Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
→Discussion: comment on opinions of the Torygraph |
LokiTheLiar (talk | contribs) →Participants: Reply |
||
| Line 526: | Line 526: | ||
*: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.{{pb}}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. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 05:10, 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.{{pb}}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. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 05:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
||
*:As was clearly and prominently refuted during the discussion, the Telegraph did ''not'' {{tq|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:Berchanhimez|User]]/[[User talk:Berchanhimez|say hi!]]) 05:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
*:As was clearly and prominently refuted during the discussion, the Telegraph did ''not'' {{tq|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:Berchanhimez|User]]/[[User talk:Berchanhimez|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. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 14:06, 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:Berchanhimez|User]]/[[User talk:Berchanhimez|say hi!]]) 05:27, 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:Berchanhimez|User]]/[[User talk:Berchanhimez|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 {{tq|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. |
* '''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 {{tq|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. |
||
Revision as of 14:06, 9 July 2024
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Open tasks
| V | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 16 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 70 | 79 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
- 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 8 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 7 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 5 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 24 sockpuppet investigations
- 12 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 3 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 1 requests for RD1 redaction
- 46 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 28 requested closures
- 52 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 6 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
new page
i want to create new page for minecolonies but it say you cant Denizprof (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Denizprof. Brand new users are limited in their ability to directly create articles. But you can work on a WP:DRAFT and submit it for review. Please see the template I left on your talk page. If you have any additional questions, I suggest dropping a note at the WP:HELPDESK. It's extremely late where I live, and I am about to go to bed. But you you can also drop me a line on my talk page. Just be aware I may not get to it right away. Happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Denizprof, you'll want to check out Wikipedia's general notability guideline and guideline for video game notability and make sure Minecolonies warrants an article before putting effort into creating one. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- A minecraft mod is unlikely to meet our notability guidelines, sorry. Secretlondon (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Correction on list
My daughter's age is listed wrong on the following list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Teen_USA_2024 (says 19) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_New_Jersey_Teen_USA (on this one it's just listed as TBA) Julia Livolsi Miss New Jersey Teen USA 2024 It should be 18, not 19. Her birthday is February 21, 2006. Thank you. Glnrcker (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- There needs to be a reliable source that states her birthday. If it doesn't exist then her birthday and age shouldn't be included in the article. Nemov (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fwiw, at the time of your comment, the source in the article was a profile of last year's Miss Teen New Jersey, who is a different person. I have removed that source and added a CN tag, but the article needs further attention from editors who are familiar with the subject matter. I've been trying not to be my usual ornery self, but it's not great that this report sat here for 16 hours before anyone actually looked into it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Glnrcker: What that means is that you need to provide a citation from a reliable published source which mentions her date of birth. Read WP:RS for the Wikipedia definition of what kind of sources are considered reliable. Once a reliable source confirms the information, the articles can be corrected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea what constitutes an RS in this space, but through a few quick searches I found 2 instances reporting 19[1][2] and haven't found one saying otherwise (or any with a specific birthday). CMD (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Her birthday is February 21, 2006, according to her birth announcement in the Glen Rock Gazette, April 7, 2006 Page A7, and apparently she is from Glen Rock. Including her birth announcement, there were five mentions/photos of her in that newspaper. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Problems on a family article's tp
There is a discussion with an IP on the talk page of the page Du Quesnoy which would need some clarifications by an administrator, as I'm personnaly not sure I'm fully aware of how to interpret certain rules on the english wikipedia, although it seems clear to me that there are several problems on that talk page.
Mostly, it's suggested that I'm libeling living people.
Kontributor 2K (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Undo a move on a page with a title blacklist
I moved Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu to Taumata Hill to be more concise. I didn't believe a reasonable person would oppose the shortening of such a lengthy title to a common name, but it is clear from the talk page (which I should looked at first) that this is controversial.
