I do hope that it is a false alarm though; that she was rescued or intervened in time and is recovering offline until when she is ready herself to return back to Wikipedia editing. – robertsky (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
@Robertsky:A Wikipedian on zhwiki wrote to emergency@wikimedia.org to notify WMF, but only received a canned message reply. I have no further news at this time. If I receive any information about BlackShadowG, I will notify you and thank you for your concern. Best regards. ASid (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Authority control, Adrar stadium

[edit]

Hi, I tried to access the {{Authority control} } linking the Adrar stadium to the stadiumdb.com Adrar stadium link, however the article name did not correspond with the website authority control naming of Grand Stade d’Agadir, the French naming of the stadium. Therefore, I tried to create a '#REDIRECT Name of article', but the issue is that the new title from authority control includes a: right single quotation mark (’), as per MOS:STRAIGHT. Therefore, I believe I have a good reason to create a redirect with a right single quotation mark. Could this be done with an administrators permission ? Please and thanks. Cltjames (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear which redirect you want to create, but in any case the issue needs to be solved at Wikidata, not here, as they link to the wrong page and should link to "mar/grand_stade_agadir" instead of "mar/adrar_stadium". Fram (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
OK, thank you, the Wikidata has been updated, besides, the redirect works better for a lot of people searching for the stadium. Cltjames (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Karel Komárek

[edit]

Suspicious anonymous editors trying to remove Karel Komárek's ties with Russia well covered by the reliable sources by The Guardian [34], Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, Radio Liberty, etc. 80.98.145.168 (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) It seems the IPs that have been undoing the edits are either one-and-dones or rarely active. Page protection could be given if it persists, but you'd also be forbidden from editing it as well. Conyo14 (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I need to email an admin

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hello, I live in this city: Charam, Iran, years ago i edited fa.wikipedia, now i checked the english one, it seems that the name is incorrect, the correct name for this city is cheram. i have 3 proofs, first one is encyclopedia iranica article about its name here. the second one and third one are my official documentations, first one is my Iranian identity booklet, known as Shenasnameh and the second one is my passport, but i don't want to upload them on internet. please an admin give me his/her email adderesse so i can send photographs of my official documents with correct name of the city to that admin. thanks. Bovttoras (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not how things work here. You should not give your personal identity documents(or copies) to anyone for your protection.
This is the English Wikipedia, not the Farsi Wikipedia, we can't help you with issues there. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, but how can i prove it to you? i think government official passport with city correct name is strongest proof. Bovttoras (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I think if i remove critical information (like my name, government id, ...) from photograph by editing it, i can fix the issue. Bovttoras (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm guessing your claim is that a passport stamp or information in your personal passport can be used as a reliable source- no, it's a primary source that is not publicly accessible(and no, you shouldn't upload even a redacted copy). Again though, this is an issue to handle on the Farsi Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
oh, thank. whats about my first link (the encyclopedia iranicia article)? Bovttoras (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
We would need to know the source of its information. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello again, here is a strong source. my city has a college of industriy and mining. here is the link of an article about university and the city correct name. i hope it will be helpfull. i searched for a reliable source (an ac.ir website that are official domain name of iranian universitiens) with this link. Bovttoras (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
if the source is enough. please rename the Charam County too. 2.184.190.61 (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
here is another academic paper that publishen on researchgate with correct name. Bovttoras (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a case where there are multiple correct ways to convert the Persian alphabet into the Roman alphabet. It is not that one is right and one is wrong, both are right, and you will find both in reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I totally undrestand what are you saying, but what's about Diacritic. in persian we write چرام but there are one correct way to pronounce it. چِرام is not the same as چَرام. in arabic alphabet (that persian language use it) we have two distinc things (ــَـ) fatḥa (a)
and (ــِـ) kasra (i). fatha sounds like a and kasra sounds like e. Bovttoras (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
open the discussion in the city page itself; in the city page click on talk then open the discussion, anyways dont share any personal information, do the request to change the article by providing links to outsider neutral articles ect. NICTON t (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok, i'm sorry for my discussion in wrong place. i apologies admins and request to close my talk here and move discussion to article talk page. 2.184.177.106 (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
however i will not continue this discussion on talk page, i just provided all my sources and reasons, if they are enough you can rename article, if not, i have nothing more. thanks. 2.184.177.106 (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Try to use reliable sources carefully. It would be best discussed in your home wiki. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New sneaky reference vandalism - needs a filter? RC patrollers, please take note

[edit]

Reference code damage: [35]. Was unnoticed for over a week, probably due to the error looking semi-innocent in code, and given jargon-gibberish edit summary. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're referring to an edit filter, you may want to copy paste your message to WP:EFR. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
The main thread is now at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_21#Can this be filtered for somehow?Novem Linguae (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Page move mess probably needs an admin

[edit]

For some reason, some pages from the ARS have been repeatedly moved, first to Wikipedia:Wikipedia... and now even to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia..., leaving the old redirects with history pointing nowhere, while new redirects without history have been created at the old titles.

Basically, Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list (redirect with history from 2012) needs to be moved back to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (created just now, can be deleted by an admin but not by anyone else as it was created as a double redirect and has been corrected :-( ), and the same with all the subpages of that first one. Fram (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and there is obviously no need to keep the Wikipedia-cubed titles when moving them back to the correct ones... Fram (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

And the pages also need to be reverted to the last good version, e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive8 points now to a redlink, this is the right page wrt contents, everything afterwards is forgettable. Fram (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done as a non-admin page mover, although some of the archive redirects are still a bit messed up, I'll fix them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Please see discussion at RM/TR that caused this mess and Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Warning,_it_looks_like_the_page_moving_of_Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list_broke_subscription_may_have_broken_subscription_to_the_page for context on why the actual page had to be moved back to where it was, which is Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list.
There is a bug ⚓ T373543 Page subscriptions don't follow page move for pages in project space (wikimedia.org) in wikipedia around project space page subscription, so the move to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list had to be reverted. Raladic (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
@Chaotic Enby: thank you! Fram (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

IBAN being over

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


is my iban over? It was enacted for one year at User_talk:Therapyisgood/Archive_2#Interaction_ban as a result of this closure, but I'm not sure if there's a continuous editing requirement (I took July 2024 basically off). I won't mention who it's with in case it's not over yet. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Noting for community's sake that it is with @BeanieFan11 who I will notify. I understand why you did not. Star Mississippi 19:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Since I was pinged: No objection to the sanction being lifted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
As closing admin, I was assuming calendar year. I don't think anyone in the discussion raised the possibility of counting "editing year" differently. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Ettangi

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The article Battle of Ettangi should be linked to its Italian wiki it:Battaglia di Ettangi and French wiki fr:Bataille d'Ettangi counterparts, but I can't do it as it seems there is some bug there. Please someone look into this and if possible fix it. Thank you, noclador (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. DatGuyTalkContribs 10:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broad vs. narrow TBAN closure at ANI

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



At WP:ANI#Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX (Behaviour of JacktheBrown) (permalink), TarnishedPath proposed to topic ban JacktheBrown "from the GENSEX area, broadly construed". For background info, see the preceding section (§Behaviour of JacktheBrown, permalink) and the linked discussions and diffs.

After about five days of discussion amongst about 20 participants, Valereee closed the discussion with "Clear consensus for a topic ban from WP:GENSEX. No consensus for further restrictions." Valereee made it clear—in her ban message at JTB's user talk page (see here and here), at the restrictions log, and in a follow-up discussion at her own user talk page (whole discussion link, permalink)—that the TBAN she implemented is not broadly construed.

My questions for the community are:

  1. Was there consensus for a broadly construed TBAN?
  2. If so, do admins have discretion to implement a ban that is narrower than the one that has consensus?