I cannot move it on my own due to a title blacklist, apologies. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I tried but failed thanks to weirdness involving long names. Thanks Gadfium for the help. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well now I think I screwed it up. I had reverted my own move because of the soft hyphens in the title, so now it's at Taumata Hill again. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Archiving AN
It seems like AN is archiving awfully fast so I looked at this page and found instructions for two different bots to archive this noticeboard. One states that discussions are archived after three days but they are obviously being archived sooner than that and they are not being archived manually. Could someone who is knowledgeable about archiving make sure that the instructions are clear and not confusing and only one bot is archiving this page? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- One of the instructions is commented out; I changed the other to seven days. BilledMammal (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, BilledMammal. I appreciate you checking on this. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
why isnt this page move closed? it was opned a month ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza Gsgdd (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect that the reason it hasn't been closed is that very few uninvolved editors have the time, ability and inclination to read and understand what people have said in that discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yah - its too big. I think we need another page move with only the top titles from that discussion and ask people only to vote for one of them. what do you think? Gsgdd (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway we need to close it asap Gsgdd (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- looks like these are the titles suggested
- 1. Allegations of genocide in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip
- 2. Genocide accusations in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip
- 3. Gaza genocide question
- 4. Gaza genocide
- 5. Gaza genocide accusations
- 6. Accusations of genocide in Gaza by Israel
- 7. Accusations of genocide in Gaza
- 8. Gaza genocide accusation
- 9. Allegations of 2023–2024 genocide in Gaza
- 10. Allegations of genocide in Gaza (2023–2024)
- 11. Allegations of Israeli genocide in Gaza
- 12. Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in the Israel–Hamas war
- 13. Allegations of genocide in Gaza in the Israel–Hamas war
- 14. Accusations of genocide by Israel in Gaza
- 15. Accusations of genocide by Israel against Palestinians
- 16. Allegations of genocide by Israel against Palestinians Gsgdd (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'll take a look. It will take some time to read and close. – Joe (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- thanks for closing it Gsgdd (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'll take a look. It will take some time to read and close. – Joe (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway we need to close it asap Gsgdd (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yah - its too big. I think we need another page move with only the top titles from that discussion and ask people only to vote for one of them. what do you think? Gsgdd (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Requesting removal of perm
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, can my pending changes reviewer permission be removed? I requested it with the intention that I was going to use it, but I hardly ever did and is essentially useless for me at this point. Thank you! Relativity ⚡️ 11:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus —Ingenuity (t • c) 13:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Subject
The page Casablanca derby is every time vandalized by one person who deletes the table information absolutely need protection Ji Soôo97 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Have you tried requesting it here? (non-administrator comment) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're both edit warring, and now it's locked. Please use the Talk page to establish consensus. Star Mississippi 01:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
edit on Gaza genocide
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user with 225 edit is making edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide How is this possible. since its extended protection. User in question is User:Kinsio Gsgdd (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please notify users on their talk page when you discuss them at this noticeboard. Kinsio (talk · contribs) is a declared (and permitted) alternate account of Gawaxay (talk · contribs), so they were manually granted extended-confirmed status. DanCherek (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppet?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I’ve just come across a user, User:Coop443535454, whom I suspect is a sockpuppet. I don’t know if what I suspect is true, however I am saying this could be true because of two very similar sounding users, User:Coop40493 & User:Coop2017. The edit patterns of these users appear to be very similar. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is what WP:SPI is for. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Drmies, I know it's a long time ago, but the Coops belong to you. Beside the Coops, is there a master?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, I didn't see anything, but I don't doubt it's them. No point in writing up at SPI. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Advice needed re request to unprotect a draft
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article Hera Pheri 3 has a long history of deletions, un-deletions and moves. I added protection to it on April 28, 2017. Not all editors/admins involved are still active. SafariScribe has requested on my talk page to un-protect Draft:Hera Pheri 3 created Feb 21, 2023. Guidance on this would be helpful. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any reason they cant create in their sandbox and move it subject it to review there? Amortias (T)(C) 15:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Scratch that, just realised you mean to unprotect the article not the draft page. Its been submitted for review by AFC, if its approved then an admin could unprotect at that point if it has now managed to reach a suitable style/substance of article. Amortias (T)(C) 15:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. That was the guidance I was looking for. SafariScribe it looks like you will have to wait until that review process has been completed. — Maile (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Maile66, @Amortias, thank you for your words. However, I don't believe this situation will escalate to the notice board. The draft after reviewing it as part of AFC work meets WP:NFILM, and the principal photography has already started–WP:NFF. I was about to accept the draft when a pop-up message indicated that the target page is admin-protected, hence my request for unprotection of the target page so that the draft can be moved. I think there may have been a misunderstanding of my intentions. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think things got muddled here. @SafariScribe is a longtime editor and AfC reviewer in good standing looking to complete that review that was asked for. I do not have the on wiki time today to process the AfC move but I've dropped protection to E/C so Safari or any other AfC reviewer can accept and move the article. If folks feel as if it's still not notable (haven't reviewed, taking no position), a new AfD to reflect current consensus would be more helpful than a 7 year old one. Star Mississippi 17:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @Star Mississippi for the clear understanding. I have move the article as meeting WP:NF or any required policy. I doubt it won't survive AFD if it is taken there. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think things got muddled here. @SafariScribe is a longtime editor and AfC reviewer in good standing looking to complete that review that was asked for. I do not have the on wiki time today to process the AfC move but I've dropped protection to E/C so Safari or any other AfC reviewer can accept and move the article. If folks feel as if it's still not notable (haven't reviewed, taking no position), a new AfD to reflect current consensus would be more helpful than a 7 year old one. Star Mississippi 17:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Sockpuppet page moves
I just blocked Leithiani as a sock of LTA Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. They performed a bunch of page moves prior to the block, if anyone is looking for a 4th of July /election day project.-- Ponyobons mots 17:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's also Normanhunter2, a confirmed sock who participated in a bunch of AfDs; their votes should be struck.-- Ponyobons mots 22:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Resigning rollbacker/PCR
Won't have a use for them anymore. See ya later, space cowboys. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done I've removed those two permissions from your account as requested. DanCherek (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Admin Misconduct
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am a new user so apologies if this is not the correct way to go about it, but it is an issue that undoubtedly needs attention and with the structure of Wikipedia on mobile it has taken me forever to at least find somewhere suitable enough for this.
Prior to creating an account, I had received a year long IP block by Graham87. This has since been lifted, I do not know how, who did it, or whether how up-in-arms I was about it helped bring that along. But it has given me the ability to do something about it and I will take that ability.
I have been very active on the Queensland Fire Department Wikipedia article recently, undoubtedly providing the most information and putting in the most work to ensure that the article reflected the recent rebranding and complete overhaul/transition from Queensland Fire and Emergency Services to QFD.
Recently, however, I was IP banned by Graham87 for alleged “vandalism”. However I can happily provide sources for my information, they are just information I have found presented in a format that cannot be cited (such as ArcGIS maps). Following this, an unknown IP editor came in and completely destroyed a lot of my hard work, making the article extremely difficult to read and removing the neutrality. They even chucked promotional content in it. This user has not been warned or blocked at all, but I was blocked by a guy half way across the country who has numerous complaints online (search ‘graham87 block’ or ‘graham87 ban’ on google and you will find that half of the USA would be able to back me up at the very least).
I feel that action needs to be taken against this user as he fails to follow the etiquette and guidelines of the website he is an administrator for and silences people editing in good faith while letting people while letting the true “miscreants” as he calls them slip by undetected. It’s not something anyone should stand for and is against the very thing Wikipedia seeks to provide and protect. VollyFiremedic (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- We can't look into the details without knowing what the IP is (but you aren't obligated to say, and please be aware that doing so may expose personal information such as your location). However, in general, it is very possible that the IP block you experienced was not targeted at you. IP ranges are usually shared between different people who have the same internet service provider, mobile provider, institution, etc. When we have persistent and long-term vandals (and I know Graham87 deals with a lot of these), we sometimes have to block the entire range knowing that there will be 'collateral damage' to others who share that range with the vandal, but haven't done anything wrong themselves. It's unfortunate but necessary. The way around it is to create an account of your own, as you have done – and not take it personally. – Joe (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, if you add material to an article without sourcing it - as you appear to have been doing - it is likely to be removed again. Editors are regularly blocked for persisting to add unsourced text. If your sources are "in a format that cannot be cited", then you need to find alternative sources. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Yeah I've never edited that article and you may well have been affected by one of my rangeblocks. Graham87 (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is probably 2001:8003:EC74:DD00::/64, who made this edit. Graham87 (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Correct that is the IP (and another one as well which for some reason was given to me when I added over 1000 additional words). An IP block itself would not have been as worrying to me if it was not then followed by another guy completely messing up the article and adding a whole bunch of stuff that sounds like an advertisement and also removing a lot of my work which resulted in the article not making any sense at some points. I would love for someone to review that as well while we are here if possible.