Many thanks for your consideration. It would help, I think, to format bolded !votes in Yes/No on 1, Yes/No on 2 format wherever possible. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I have my own take on this, but I'm hoping to hear outsider views first. On a procedural note, I've pinged the bare minimum of users here. I would appreciate a second opinion on whether we should ping the participants of the discussions at ANI, JTB's user talk, and V's user talk. For a related policy discussion, see WT:BAN#Can a topic ban from a ct area specifically exclude “broadly construed”?. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Regarding question 2 in the general case: administrators can enact an editing restriction only when authorized by policy, the community, or the arbitration committee (to whom the community has delegated authority). So if the scenario doesn't fall under these cases, administrators do not have discretion to create their own editing restriction; the community has to decide upon it (or the arbitration committee on its behalf).
In this specific case, the behaviour in question is related to a designated contentious topic area, gender and sexuality. Thus administrators do have the authority to enact editing restrictions on their own initiative. But when using the authority granted to them via the contentious topic/discretionary sanctions system, they are acting independently of any ongoing community discussion, and so leave them open. (The community can choose to end the discussion if they consider the remedy to be adequate.) Since Valereee closed the discussion, and did not assert that that they were acting under the authority of the contentious topic designation, they did not have discretion to create their own version of the editing restriction to enact. isaacl (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with isaccl's answer to question 2. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 1 - Yes - There is no ambiguity in the community's response among those who supported, and those who supported did not question the language in the proposal, or comment that it shouldn't be broadly construed.
2 - No - WP:CBAN says When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments made. Valereee correctly notes that there is a "Clear consensus for a topic ban from WP:GENSEX". And since the proposal specifically says "broadly construed", they don't have discretion to override the community, and implement a ban that is narrower than the one that has consensus. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 1 - Yes, 2 - No (involved). There is no ambiguity that I proposed a broadly construed WP:TBAN and no editors !voting to support suggested anything less than that. In fact some suggested expanding the TBAN to all CTOPs. As per whether it's within an admin's discretion to vary from the community consensus, Isaidnoway and Isaacl make strong arguments that admins do not have that discretion. TarnishedPathtalk 06:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 1 - Yes, and 2 - Yes-ish. Yes, sysops do have discretion to interpret community consensus, and no, the consensus isn't constrained by how the original proposer framed the question. An outcome like this is sometimes within sysop discretion, depending on what's happened and the community's strength of feeling. In this case I do feel that it would be better if Valereee is willing to re-evaluate the discussion and put in a less narrow sanction.—S Marshall T/C 15:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 1. Yes; 2: No. The proposal was quite clear to be "broadly" construed, and no supporter went against this, making it clear consensus that the topic ban is broadly construed. And admins may not violate explicit consensus in this context (although when consensus is for no/less action, they can respond unilaterally to new behavior). Animal lover |666| 16:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the discussion, FFF. I'm not going to weigh in here on the question. I closed the discussion as a clear consensus for a tban, and I certainly don't disagree that I may have used too much discretion. For what it's worth, as an admin I'd very much like to have this kind of discretion. But if I don't, I'll of course comply with what the community wants. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 1: Yes; 2: No. The proposal was perfectly clear and not malformed; there was no room for misconstruing (!) what was under discussion. If an admin—as any editor—comes to a discussion and thinks the proposal is wrong, they should take their admin hat on and make an alternative proposal as an editor. Re-interpreting a consensus is a classic supervote; while admins may have—to a degree that should not be exaggerated—discretion to interpret community consensus, that does not mean changing it. Or, as happened here, picking and choosing the parts one wishes to implement. It may only have been two words out of 16, but they fundamentally change the community's decision and the nature of the discussion that led to the community reaching that conclusion. And that's not counting the danger of whether it sets any kind of precedent. SerialNumber54129 17:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I know Wikipedia loves the phrase "broadly construed", but what does it actually mean in this context? What edits would be allowed if this was narrowly construed but not if it was broadly construed? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
    Generally it seems helpful to stop tban'd editors from testing the edges of their topic ban, as any edge case can be considered to be covered by 'broadly construed'. Without it you end up with timesinks discussions about exactly what is or isn't covered.
    If the ban is narrowly construed then what is or isn't covered, is it only articles specifically about the topic or are sections covered, what about edits that only copyedit a sentence? This is all a waste of time, tbans are supposed to give editors a chance to edit outside the area of disagreement. 'Broadly construed' is just a term used to try and pre-empt such discussions -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
    Based on that interpretation it seems that every topic ban should be "broadly construed". I think I agree. At least, if I was topic-banned, I would take it as being so. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes/No-ish (involved). While I think there is a level of admin discretion allowed, this wasn't one where it was needed as consensus among established editors was clear. There was no reason for the proposal not to be enacted as proposed & supported. That said, I don't find fault in this review nor of Valeree's close and the discussions leading us here. She has been trying to guide Jack to be a productive editor and closed it in a way that she thought reflected consensus as well as helped guide Jack's edits. I see no evidence she was deliberately closing it against consensus and this may be a gray area. I second Phil that I'm not sure broad/narrow is a thing in gen/sex. Star Mississippi 19:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • N/A (tho you can consider this as No/No Yes/No if you want): My reading of the cases that established discretionary sanctions/contentious topics in general is that it's not just the specific topic ban that is broadly construed, but rather the entire topic area. So for instance, if you look at abortion, American politics or alternative medicine, they all say that their topic areas are "broadly construed". To me that implies that any topic ban in those topic areas is always broadly construed and cannot be narrower.
    However, in the particular case of GENSEX it's lacking the "broadly construed" language that's present in other cases. So in this case I'd argue that the topic area itself is not broadly construed, because ArbCom could've and didn't include that language. (My suspicion for why is that since everyone has a gender and a sexuality, a broadly construed GENSEX topic ban could be argued to be basically equivalent to a site ban.) And since the topic area itself isn't broadly construed, support for a GENSEX topic ban is not broadly construed unless specifically called out as broadly construed, which nobody did. Loki (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
    I think that's because the language is now part of WP:Contentious topics itself, Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic. GENSEX doesn't contain language specifying that it opts out of being broadly construed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
    Ah, you're right. In that case you can consider this as ```Yes/No``` and I'll strike the parts of this that aren't relevant. Loki (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
    As I discussed at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Can a topic ban from a ct area specifically exclude “broadly construed”?, the standard set of restrictions described at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Standard set includes page bans (from the entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic). Thus admins are authorized to impose an editing restriction for a tailored subset of the designated contentious topic area. isaacl (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved comment Not involved in any way, I'm genuinely surprised at the WP:HOUNDING to drive away a user. There are already several overlapping thread on ANI, and now also this. If it would be a particularly problematic user, it might make sense. Looking at their edit history, I do see problems but nothing that would warrant this many threads. The user has already been tbanned. How about everyone leave them alone for a while and go on editing? Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
    This is not about a specific user. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes/neutral with a however (involved) I did vote on the proposal so I guess I am involved, but I did not participate much in the thread. I have in the past answered questions from Jack, also. ActivelyDisinterested, and Barkeep49 had convinced me that Firefangledfeathers' reading of the wording is correct, which I consider unfortunate in this instance, since it will put a sword of Damocles above the head of a good-faith editor whose language skills are in question. I have seen very divergent applications of "broadly construed" and I do not think the editor can navigate this, particularly since they are now editing Russia/Ukraine topics, which is the topic area where I noted the differences of interpretation. But Isaaccl seems to think that a sanction can be tailored, which I think was a good idea in this case. So I am neutral on the interpretation of the rules. My vote in the thread was a ban from all contentious topics, and did not address "broadly construed", btw, although I did support the proposal as written. My concern at the time was Russia/Ukraine however. This editor in that topic area is just not going to end well, and since he has edited the article about the arrest of the Telegram CEO, he has not taken that concern on board. Bottom line, does he deserve a rope? If not, just indef him already. Going with "broadly construed" is going to give the same result, only with much more drama and wasted editor time. Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
    @Elinruby: "...they are now editing Russia/Ukraine topics...", I actually no longer collaborate on topics regarding the Russia/Ukraine war (Pavel Durov isn't part of this topic). Excuse me for intruding into this discussion. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
    er, yes it would definitely be part of it under "broadly construed" in my opinion given Telegram's very extensive use for official statements in that war. Mind you, interpretations of "broadly construed" in Russia/Ukraine vary widely, as previously noted. I strongly suggest that someone give you very detailed instructions if this provision is added to your topic ban from GENSEX. And if you have any questions at all about whether something does or does not fall under "broadly construed" you should absolutely ask them, and ask them of whoever the enforcing admin is for the topic ban. I believe it is Valereee, but you need to ask her about this, as I do not want to steer you wrong. But let me emphasize this: although you have wound up at ANI before for asking questions, you need to ask any questions you have about this, because you definitely do not want to be at ANI for being mistaken about your slippery slope topic ban. Elinruby (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
    since it will put a sword of Damocles above the head of a good-faith editor whose language skills are in question and therein lies the problem. Despite opening at least one thread, I don't think Jack actually means to be disruptive, he just is because there's too much nuance needed and he doesn't have the language skills. I think a topic ban from CTs was going to be more kind than where we ultimately end up. Star Mississippi 00:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    I agree. But also, there are problems with the "broadly construed" language and in my opinion this is a particularly bad use case for it. But I leave the question of whether omitting it is allowed to actual admins. I personally think that if it is not, then it should be, but this is not a policy-based argument and I do not claim that it is. Also, I did not look into what he was doing at the article I mentioned above exactly, but it looked like wikignoming with little potential for harm. And of course this is an academic discussion, since he currently has no restrictions in that topic area. But just saying.Elinruby (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    The question here is not if narrowly construed TBANs are appropriate ever; nor is it if you, personally, would support it in this case. The only question is if the closing admin's actions are reasonable given the course the original discussion took. Animal lover |666| 09:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    My answer to that question is yes. Elinruby (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    My comments on the standard set of sanctions available for areas designated as contentious topics were specific to a scenario where an adminstrator is imposing a restriction on their own initiative. This does not mean that an evaluator of consensus for a community discussion is authorized to enact a remedy that was not discussed. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    Aha, so you were not disagreeing with the others. I think I will continue to stay neutral on the parameters of proper administrative action. I do think that people may well be right about the current language. Which I consider unfortunate in this particular instance. That is a "should" question and I am neutral on "should". I do however think Valereee's actions where reasonable, if that is the question. I actually think they were quite thoughtful. Elinruby (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes/no, note I was involved. I also think it creates problems for the editor and Admins if there are no clear boundaries as to what can be edits. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 1 Yes, 2 N/A, involved in RfC. And I'm going to reiterate my opinion that this editor does not belong in any CT area. I think that no matter how much you value your own style changes, when you are a proven time sink and start violating core policies like WP:DUE in CT areas enough should be enough. Might seem harsh, but I've seen this editor struggle for about a year and a half now and while I was hoping they would find their place as a genuine net positive editor, their recent contentious topics adventures have convinced me that's not going to happen anytime soon. TylerBurden (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    • The part of your sentence "...you are a proven time sink...", in addition to being false (do you really think I'm a useless user?), is very offensive to me. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
      Jack, I think you know I am somewhat sympathetic to your misunderstandings and I think part of the problem here is that you have been discouraged from asking questions, but as someone who played help desk for you as recently as yesterday, I wnt to make sure you understand that there is indeed a problem with you not asking questions when you should ask questions. And part of that problem also seems to be that sometimes you do not know how little you know, or what nuance you did not understand.
      For example, right now you should be listening, and definitely should not be arguing. I also think that you should be restricted from contentious topics in general. It would actually benefit you by keeping you away from pitfalls. My only concern is the very arbitrary nature at times of what is covered under "broadly construed". I did vote for a topic ban, broadly construed or not, because we can't keep having these discussions about you at ANI. But "broadly construed" is dangerous and especially dangerous for you in particular even though you are not the editor they had in mind when they drafted that language. Elinruby (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
      I'm quite certain that TylerBurden doesn't mean you're a "useless user." Time sink means that you take the time of editors away from other activities. Whether it's making two dozen edits to get a sentence right, or you arbitrarily change British English to American English, or you enforce your personal style guide, or you display a bit of national chauvinism to other editors, every time you end up in ANI or in an edit war with another editor, it takes time away from them and time away from you.
      I said this two or three of your ANI appearances ago, but I will repeat it: you'd do a lot better if you'd just S-L-O-W things down and focus on quality rather than quantity. You edit things that require a lot of nuance and English fluency, and you frequently edit them rapidly and as a result, sloppily. That gets you into trouble and it's a shame because at your best, you're a terrific editor. When you translate obscure Italian culinary texts and build articles we wouldn't have otherwise, that's extremely valuable. If you focused on these things that you do have sufficient English fluency to work on, and ideally got your language in order before editing articles and strove to never edit the style/grammar of other editors or wade into sensitive topics, you might find you're never at ANI again. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • It looks like Valereee has adjusted the sanction to remove the narrower construction, so the prompting incident is resolved. For future reference, I'm a No on 2. I think it's important that the community have a voice in determining the most appropriate sanction. Where implementation requires an admin action, every individual admin is free to exercise their discretion and not be the enforcer of the consensus. I don't think that discretion extends to modifying the sanction chosen by the community. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, the community was pretty clear, so I adjusted. I think we should maybe consider the problems with broadly construed for an editor who appears to be well-intentioned. I kind of feel like it can really be an invitation for editors who've had a disagreement with that editor to watch their every move looking for a chance to say "gotcha". And I really don't think "broadly construed" is any more nebulous than not. To me "broadly construed" often seems to attract complaints based on "if there's any chance I can possibly connect this in any tangential way to the tban, gotcha". JMO, of course, and sorry for the extra work. Valereee (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes / No When an administrator is taking an action on their own wherewithal, they ought to have -- and do -- wide discretion to pass judgment on the most beneficial outcome to Wikipedia. When an administrator is taking an interpretive role, then the consensus should be evaluated strictly in this context. Please note that no aspersions at all are intended toward Valereee; she made a good-faith judgment as to the best course, and showed empathy toward Jack, and my objection is merely technical. Every Lucius Junius Brutus ought to have a touch of Cincinnatus. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, everyone. First, some background: Leo Frank was a Jewish factory superintendent in Georgia in the 1910s; he was convicted of the muder of Mary Phagan, a 13-year-old factory worker, pardoned by the Georgia governor, and then abducted from prison and lynched. Now, the modern historical consensus, as our article states, is that Frank's trial was a miscarriage of justice, and that he was in all likelihood innocent of the crime. These statements are well-sourced in the article. Nevertheless, the case has become a cause célèbre amongst Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the like in modern times, and so the talk page gets the predictable and pretty regular attention from SPAs/sockpuppets pushing this agenda, almost always with little-to-nothing in the way of sourcing, reliable or otherwise, to back their claims.