- As for the citing, I am still very new to Wikipedia and the format leaves a lot to be desired for me so citing does not make sense. I was hopeful that other editors could come along and take part in some teamwork to get citations for what I wrote but perhaps I should not have been so helpful. Regardless, I do not see how lack of citations constitutes vandalism. I’m getting a lot of my information from QFD resources and brigade training and adding it in. I understand the need to cite, but my priority remains giving people access to information on topics I am passionate about. And I feel a warning prior to a year long IP ban would have been much more warranted and stand by what I have said previously. VollyFiremedic (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- We try to warn users before blocking them but sometimes it's just not practical, especially for wide rangeblocks that affect hundreds or thousands of innocent users as collateral damage, as this one probably is. I can't find any evidence that the IP you're using has ever been blocked. As for citing, it should be a very high priority, given how often Wikipedia content is copied; it can turn up in rather unexpected places. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Graham87 (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:TUTORIAL may be of help to you. If you want to make WP edits that can "stick", learning how to add refs correctly is essential, I can't stress this enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is probably 2001:8003:EC74:DD00::/64, who made this edit. Graham87 (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Yeah I've never edited that article and you may well have been affected by one of my rangeblocks. Graham87 (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
More admin misconduct
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 5: it seems User:OwenX thinks that I am not an administrator "in good standing", and says that my status compares to that of someone with a compromised account. I don't know, maybe the racist and sexist trolls have found dates and jobs, and my talk page can be unprotected. Still, if OwenX had looked they could have seen that there was plenty of interaction between me and that editor in other places. But who knows, maybe OwenX can start a procedure to get me desysopped, and we'll see how that goes. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- The title is appropriate. Failure to communicate is indeed admin misconduct per WP:ADMINACCT. By XC-protecting his Talk page, Drmies knowingly and willingly shuts down the primary means of communicating with him for an entire class of editors. This isn't an isolated out-of-process deletion or something we can wash over with IAR and get back to our daily business. It is a effectively a declaration that any editor with fewer than 500 edits under their belt doesn't deserve to have a voice. DRV is an editorial venue, not a disciplinary one, but the kind of dismissive tone expressed by him above is one I'm sure ARBCOM would have something to say about. Owen× ☎ 15:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are ways to communicate that don't involve going on a user's talk page. You have no right to the time, attention, or talk page space of anyone else, even an admin. Yes, failure to communicate can be an issue, but if you refer to WP:ADMINACCT you'll see that "protecting a talk page" is not among the examples of infractions. That said, Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- And your use of such an argument at deletion review is inappropriate; the protection level of an admin's talkpage has nothing at all to do with deletion review. However, I gather you're fortunate enough to have never seen the threats and harassment aimed at Drmies and his family from LTAs. If you have a complaint about it, take it up with the arbitration committee, not as a specious argument in a tangential forum. Acroterion (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- OwenX, you are so wrong on so many different levels. It is because of Drmies commitment to the project as an admin that their talk page is EC protected. Calling for Drmies admin actions to be vacated and positing that they should be desysoped by ARBCOM for protecting their own talk page from persistent trolling and death threats against themselves and their family, that they receive as a result of the volunteer work they do here for you and other editors, is beyond the pale.-- Ponyobons mots 15:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Acroterion, over the years, I have received many threats and much harassment on my Talk page and my User page, including a recent death threat against me and my family. I reported the recent death threat on AN/I, and it was handled by an uninvolved admin. I don't remember if it was revdel'd or oversighted, you may be able to still see it. It never even crossed my mind to block access to my Talk page. I did eventually, many years ago, semi-protect my User page after 160+ vandalism edits, but that doesn't prevent anyone from contacting me, and it's still open to non-XC registered accounts. Our deletion review policy highlights communication with the deleting admin as a key requirement. A deletion by an admin who prevents communication with him is very much relevant to a DRV appeal. If the only way an admin can deal with harassment is to shut down commincation, then he should hang up the mop until the situation allows him to reopen the main communication channel. Drmies has my sympathy for all the harassment and threats, but that does not exempt him from accountability for his actions. Owen× ☎ 15:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Talk page protection is not equivalent to 'preventing communication.' This is nothing more than a petulant complaint that
you cannotnot everyone can communicate in the wayyouthey desire. With all due respect, grow up. Dumuzid (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)- OwenX is an admin and extended confirmed. Acroterion (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps you need to review both WP:ADMINACCT and WP:DRV then. I too have received threats, but nothing approaching the volume, virulence and specificity that Drmies has: do you think that should be grounds for desysopping? DRV is not a forum for arguing about technicalities or complaints about other editors in order to gain the upper hand. Take it up with Arbcom if you have a policy-based argument. Acroterion (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think Drmies should step away from any activity that requires him to be available for contact by non-XC editors until such time as he is ready to reopen his Talk page to all. That includes blocking, deleting, protecting, and most admin functions, with the possible exception of checkuser. Deleting from behind a protected Talk page is an abuse of admin rights, and grounds for automatic vacating when contested in good faith at DRV. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is so asinine, I'm beginning to wonder if your account is compromised. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I don't agree with your proposal at all as I don't think Drmies has done anything wrong. I'm honestly more concerned you're calling for that AfD to be vacated for this than about anything Drmies has done. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Are you seriously suggesting that an admin should refrain from acting as as an admin on the project while their talk page is protected due to abuse? Do you have any idea how easy that would be to game from a trolling standpoint? It's a ludicrous suggestion. And your comment "Deleting from behind a protected Talk page is an abuse of admin rights" is equally absurd. I can't take anything you say from this point forward seriously.-- Ponyobons mots 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- One can argue that you, an admin of many years' standing, should have a better understanding of policy before making such accusations. Acroterion (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I take your views, Acroterion, very seriously. I'm not one of those who dismisses accusations with a, "Haha good luck trying to get me desysopped". Yet I still don't see how we can simply waive a policy requirement of accountability simply because an admin found no better way to handle harassment than to shut down the main communication channel to anyone with fewer than 500 edits. We used to deny promotion at RfA to candidates who didn't enable email contact. Remember those days? If the situation doesn't allow you to fulfil your admin duties in an accountable way, hang up the mop until you can do the job as required by policy. There is no other way to ensure accountability. Owen× ☎ 16:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reading the trail on Rocky's page, Drmies has email enabled and that's how he contacted him. Drmies was accountable and accessible, just not in one specific channel so not sure your analogy fits there, @OwenX (and I don't think email is required at RfA anymore, although I may be wrong) Star Mississippi 16:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Star Mississippi, for addressing the actual issue at hand. Having reviewed Rockycape's exchange with Drmies following Rockycape's email to Drmies, I struck out my comment at the DRV. Drmies, please accept my apologies for the inappropriate comment. I still wish you would reduce the protection level on your Talk page to just semi, and handle harassers who have a registered account by banning, which would benefit the rest of us too. Owen× ☎ 17:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- We already do that. How many prolific abusive sockpuppeteers do you thing we see every day? There are some who've been harassing individual edits, posting threats, and wasting everybody's time, for decades, with hundreds of accounts. Admins who take action against them become targets. Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Star Mississippi, for addressing the actual issue at hand. Having reviewed Rockycape's exchange with Drmies following Rockycape's email to Drmies, I struck out my comment at the DRV. Drmies, please accept my apologies for the inappropriate comment. I still wish you would reduce the protection level on your Talk page to just semi, and handle harassers who have a registered account by banning, which would benefit the rest of us too. Owen× ☎ 17:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are simultaneously complaining about a perceived IAR and then making up a new policy that an admin who has been abused to a sufficient degree can be driven away, rather than dealing with it in a manner that doesn't conflict with policy. The net result is that trolls can target people and win, according to your interpretation. "There is no other way to ensure accountability" is hyperbolic." And I agree that no action is required, except to ask that you remember to confine your comments at DRV to matters pertaining to the request, not to your perception of the justification for the closer's level of talkpage protection. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) OwenX, I think you are wrong here. Mandating that all admins allow anyone to post sexist and racist attacks and death threats, and worse, on their talk pages is a non-starter. I know that's not explicitly your goal, but it is the natural consequence if admins must always leave their talk pages unprotected. Good-faith users can easily contact Drmies, such as by leaving a ping on their own talk page. Or by reaching out to a third party. Or, heck, taking it to one of the admin noticeboards. You say, "If the only way an admin can deal with harassment is to shut down commincation, then he should hang up the mop until the situation allows him to reopen the main communication channel." I'm not sure you are aware of the seriousness of some of our LTAs. I get multiple daily death threats, as do several other admins, and I consider myself lucky that I'm currently not targeted for far worse abuse, as I know Drmies has been. I think it's entirely reasonable to protect user talk pages to deal with such attacks. Disclaimer: my talk page is currently restricted to autoconfirmed and confirmed editors, protection applied by