Then there is Schlafly. He doesn't actually start any discussions himself, but any time one of these new threads appears, Schlafly will generally be there to take up the call. This has been going on for over a year now. We started with Schlafly citing leofrank.org to support this viewpoint, a website run by "avowed white supremacists", among other delightful things (src). When confronted with reliable sources, he seemed to realize this, only to change his mind by way of impugning the motives of the reliable sources, pettifogging over the exact phraseing of the sources, and just general stonewalling. And also some just bizarre untruths in service of said pettifogging. Recently, he's started just saying "google it" in lieu of any reasonable defense. Most recently, he's moved on to casting doubts on the other editors' motives, rather than just the motives of the so-called "pro-Jewish" sources. When called on this, he merely deflects, rather than actually acknowledging anything. You'll notice that, throughout all of this, there is a 100% absence of any kind of reliable sourcing that supports his claims. I feel like we've reached the point where it's been firmly established as a conduct issue, and enough is enough.

So, in my mind, a partial block for User:Schlafly from the Leo Frank article and its talk page, where he has contributed a bunch of heat and exactly 0 light, would help reduce the problem down to dealing with the SPAs/socks themselves. On that note, some kind of general sanction setup and/or page restriction might be helpful, or even just an affirmation that editors and admins should be more proactive in shutting these threads down quickly before they get out of hand and spawn things like completely pointless RfCs that just wastes everyone's time and energy (along with the good old-fashioned blood libel, of course). But if there's no will for something like that, just removing the most consistent actor here will help. Writ Keeper  20:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Support pblock from article/talk page for Schlafly. I've been involved on that talk page for a few years and agree with Writ Keeper's summary. There's been a repetitive pattern of an IP or new SPA opening a thread setting out arguments copied form the neo-Nazi websites referred to by Writ Keeper with Schlafly then chiming in WP:CPUSH-style with vague allegations questioning the consesnsus that Frank was wrongfully convicted. DeCausa (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from articles/talk related to Judaism, broadly construed. Editors (particularly Jewish editors) should not have to deal with this kind of historical revisionism. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support a broad topic ban per voorts and the excellent evidence of a pattern of behaviour presented. FortunateSons (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • User:Schlafly has acknowledged a number of times (example), that he is the far-right commentator Roger Schlafly, a scion of the late Phyllis Schlafly. Roger Schlafly's publicly stated opinions include that rising non-white birth rates in the U.S. are "not a good thing" and part of an attempt to "repopulate the country with non-whites" (cf. Great Replacement). He is also known for his promotion of the bizarre conspiracy theory that Albert Einstein stole many of his theories from gentiles. You can read enthusiastic praise from the neo-Nazi Occidental Observer here.
    I wrote an essay a while ago that was partly about how we don't block people just for thinking the wrong thing, and partly how linking oneself to an off-wiki hate figure is per se disruptive editing. In theory that might lead to hard calls if someone only edits about apolitical things, but in practice one finds that people who will out themselves as advocates of hatred will also let that ideology infuse their editing. That's obviously the case here. This is someone who has devoted his public life to fomenting hatred against Jews and other ethnic minorities, and does the same on-wiki. As I wrote in that essay,

    In most cases of hate speech, [limited sanctions] will not be enough. A temporary block is unlikely to dissuade someone of deeply-held views. And a topic ban may help with content disruption, but will not make editors from the affected group comfortable around the editor in question. (After all, the average person from some targeted group does not only edit articles about that group.) So if someone is engaged in concerted hate speech, the proper remedy will usually be an indefinite block or siteban.