me. It was previously protected by Ponyo in a similar manner. I will note this helps but most certainly doesn't prevent the daily death threats I receive. I strongly believe your approach would, very quickly, result in many admins handing in their mop while LTAs would celebrate their substantial win. I think the balance is wrong. --Yamla (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that admins should receive the same protections afforded to all users. The rules do not and should not allow that admins have to take any abuse from troll accounts. I would expect that the community would want all editors respected and protected from threat and harassment. --ARoseWolf 17:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reading the trail on Rocky's page, Drmies has email enabled and that's how he contacted him. Drmies was accountable and accessible, just not in one specific channel so not sure your analogy fits there, @OwenX (and I don't think email is required at RfA anymore, although I may be wrong) Star Mississippi 16:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I take your views, Acroterion, very seriously. I'm not one of those who dismisses accusations with a, "Haha good luck trying to get me desysopped". Yet I still don't see how we can simply waive a policy requirement of accountability simply because an admin found no better way to handle harassment than to shut down the main communication channel to anyone with fewer than 500 edits. We used to deny promotion at RfA to candidates who didn't enable email contact. Remember those days? If the situation doesn't allow you to fulfil your admin duties in an accountable way, hang up the mop until you can do the job as required by policy. There is no other way to ensure accountability. Owen× ☎ 16:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think Drmies should step away from any activity that requires him to be available for contact by non-XC editors until such time as he is ready to reopen his Talk page to all. That includes blocking, deleting, protecting, and most admin functions, with the possible exception of checkuser. Deleting from behind a protected Talk page is an abuse of admin rights, and grounds for automatic vacating when contested in good faith at DRV. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Talk page protection is not equivalent to 'preventing communication.' This is nothing more than a petulant complaint that
- This is entirely overblown and absolutely no action needed. I've worked with and highly respect both Drmies and OwenX so I don't think I'm Involved in that sense. This is all because an SPA had their personal project deleted and has spent a week bludgeoning and badgering rather than looking for sources. (Disclosure, endorsed the close at DRV but did not !vote in the AfD). Rocky had two means of communicating with Drmies, which they made use of and Drmies responded, which is all that's required of an Admin. Drmies has always been more than responsive, and self protection is not a reason for de-sysop (self or ArbComm). We are not required to be at the beck and call of users or abuse of trolls.Star Mississippi 16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- If I'm reading this correctly, Drmies' Talk has been protected since October 2022. That makes it even more unlikely that this is an admin conduct/contact ability issue or it would have been raised sooner. Star Mississippi 17:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- If it's been a year and a half, the protection should be lifted, as maybe the disruption won't continue. All editors, admins or not, should be equally eligible to have their user talk pages protected, eg with a request at RFPP. If anything, an admin's request for UTP protection should be held to a higher standard than non-admins because of adminacct (and because protecting an admin's page can cause problems like what happened at DRV where a non-XC editor was erroneously called out for not discussing with the admin first, which they couldn't do because of protection). Admins shouldn't protect their own pages because they're involved; another admin should review the request. In this case, if it's been a year and a half, the protection should be lifted and Drmies should make an RFPP request for re-protection if/when necessary. Levivich (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
where a non-XC editor was erroneously called out for not discussing with the admin first
that was me, and I apologised for it when I got online this morning. The discussion happened via email and on the requestor's Talk, which was just fine. Let's not conflate the two. Star Mississippi 17:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)- I also made the same mistake when replying to the editor's enquiry on my talk page, for what it's worth. Daniel (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- If it was proven that Drmies was difficult to contact and unresponsive to editors concerns I would be the first to side with this position. But there are other avenues available to communicate with them and those avenues were used. Drmies was responsive to editors concerns and a discussion was had so I don't see a conduct issue. --ARoseWolf 17:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- If it's been a year and a half, the protection should be lifted, as maybe the disruption won't continue. All editors, admins or not, should be equally eligible to have their user talk pages protected, eg with a request at RFPP. If anything, an admin's request for UTP protection should be held to a higher standard than non-admins because of adminacct (and because protecting an admin's page can cause problems like what happened at DRV where a non-XC editor was erroneously called out for not discussing with the admin first, which they couldn't do because of protection). Admins shouldn't protect their own pages because they're involved; another admin should review the request. In this case, if it's been a year and a half, the protection should be lifted and Drmies should make an RFPP request for re-protection if/when necessary. Levivich (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- From