    So, support indefinite block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Instead of responding here, Schlafly has decided to post this absolute banger to the article's talk page, with its attendant insinuation that any source who engages with the fact that this was a hate crime is themselves biased and unreliable. Anyway, just for the record, I finally put two and two together about this user's RL identity a few weeks ago, but haven't looked into it beyond their obvious connection to Phyllis Schlafly, and deliberately kept it out of my opening statement to try to stick to onwiki diffs and events as much as possible. I certainly wouldn't be opposed if a harsher sanction than a pblock gains consensus. Writ Keeper  02:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support indef per WP:NONAZIS, thanks to the evidence provided by Tamzin above. The Kip (contribs) 03:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    And the further info below. The Kip (contribs) 07:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Go straight to ban. The editor may well not be who they claim to be, but there is no place for them here. While the concept of antisemitism has been debased to mean anything someone dislikes, this is the real thing and there is absolutely no place for it here. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    I wouldn't be too worried about impersonation. At [36], Roger Schlafly writes that "There is only one" Roger Schlafly. The blogs he links there shed some further light on his views, by the way:
    • "[Leo] Frank was a Jew fairly found guilty of raping and murdering a White girl, based largely on the testimony of Black witnesses. I think the point of the story is that Jews should not be held accountable by goys for crimes against goys." [37]
    • "the notorious Jewish pervert and murderer Leo Frank" [38]
    • "Let us review who runs the USA:
      President Joe Biden, kids married Jews, VP Kamala Harris, Jamaican-Hindoo, married to Jew, Sec. of State Anthony Blinken, Jew, Sec. of Treasury Janet Yellen, Jew, Sec. of Defense Lloyd Austin, Black, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Jew, Sec. of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, Jew, Dir. of National Intelligence Avril Haines, Jew, Chainman of Council of Economic Advisors Jared Bernstein, Jew, Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, Jew, Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer, Jew.
      All of the important departments are controlled by Jews." [39]
    I could go on, but I think the website's search function works plenty well on its own. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    No argument here. My comment was to pre-empt anyone pointing out that this may be a "Joe job". It doesn't matter whether or not this editor is who they claim to be - there is no place for that behaviour here. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper Off-topic, but you made me curious to look at this subject elsewhere:[40][41] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There are times when administrators must act decisively and so I have indefinitely blocked Schlafly as not here to build this particular encyclopedia with its particular policies and guidelines that have resulted in Wikipedia being the #7 website worldwide in terms of pageviews. Other websites have far less stringent and far more biased standards and any editor blocked on Wikipedia is perfectly free to contribute to a website run by a family member, for example, including one that several years back was ranked #18,066 on the internet. Not sure what the 2024 ranking is but highly confident that it is nowhere near #8. Anyway, the blocked editor is free to post there or blog elsewhere, but not here. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Good block, thank you. And thanks @Tamzin for the thorough work. FortunateSons (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, well within admin discretion, good block and another thanks to Tamzin. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Endorse would have done the same had you not gotten there first. The doubling down linked by Writ Keeper is the only clarity needed. Star Mississippi 11:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Good block; Schlafly (whoever they might be) has been aiding and abetting the venting of antisemitic deceit at Talk:Leo Frank with persistent WP:IDHT, trolling ("just google it"[42]) and inventions which might generously be described as prompted and eagerly embraced LLM hallucinations, wasting editors' time and effort, and deliberately harmful to the project of building the encyclopedia. Thanks to @Writ Keeper for putting in the work to bring this here. NebY (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@Cullen328 Just a minor note - the block log references ANI, while this is AN. The Kip (contribs) 15:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
The Kip, I have corrected the block log. Cullen328 (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Echoing the thanks all around for this. --JBL (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

General sanctions

[edit]

Returning to part of Writ Keeper's discussion, the recurring issue with Leo Frank and the talkpage is the parade of POV-pushers, socks, and outright bigots. I blocked one of the most egregious last week, the one that WK mentioned as promoting a blood libel theory concerning Passover [43]. That was an easy one, but we have a lot of civil, and marginally-civil POV-pushing and sealioning happening there on a regular basis. The article doesn't fall under the current range of contentious topics. It would help to devise a more expeditious way to address trolling on this subject, that has community backing. Acroterion (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it technically possible for the community to deem an article (and authorise admins to treat it as though it were) a WP:CTOP without an arbcom decision? If so, maybe that could be tried. DeCausa (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, community sanctions exist on a number of topics, like Michael Jackson and wrestling. See Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community_sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Then it seems to me the simplest/most straightforward route is proposing a community sanction regime per CTOPS for the article and its talk page...or am I missing something. DeCausa (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
My impression of cases like this, from the time I spent as one of the more active hate-speech-oriented admins, is that most are legacy cases from an era when we as a community were much more permissive of hate speech. If a new user pops up spouting Jews this, Blacks that, they'll get blocked as NOTHERE or for DE pretty quickly. If they've got a decade-plus tenure and a four-figure edit count, that gives admins pause to block so quickly. So one way of looking at this is that the population of editors like User:Schlafly is ever-dwindling, even if antisemitism and racism remain alive and well in the general population.
It's worth keeping in mind that the rough consensus around hate speech blocks has only formed in the past few years (which I'd very humbly trace back to when I wrote WP:HATEDISRUPT, smoothing over some of the sticking points in WP:NONAZIS that had made it more controversial than it needed to be). Consider that when Amalekite was blocked in 2005 for being a known neo-Nazi off-wiki, he was unblocked because he'd done nothing wrong on-wiki, even though his userpage was a quote from The Fable of the Ducks and the Hens; he was only reblocked when he started targeting perceived Jewish editors on Stormfront, and even that led to a wheel war. We've come a long way since then.
If sanctions were to be imposed here, I don't think the full array of CTOP would be necessary; CTOPs add a lot of overhead. Keeping in mind that the last resort of editors like this has been "just asking questions" on talk pages, perhaps a bespoke sanction regime like "In response to one or more editors' repeated use of unreliable sources or of source misinterpretation to promote ahistorical or pseudoscientific statements about race, ethnicity, and related controversies, including through talk page comments, an uninvolved administrator may impose page protections, partial or sitewide blocks, or topic bans. This regime may not be used for talk page protections of longer than a year or at a level higher than semi-protections."
I've just written all that out, but to be clear I'm not proposing it per se, just saying that if we were to do something, I think that'd be the way to go. I'm kind of torn between doing that and just all agreeing that when admins make blocks like this, the community tends to approve, and that admins should keep that in mind when encountering similar situations in the future. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
There's nothing to stop uninvolved admins from imposing page protections and partial or sitewide blocks on problematic talkpages right now, is there? At least, I recently semi'd Talk:Leo Frank for six months, and haven't seen any protests. The only difference between the current situation and your bespoke regime, Tamzin, would be the imposition of topic bans. Bishonen | tålk 12:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC).
Sure, but that's true of most of CTOP, and we have some GS regimes, like beauty pageants, that entirely overlap with standard admin powers. The point there is to clarify the community's endorsement of an administrative approach that is more aggressive than usual. But you may be right that that clarification isn't necessary here. Like I said, maybe all admins need is a reminder that the community is pretty consistently in favor of blocks in cases like these these days. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 15:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Like I said in the original post, I don't know that a formal sanction regime is 100% necessary. The issue I personally have is when people pop up, either in a new section they create or tacking on to a months-old section, with a superficially civil initial post, which makes me want to stretch AGF and engage with their question. But once I've done so, I'm now involved, so I feel I can't shut down the conversation when it inevitably becomes--at best--unproductive. So I guess what I'm really looking for is community guidance--whether that's in the form of a formal sanction protocol or just informal advice--on what the best way to prevent disruption like this when taking action is in tension with important policies like AGF and INVOLVED. When's the best point to take my editor hat off and put my admin hat on? Even just something along the lines of "give it a reply or two, and if it's obviously not going to go anywhere, stop being a wuss and hat the conversation with a directive to look at the archives" or something like that; that's my instinct, but the urge to avoid even the appearance of INVOLVED is strong, even when technically admin powers aren't being used. Writ Keeper  15:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
If it's a recurring problem, and it seems to be, why not put a FAQ on the talk page where you can point these new users to about these issues they are constantly raising, which always appears to be about "wrongly convicted". And then they can see it has already been discussed and the consensus is to state in the article that Modern researchers generally agree that Frank was wrongly convicted. That way you are not obligated to engage with their question(s), as it has already been asked and answered. Other articles have dealt with similar issues on their talk pages: see Talk:Murder of George Floyd, Talk:September 11 attacks, Talk:Chelsea Manning, Talk:Murder of David Amess, a couple of them are GAs. Just a thought. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, pointing to an existing consensus can be a good way for an admin to simultaneously reply, follow AGF, and not make themself involved, which is otherwise a hard needle to thread. "Please see the FAQ regarding why the article is written the way it is. If you have new evidence or analysis from reliable sources, please start a new thread about that." -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I've experienced the same issues that Writ Keeper mentions. The blood libel troll was not a problem, but many times we get a superficially AGF question that goes south, and then it's hard to control short of gross bigotry on the part of the OP. This is a problem unique to admins trying to avoid arguments about involvement. As for the talkpage, an FAQ would be helpful, but my experience with similarly troll-plagued talkpages is that they're just ignored. "Please read the FAQ"deals with drive-bys pretty well, but the Leo Frank talkpage tends to attract more tenacious SPAs. Acroterion (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Once you have pointed them to the FAQ, there is no obligation to continue to engage with them, especially if they have been identified as a tenacious SPA. See also: question 7 at Talk:Murder of George Floyd - Q7: Why was my request or comment removed? A7: Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, but it's more a matter of dealing with such an editor administratively once it's clear they're an SPA. It's something any admin who keeps an eye on controversial topics has to deal with.I haven't ever contributed to the article, but for the reasons noted in this thread I keep an eye on the talkpage, and engagement is sometimes treated as involvement. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding German war effort

[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Cinderella157 (talk · contribs) fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will automatically lapse.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 00:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding German war effort

A minimum of 5 accounts from the same user

[edit]

A minimum of 5 accounts from the same user who creates new pages and then uses those 5 accounts for his page editing. It is best described by the event ip 78.0.209.229 entitled "Four accounts, one user" please read it here [[44]]. I hope you solve this problem. Thanks 93.139.142.50 (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPI is the place to file your case, with evidence. --Yamla (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I tried to put it on now WP:SPI, but IP can't do that, it needs an account. I'm new, so I wouldn't know how to do it even if I had an account. Maybe someone will report it there, Thanks anyway.93.139.142.50 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I've taken a look and, without prejudice, done all I'm going to do, which is to tell one of the users to stick to one account. I think there's more than one user. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
The topics are the same according to which these various accounts are edited, and they were all created approximately at the same time, a few months ago. It is interesting that all these accounts edit together on the same topic, so I came to the conclusion that maybe there is one user with multiple accounts. I hope that someone will check them, because they change the outcome of battles and do disruptive editing.93.139.142.50 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

A minimum of 5 accounts from the same user

[edit]

A minimum of 5 accounts from the same user who creates new pages and then uses those 5 accounts for his page editing. It is best described by the event ip 78.0.209.229 entitled "Four accounts, one user" please read it here [[45]]. I hope you solve this problem. Thanks 93.139.142.50 (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPI is the place to file your case, with evidence. --Yamla (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I tried to put it on now WP:SPI, but IP can't do that, it needs an account. I'm new, so I wouldn't know how to do it even if I had an account. Maybe someone will report it there, Thanks anyway.93.139.142.50 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I've taken a look and, without prejudice, done all I'm going to do, which is to tell one of the users to stick to one account. I think there's more than one user. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
The topics are the same according to which these various accounts are edited, and they were all created approximately at the same time, a few months ago. It is interesting that all these accounts edit together on the same topic, so I came to the conclusion that maybe there is one user with multiple accounts. I hope that someone will check them, because they change the outcome of battles and do disruptive editing.93.139.142.50 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

EytanMelech unbanned

[edit]

The Arbitration Committee unbans EytanMelech following a successful appeal of his site ban. His topic ban from the Arab–Israeli conflict remains in force.

Support: Aoidh, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, Primefac, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree

Oppose:

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § EytanMelech unbanned

help me with wikidata

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hi everybody. sorry, my english language is not good at the moment. i want to link Slavic studies with it's persian translation in fa.wikipedia (this article), but Slavic studies in wikidata is locked and i couldn't fix it. does someone can link 2 articles together to solve my problem? Hulu2024 (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an admin issue, but I have made the link at WD. In the future I think it would be best to ask for help at WikiData itself, but others may have better suggestions. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sock-puppet accusations against prolific accounts awaiting review

[edit]

There are currently four SPI's open against accounts that have collectively made more than 1000 edits in the past month:

  1. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irtapil - 2037 edits in past month, status "Open"
  2. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fanny.doutaz - 1590 edits in past month, status "Requires more information"
  3. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rawna Praveen singh solanki - 1563 edits in past month, status "Requested CheckUser"
  4. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ria Cruz - 1463 edits in past month, status "Requested CheckUser"

It may be beneficial for checkusers and clerks to prioritize these investigations, to minimize the scale of the disruption if they are sockpuppets.

This came out of this discussion about triaging SPI's; a full list can be found at SPI Edit Counts. Suggestions about alternative metrics by which SPI's should be triaged are welcome, and I will try to test them out. BilledMammal (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal thanks, that was very helpful. I put in some quality time on Irtapil, but won't have time to look at any of the others, but hopefully somebody will jump on them. RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Thank you! If helpful, I’ll try to provide one of these every week or two, at least until we can get something more regular functioning.
Regarding the others, I see Dreamy Jazz has done Fanny.doutaz; just Rawna Praveen singh solanki and Ria Cruz to go. BilledMammal (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Large number of bad edits need revision

[edit]

Morolakerrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) rapidly made about 140 edits where they mainly added extra spaces in the text of articles. They stopped about the same time I gave them a warning. It’s daunting for me to try to rollback all those edits. Does an admin have a tool to fix this? Thanks — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... EggRoll97 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
@Rsjaffe: This is now done. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Breach of NPOV and disruptive editing/edit warring

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hello, I didn't expect it to come to this, but I have to address such actions. On the Claude of France page, last night, a user intervened to remove an entire section that I had added some moths ago, which discussed the very likely possibility that Claude may have had Down syndrome. This was done in collaboration with @Pronoia, who manages the WP:FR Twitter page, and with whom I had discussed the topic when they posted an overview of Claude. They had suggested that I add the information to the page so they could post about it. After doing so, in June or July, I believe, as I was doing at that time, I decided to translate these passages into English so as not to impact the English-speaking encyclopedia, where I contribute more. These changes remained without issue until last night, when a user came and removed them all at once(1)(2), before being reverted twice, followed by an IP address 13 minutes later that made the same changes, insulted me(3), and was then blocked after being reverted(4). The first user came to my talk page on the French Wikipedia, and I transferred their message to my talk page on the English-speaking Wikipedia to respond there, where I answered them cordially and openly. Then I saw that the person had also intervened on the talk page of the Claude of France article, where another user had already responded, and where I also replied.

Surtsicna intervened on the page shortly after, while we were discussing the matter on the talk page, and started by removing a sentence from the introduction that had already been removed by the two previous accounts(5), and this BEFORE participating in the talk page discussion. The account in question intervened there later(6). I reverted once, saying that we should wait for responses on the talk page before forcing changes on a page where protection had just been established on these points, literally(7). The account in question reverted me again, this time removing almost the entire section and claiming that none of the sources supported this claim (which is not true; the reliability of the sources and their general nature was being discussed on the talk page, not that they didn't make the claim)(8) and thus began an edit war, to which I referred them to WP:BRD(9)(10) for the first time, also re-reverting their changes.

It should be noted that in this exchange, the account in question seemed to hide behind edits intended to obscure the extent of the material removed from the page(11)(12). Meanwhile, on the talk page, the account changed its position during the discussion, no longer maintaining that the sources didn't support the claim but rather that it was the introductory sentence that needed to be removed, which seemed very strange to me, and I pointed this out(13), as it was clearly the visibility of the disability topic that was the issue, not its historicity. I reached out to people involved in the project dealing with disabilities, thinking it would be better since these editors are probably much more aware of the issues at hand than I am, and I suggested we wait for their input(14). The person in question continued their problematic edits, kept reverting, and defended themselves by saying that reverting their edits was attacking their spelling corrections, even though, of course, in their edits, they were subtly removing the contested introductory sentence (and obviously didn't speak about it in their edit summaries)(15). After some time, I intervened one last time to revert, this time using Huggle, so that it would automatically leave a message on their talk page, asking them to calm down and discuss the matter on the talk page, but it was useless as the account continued their edits without taking into account the ongoing talk page discussion(16).

These methods seem very strange to me in general, not very consensus-seeking (to say the least—since the account completely ignores this aspect) and even quite dishonest, and it would be good if a reminder or intervention by administrators could help resolve the situation. AgisdeSparte (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not an "account". I am an editor. And at this point I am going to call you a liar for repeating the assertion that I deleted the section discussing the Down syndrome claim. I have already pointed out to you on the article talk page that I did not delete that section and that I deleted another, entirely unrelated section. Yet here you are peddling a lie. In your haste to force in the content that was being challenged by multiple editors on the talk page you reverted multiple unrelated edits, including orthography corrections, which I find unacceptable.
And while I am fact checking you, I will also point out that you did not insert your Down syndrom section "several months ago" but 1 month 12 days ago.
Good luck to you in reporting discordant editors for being "very strange". Surtsicna (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
@Surtsicna My apologies, you didn't remove the edit (I correct this point in my claims, which is one of the 17 links I provided regarding your behavior, by the way). You only changed the title, removed the summary in the introduction, and claimed it wasn't supported by sources, which is misleading, before changing your position when you saw it wasn't sustainable—though you didn't change your approach or your edits. Also, note that 'multiple editors' isn't accurate; so far, it's only you and one other person on the talk page (you, the IP that got blocked, and another user who was reverted and warned multiple times before going to Reddit to claim otherwise, which arguably led to the IP coming to the page and making edits—unless it's the same person, but there's currently a sockpuppet investigation regarding that as we speak). The same number of editors have defended the addition on the talk page, including myself, Aciram, who supported it, and then Mats, who didn’t take a position on the issue but complained about the canvassing caused by the Reddit post from the account you agree with. As for using the term 'account in question,' it was simply a gender-neutral designation—there's no need to feel victimized by it; it was actually a sign of respect to avoid misgendering you. My claim that you removed the entire section is incorrect; upon further review, it was an honest mistake on my part. However, that doesn't explain the edit war you initiated over one of the contentious points still being discussed; your subtle attempt to get this accepted by concealing your edits, the fact that even though it was a contentious point that led to the page's protection, you still intervened before participating in the discussion on the talk page where we were discussing it, and your categorical refusal to wait for input from other users (because despite my request to wait for other inputs, you still intervened to continue what you deemed most appropriate, or what amounts to POV-pushing). You didn't wait for the discussion, and only later intervened to defend your position—yet this was one of the central reasons for the page's protection just a few hours earlier.
Again, I apologize—you didn’t remove the entire section, you 'simply' changed its title, even though it was a contentious issue being discussed on the talk page, and you removed its summary from the introduction, even though, as I pointed out on the talk page, it accounts for 1/5 of the sources in the article. Playing the victim doesn’t change the fact that you engaged in an edit war, didn’t wait for the talk page discussions, ignored them, disregarded the contributors who supported the text that had been on the page for over two months without issue—you simply made your edits, posted a message declaring that it should be this way, and forced it through. These methods are dishonest or very poorly advised, but given that you have a relatively old account with numerous edits, I doubt you’re poorly advised. Perhaps mistaken, but you’re not foolish, and you knew exactly what you were doing. How can you intervene on a page before even engaging on the talk page to impose your POV when that page has been protected on that very point for just a few hours? It wouldn't have been an issue if it had stopped after the first revert; I made two reverts, explaining that you needed to calm down and wait for the discussion, which might have supported your stance, but you didn’t. AgisdeSparte (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Not to mention that you completely disregarded the ideas I proposed to solve the matter, such as tagging random members of the disability project (whom I didn't know and never interacted with) to have their opinion, because this seemed as an interesting way to wait for their insights in the matter and the inclusion in the introduction. AgisdeSparte (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
More fact checking:
  1. It is not true that it is only I and one other editor who are challenging your addition. By the time you wrote this, Adam Bishop, Kansas Bear, and GoodDay had all expressed doubts about the content. You even responded to Adam Bishop, so I must call your count another lie.
  2. My position is, and has always been, that the article should not state that Claude is "known" for having had Down syndrome. It has not changed one bit.
  3. "Editor" or "user" or even "person" are no less gender neutral than "account". Referring to me as an "account" is not a sign of respect. It is dehumanizing and the obvious agenda behind it is to suggest that I may be a sockpuppet.
Now, expressions such as "playing the victim" speak about the sincerity of your apologies. Surtsicna (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • This is a content discussion that should happen on the article talk page. Please participate there. Also, you have both been edit-warring, that needs to stop. I have warned you both. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe @AgisdeSparte: has retired. GoodDay (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Search results for "TU5" intercepted and hijacked to an article

[edit]

Bug on platform? When trying to search from en.wikipedia.org home page with search term " TU5 " , instead of returning search results for all the different ' TU5 ' possible, instead the page is hijacked to an article about a jet airplane. 85.51.18.10 (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not a bug, nor is it a "hijack", it is a redirect page that was created in 2013. What you are thinking of is commonly known as a disambiguation page, which usually lists more than one subject covered by Wikipedia. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other uses for TU5 on Wikipedia. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Probably change it to a disambiguation page. See PSA TU engine#TU5. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Done RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Although, it's not clear why TU5 ever redirected to Tupolev Tu-154 since that article never actually mentions "TU5" as a name for the plane. But I'll let somebody else worry about that. RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please deal with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tryfle? Random IPs keep "closing" the discussion but I'm at three reverts. Thanks. C F A 💬 23:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Already closed by Liz. Deor (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
We have a LTA who edits, both with registered accounts and as an IP editor (based, I think, in NY) whose habit is to close multiple AFDs, usually as "No consensus" and often prematurely (before the 7 day period is over). This one was unusual as they closed it as "Delete". They are usually reverted and blocked. They seem to show up about once a month and last about an hour before they are discovered. I don't know of any way to stop them, long term, but I though I'd detail their MO in case editors and admins come across some unusual AFD closures by inexperienced editors. These aren't NACs, they are just LTA vandalism. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
The edit filter may be the best solution. Use specific texts used primarily or only in the closure of discussions (don't discuss the specific texts publicly), which no anonymous user or new account may add to pages with specific prefixes. Animal lover |666| 11:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned vandal

[edit]

WYMORE2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another avatar of long-term (since at least 2007) cross-wiki vandal Charito2000, with the same themas and pattern of edits (as usual, distorting sources to promote his Levieux/Candia fantasy, etc)--Phso2 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

also currently active under ip 147.194.67.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--Phso2 (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Change to the Functionary team

[edit]

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permissions of Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the Functionary team

Tim Pool page protection

[edit]

We've gotten a few drive-by unconfirmed IP editors this morning on account of Tim being in the news. Could we get pp confirmed added? TY Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

RFPP is the proper venue for this. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll remember that next time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Request to create the page "◌̃"

[edit]

The character "◌̃" is a tilde character mentioned on the tilde page, and I am requesting for an admin to create a redirect to the page with {{R from Unicode character}} as the reason. Sincerely, Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 17:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

 DoneJake Wartenberg 18:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
The version without the dotted circle redirected to tilde but was changed to redirect to nasal vowel in Special:Diff/1215523814. Both should probably redirect to the same page but which is more useful? Peter James (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Seems like a discussion to be had at RfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting reconsideration/removal of indefinite topic ban (Darker Dreams)

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Per this ANI discussion I received an indefinite topic ban from "witchcraft, magic, religion, and the supernatural, broadly construed." I recognize that I was aggressive in my editing. If this ban is removed I intend to resume what I did for the more than 15 years I have edited Wikipedia; mostly focusing on navigation improvements through connections, copyediting, and topics with minimal interest. My intent remains to edit in ways that conform to the policies, guidelines, and, most importantly, the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. Darker Dreams (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If this ban is removed I intend to resume what I did for the more than 15 years I have edited Wikipedia That isn't very reassuring, since what you did resulted in the topic ban. In addition, you say My intent remains to edit in ways that conform to the policies, guidelines, and, most importantly, the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, yet in the discussion that led to the ban, you insisted that what other editors were complaining about was you editing in conformance with PAG. There's nothing in your request that indicates that the previous issues won't happen again, and you've made so few edits since the topic ban that there isn't really enough data to show that you can modify your approach to contentious content. Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time, for two reasons. First, I recognize that I was aggressive in my editing is a far too brief and incomplete acknowledgement of their inappropriate POV pushing that resulted in the topic ban. Second, the editor made roughly 1300 edits in the five months leading up to their topic ban. They have made only 39 edits in the ten plus months since their topic ban was imposed. I would expect to see at least six months of active, productive, problem free editing in other topic areas before supporting a lifting of the topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Cullen328. A successful appeal would need a credible edit history (ie not just a handful of trivial redirects over 11 months), plus a clearer indication that the POV-pushing would not resume. As above, recommend (say) six months of productive editing elsewhere, including evidence of an willingness to work collaboratively with others on article improvement. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - editor has acknowledged their "aggressive" behavior, and has made a re-commitment to conform to the policies, guidelines, and, most importantly, the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. They've been here 19 years, and have a low edit count to begin with, only 2909 edits in those 19 years. And if 1300 of them were made in a five month period, that leaves ~1600 for the remaining 18.5 years, so the return to a low edit count and being less active is encouraging in my view. And if those 39 edits have been productive and free of problematic behavior that resulted in the topic ban, I see no reason it shouldn't be lifted. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not trying to start a dispute or sling personal attacks, but it wasn't just aggressive editing that was the problem; it was a lack of competence in the field. If the problem was "edits are good but collaboration is bad" then a vow to stop aggressive editing is all we'd need. The problem was also that your edits were bad. I'm all for second chances and being convinced that things have changed, but as Euryalus noted, there isn't really enough of a record to see that. SnowFire (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just reading through the text of the statement, especially mostly focusing on navigation improvements through connections, copyediting, and topics with minimal interest, I do not detect any kind of actual thoughts and feelings behind this statement and that it may have been put through an LLM; that isn't something someone would ever say. No edits in outside topics at all during the topic ban outside some generic linkouts to one article not in a general topic area, so I feel like this is the equivalent of a child in timeout pleading 'I promise I'll behave' two minutes into a ten-minute corner sit, earning sympathy prematurely and saying sorry in a way that sounds sympathetic enough, and then going right back to shoving kids around. Nate (chatter) 00:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - As the longtime editor has contributed outside designated areas, recommitment to the key policies of ENWP, might be a good sign that he would not be aggressive. There's no reason why the ban shouldn't be lifted. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Oppose - not for now. Withdrawing as I didn't even read last year's contributions. Ahri Boy (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    • @Ahri Boy: A) No, Darker Dreams hasn't really contributed in other areas since per Cullen's comments (just ~39 trivial edits). B) It looks like you started Wikipedia editing in April. Welcome! But... did you go back and read some of Darker Dreams' edits in 2023? If you're not familiar with them, they are absolutely a reason why the ban shouldn't be lifted. SnowFire (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
      Ohh thanks! But I retracted my initial vote after reading some contributions. Ahri Boy (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scorpions1325/Scorpions13256

[edit]

It's Scorpions1325 and Scorpions13256 here requesting a removal of all of my advanced permissions. Long story short, since my surgery, my worldview has become incompatible with that of typical Wikipedians. A week of no editing has done wonders to my mental health. Since quitting, people around me have noticed that I have become less jittery, and more like my old self. I am sorry for any offense that I caused anyone, and I have no intention of returning anytime soon. 2603:6010:8FF0:5970:A472:1142:D77E:4500 (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This is credible enough and so easily reversible that I've removed the permissions from the main account. The alt account had all permissions removed last year. If Scorpion sees this: thanks for all the CCI work, and hope your mental health continues to improve. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
No problem at all, just wanted to make sure the ramifications were known to them and that we weren't dealing with an impersonator; I trust them at their word. Nate (chatter) 02:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Protected pages

[edit]

Can someone take a look at User:भारतसरकार-विभाग's moves and remove the unnecessary protections? For some reason they moved Draft talk:List of Ultraman: Towards the Future characters (semi-protected in 2019) to their userpage, duplicating the protection originally applied on the draft talk. Then they turned their userpage into several new pages, duplicating the protection again. I'm not really sure why but the semi-protection across their new articles is not necessary. Thanks. C F A 💬 21:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The pages need to be swapped back to preserve the move history. Alternatively, the draft page can just be deleted since it redirects to mains pace. This editor is also creating bizarre pages like Template:Thind Class, and engaging in bizarre moves and tagging. There also appears to be some SPA editing regarding Jats. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I took a closer look into this. भारतसरकार-विभाग attempted to set the display title of Draft:Chauha‌n (surname) (which they created) to Chauhan (caste), an article created last year by Its Guddu Chauhan before being redirected. That led me to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Its Guddu Chauhan/Archive which outlines a bunch of accounts related to "Chauhan". Either way it is a bunch of WP:CASTE-related COI editing. C F A 💬 23:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I'll open an SPI. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
SPI was closed for insufficient evidence. This still needs action from an admin here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Bloked by @Primefac as the sock of another account. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Just noting that I'm not 100% of the connection to the alleged master, though socking is definitely happening; a second set of CU eyes and/or a clerk opinion would be appreciated. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Got it. Still a good block regardless given the disruption and lack of engagement. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Rodericksilly

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The user @Rodericksilly is reverting my edits on Chris Martin's page even though I already gave the reasoning for them. Additionally, I explained why his argument falls into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and tried to discuss the matter on their Talk page to avoid edit warring. However, he subsequently blanked the thread. I would like to know how we could solve this situation, since they clearly don't want to reason with me. GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 17:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, both of you have been edit-warring way too much over this article. You only brought the matter to his talk page after four reverts (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4), at the same time as you made your fifth (diff 5).
My best advice for you both is to look into forms of dispute resolution that could work, like asking for a third opinion to look at the matter, or going through moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
They just keep reverting everything as soon as I edit it, they are not looking for resolution. GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 17:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Your previous edit was also a revert of theirs, and it looks like you are both in full-on WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality over this. If you win the mud wrestling, you'll still get out of it covered in mud. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Here's a comparison between the version I sent you and the version from before this thing started. As you can see, the difference is minimal. Rodericksilly is the one looking for an edit war. GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 17:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I think two experienced editors warring over whether a sentence is best as the last in the first paragraph or the first in the second paragraph is a candidate for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Schazjmd (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The fact that they are continuing the dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase of all places really doesn't help with it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree it's lame, specially because I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation and Rodericksilly keeps reverting based on their own vibes. GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 17:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
It takes two to edit-war. Neither version is wrong. Go do something more productive. Schazjmd (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
So I should just encourage Rodericksilly's behaviour and not do anything while he changes things based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 18:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
You should not waste your time and energy on something so trivial and meaningless. You think it makes more sense one way, Rodericksilly thinks it makes more sense the other way. The reader gets the same info either way. Follow WP:DR if you're not willing to let it go. Schazjmd (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
And now looking at what's going on at Coldplay, I think both of you should be blocked from Coldplay and Chris Martin to stop all the disruption. Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Agree, and probably an interaction ban as well. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
That won't be necessary. I'm the biggest contributor to the Coldplay article and I don't want to stop contributing. I will leave Rodericksilly's edits there since apparently no one wants to hear me, but do be informed they are yet to provide a rational explanation for them. GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 19:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Of course you say that it won't be necessary. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what explanation you expect him to provide. These are minor stylistic edits. You think your changes make the articles better; he thinks they make them worse. There's probably not much else than can be said, unless you intend to start citing The Elements of Style or similar. Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of what's happening at Coldplay, but the original report is obviously of a content dispute which should be discussed at Talk:Chris Martin. I see that no edit has been made there for well over a month. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
GustavoCza seems to have serious ownership issues at both articles. It is not that "no one wants to hear" you, but you haven't talked to anyone about these issues in the right places, Talk:Coldplay and Talk:Chris Martin. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
When I did tried to reach Rodericksilly on their Talk page they just blanked the message. GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 20:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Which shows that they read your message. The content of Wikipedia articles should be discussed on article talk pages, where anyone can comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP exempt request

[edit]

My account is IP exempt. Please can someone make my alternative account, User:PigsOTWing, IP exempt for the next 24 hours as I'm setting up to deliver a training course using it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Done, you're welcome. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Change to the Checkuser team

[edit]

At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of Doug Weller are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Doug Weller for his long service as a CheckUser, and his continuing service as an Oversighter. For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the Checkuser team

Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
  • Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed.
  • We plan to use the following schedule:
    • Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up
    • Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase
    • Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase
  • If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
  • If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

Novem Linguae (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Moving problem

[edit]

Hello, I have translated the article Charter for European Security from the German Wikipedia and unfortunately I cannot move it to the main space due to the already existing redirection Charter for European Security to 1999 Istanbul summit. Would it be possible to remove the redirect so that the article can be moved? Ovo Sagas (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. For future reference, {{db-move}} is the best way to indicate this sort of move. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I've restored the redirect edit now that the article has been moved because I think its history s interesting; see more of my thoughts about this sort of thing in this archived discussion. Graham87 (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Range block needed

[edit]

Could someone please block the range which contains the following IPs: 193.106.250.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 193.106.250.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 193.106.250.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 193.106.250.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I warned the last one yesterday (third warning), they reappeared today as 193.106.250.60 and 193.106.250.72 and got blocked for 48h, then as 193.106.250.44 with personal attacks at my talk page (and also got blocked for 48h). It is clear that they are not interested in discussing their edits, nor in stopping IP hopping and sitting the block out. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The overlapping range is now globally blocked as a proxy/hosting service. Perhaps one day someone will want to take over from Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#ST47ProxyBot's retirement. — xaosflux Talk 17:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Lost password on admin account

[edit]
TommyBoy (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

This recent post on TommyBoy's user talk indicates that this user has lost access to their account. I don't know the procedure for a case like this or whether the stated request can actually be fulfilled, but someone should certainly look into it. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I posted my thoughts there. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The account should be blocked preemptively to prevent compromise; this would fulfil half the editor's talk page request too (i.e. that the account be retired). SerialNumber54129 10:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
We can't block an editor because a brand new account pops up and claims to be the original person who wants something. See Joe job. Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
If the password is lost, as the new account claims, what risk is there of compromise? I also agree with John that this seems fishy. Surely a long time admin would know how to properly request removal of their perms/recover a locked account. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
You ask what risk there is. If they've just lost the password, hey probably no problem. On the other hand, if the password and email address have been changed to something the original user has never known, then that's a symptom of potential compromise and a concern. I'm not going to go as far as to say that I endorse the new account, but I don't see any immediate concern here which needs addressing. User:TommyBoy2024 might (or might not) want to contact WP:T&S to get things reset. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but OP didn't say that the email and PW were changed maliciously, just that they lost the PW. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The point is that nothing in the new account claims can be trusted until it's been verified to be the same account holder; as I understand it, this hasn't happened yet. Still, nativity is a cute quality, until something goes wrong. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 13:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
nativity? :) Lectonar (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's precisely what I was saying. If we believe the account (which I don't), there's no risk of anything happening since the account PW is lost, so we shouldn't lock the account at all right now. If OP is lying, then there's actually no risk at all. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Even if my previous account cannot be formally retired or recovered despite multiple attempts to reset my password over the past few weeks, I respectfully understand that, but would like to continue editing Wikipedia as a registered user even if that results in losing the user rights attached to my previous account. TommyBoy2024 (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The accounts are  Confirmed, so there's nothing nefarious going on as far as I can tell, but as a lost account I have removed the advanced permissions from the original TommyBoy account. If you do manage to get access to the account again, please make a post at WP:BN and someone will get your bits back. However, that's an issue for the WMF tech folks to deal with. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
If the accounts are CU confirmed as the same person, can't the userrights just be transferred? I supposed "confirmed" actually means "pretty much confirmed, but not certain enough to risk giving them the admin bit"? Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
(I'm not Primefac) I'd go with that explanation: there are different levels of confirmation. The person with the new account is at the same address as the original user, and in my opinion is extremely likely to be the same. But there's some things (I hesitate to call them irregularities) for me which don't rise to the highest level confirmation. For one thing, the admin logged in and edited just yesterday. I think only someone with access to credentials or a database can really make that kind of wager. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Yesterday? Diff please? — xaosflux Talk 18:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I use the term 'edit' loosely and live in UTC-land. Special:Redirect/logid/164376437. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I would agree with your assessment; it is rather unlikely from what I have seen that the old/admin account was compromised (and/or a joe job) hence the lack of a block or anything related, but since access has been lost the +sysop was removed more of a matter of procedure than anything. I would prefer a slightly more backend/database connection to be made before actually transferring the mop to the new account, though honestly it is probably possible to regain access to the old account if you talk to the right folks on the tech side of the WMF (goodness knows they've done it for enough folks who messed up 2FA...). Primefac (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
TommyBoy, try to contact ca@wikimedia.org and explain your situation, they may be able to help you with recovery. — xaosflux Talk 23:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. This whole situation has been very frustrating. My laptop computer which I had my Wikipedia password for my User:TommyBoy account crashed two weeks ago and multiple attempts to recover or reset my password for that account on my iPhone have failed, resulting in the loss of my status as a Wikipedia administrator, and the added burden of scouring through nearly twenty years of editing history in order to locate articles that were on my Watch List in order to reconstruct it at User:TommyBoy2024 if log in access to User:TommyBoy cannot be restored. TommyBoy2024 (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
TommyBoy2024, I wonder if you could clarify one thing — have you forgotten your password (i.e. it was saved on your computer, so you didn't need to remember it), or do you remember it and still can't get in? Just trying to figure out if it's a lost-password thing or a TFA thing. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
It was unfortunately saved on my computer and I did not have it written down elsewhere, and as I previously mentioned in this discussion, multiple attempts at resetting or recovering my password in the past few weeks have been unsuccessful. TommyBoy2024 (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Assuming you don't have access to your configured email for password reset - it is possible that the foundation staff may manually do a reset for you - but you will need to contact them directly at their email above. This is not normally done, but they occasionally make exceptions for long-term functionaries. — xaosflux Talk 12:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Per xaosflux, I'm not certain why you're having problems resetting. Do you know what email address is attached to the old account? I just emailed you on your old account, you could try doing the same with your new account. (To be clear, I mean use your new account to email your old one here Special:EmailUser/TommyBoy.) If you can find these emails, I'm fairly sure this means you should be receiving the reset requests on the same email address. If you're not it's possible something else is going wrong. At the very least, if you're able to receive emails on the email address attached to your old account, this might help you getting staff to assist. Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, yet another attempt to log into my User:TommyBoy account has failed despite your attempts to assist me in restoring login access to that account. TommyBoy2024 (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections has now closed, and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • The results of any national or sub-national election are a Contentious Topic. Starting in 2026 and checked yearly afterwards, this designation expires on 1 January if no sanctions have been logged in the preceding 2 years.
  • The regular posters on X who associate with Election Twitter are reminded that there is no ownership of articles on the English Wikipedia. They are encouraged to seek consensus on the article talk page, use dispute resolution when they encounter disagreements and refrain from off-site coordination.
  • The Arbitration Committee block of Talleyrand6 (talk · contribs) is converted to an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Anonymousioss (talk · contribs) is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Anonymousioss is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • CroatiaElects (talk · contribs) is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • CroatiaElects is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • DemocraticLuntz (talk · contribs) is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Mcleanm302 (talk · contribs) is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Mcleanm302 is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections closed

Help untagging following AfD close

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


anyone around to lend a hand? Assuming you don't disagree with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of statutory instruments of Scotland, 2024 know of a bot or other semi automated tool that can help with the untagging of related articles in the AfD? It broke the closer script as @OwenX also noted, so it had to be a manual close and de-tag. I'll start at the top if you want to work from the bottom. No worries if not. Star Mississippi 02:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I asked for AWB help here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please stop user Shadow4dark and its Sockpuppets from misusing Wikipedia

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The user @Shadow4dark is a person who misuse wikipedia rules. He is changing articles related to Kurds to his desire. for example he is strongly trying to destroy articles related to the Mahsa Amini. It is a long time he is trying to remove or merge the articles about Mahsa Amini. Please investigate the activities of this user and stop and block him and his helpers from damaging articles related to the Mahsa Amini Subject and her death and Mahsa Amini protests. Thanks HouKorbi (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

You might want to check out WP:BOOMERANG. Accusing editors of being racist and a sockpuppeteer is a personal attack . Also, you are required to notify editors of discussions at AN on their talk page. I have done this for you. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@Voorts The bots like @JJMC89 bot and @B-bot and the users like @Bunnypranav and @@Wikiedits421 and @@Shadow311 are helping @Shadow4dark to do it's destroying actions in those articles of Mahsa Amini. HouKorbi (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
HouKorbi, to avoid a boomerang you should either provide evidence in the form of diffs or withdraw your serious accusations. Whichever you do it should be done quickly, or you may find that you are blocked before you can do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger Their contribution like @Shadow4dark contribution is best evidence to prove it that they are trying to change articles related to kurds specially articles related to Mahsa Amini subject. but as I said they are trying to use wikipedia rules to their desire and Naturally, they don't want to leave traces of their wrongdoings. I have been following their work for a long time. They work very professionally so as not to leave a trace.

diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5

All those edits are when it is the Mahsa Amini second anniversary. Why they are editing so many times right now?! There are so many other evidences that prove they are destroying the articles related to Mahsa Amini and Kurds. HouKorbi (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Those diffs are not evidence of anything. You should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidleines before accusing people of violating them. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I suggesting to bring these "evidence" to WP:SPI Shadow4dark (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuous removal of sourced content

[edit]

On Md Saiful Alam, User:Azbotz keeps removing sourced content. I reverted their edit couple of times, but the user still doing it. Please stop the user or temporary semi-protect the page. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I have semi-protected Md Saiful Alam for one week. Cullen328 (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

[edit]

Can an admin kindly implement the edit request at Template talk:Collapse top#Protected edit request on 4 September 2024? It's been 11 days and should be uncontroversial. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)