a purely 'policy' perspective and without any context, I tend to agree with Levivich above. But I am also cognisant that Drmies is one of the most targetted administrators we have for abuse, for all the hard work they do with LTAs etc. Ultimately we are all people, human beings, and it is impossible to ignore the human element of this issue — which is that Drmies needs this protection to reduce the impact of their editing on themselves and their family. I think that requires sympathy and understanding, and insofar as I noted my agreement with Levivich as a general statement, I feel like it may be appropriate to ignore this view in this situation. Daniel (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- If Drmies had requested protection at RFPP, it's likely it would have been granted, so we end up at the same place anyway. Conversely, anyone who thinks it shouldn't be protected can request reduction of protection at RFPP as with any other page. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:INVOLVED does not apply when dealing with vandalism. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor
and I think having your user talk page vandalized or receiving death threats counts as "conflicts with an editor." (I know some admins strongly disagree with this interpretation because they think it would allow editors to "conflict out" admins by picking fights with them.) Levivich (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Editors and admins who confront people who make graphic threats of violence against them, their families, and others are in no way "involved," as the policy makes amply clear. Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- The policy also says that
an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role [...] is not involved
. Interpretation of "conflicts" as it is used here to encompass efforts to prevent long-term abuse of the platform strains credulity. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).
Administrator changes
Technical news
- Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Miscellaneous
- The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more
Self-requested block of my old account
I would like to request a block on my old account M14325 (talk · contribs), which I no longer have access to. The account has already been blocked in de- and metawiki and now I would like to request a block here as well. Regards, Wüstenspringmaus talk 07:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wüstenspringmaus, rather than do it piecemeal, you should probably request a global lock at meta:Steward_requests/Global#Requests_for_global_(un)lock_and_(un)hiding. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, Primefac, they appear to have requested a lock at Meta here, though it was declined and they were re-directed to local admins. EggRoll97 (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good to know, I did wonder if they might disallow self-locking. I don't really see much point in blocking an account that has zero edits and was created two years ago, but... meh. Done. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good to know, I did wonder if they might disallow self-locking. I don't really see much point in blocking an account that has zero edits and was created two years ago, but... meh.
- By the way, Primefac, they appear to have requested a lock at Meta here, though it was declined and they were re-directed to local admins. EggRoll97 (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Vanished user returned
If a user vanishes and then returns, should pages about that user, eg RfC's that the vanished user deleted, be undeleted, or signatures that they altered after vanishing be restored? DuncanHill (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- So per WP:VANISH,
If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed
. Though as neither deleting pages (except for user pages) or altering signatures is part of the vanishing process in the first place, they shouldn't have happened and therefore shouldn't need to be reversed. – Joe (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)- Among the deleted pages are Arbcom candidate statements, an MfD, their own contributions on other users' talk pages, and their own talk page. They also renamed an RfC, altered their own sigs on various pages. Then they returned and now edit under the same name, but I can't see any linking of the old account (which has a generic vanished name) and its edits and logs to the new one. This was all done some years ago, but the editor is active now. DuncanHill (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds pretty exceptional, though the policy does allow for exceptions. Maybe you should email ArbCom about it? – Joe (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds more like scorched earth than vanishing, but if you do have specific concerns about this issue and do not want to divulge here (which I totally understand) I agree that contacting an Arb (or even an Oversighter) is probably the best bet. I also agree, in general, that deleted pages should not be restored purely because they have returned; it's not like the U1 becomes invalid. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Most of them wouldn't qualify for U1 in the first place. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds more like scorched earth than vanishing, but if you do have specific concerns about this issue and do not want to divulge here (which I totally understand) I agree that contacting an Arb (or even an Oversighter) is probably the best bet. I also agree, in general, that deleted pages should not be restored purely because they have returned; it's not like the U1 becomes invalid. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds pretty exceptional, though the policy does allow for exceptions. Maybe you should email ArbCom about it? – Joe (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Among the deleted pages are Arbcom candidate statements, an MfD, their own contributions on other users' talk pages, and their own talk page. They also renamed an RfC, altered their own sigs on various pages. Then they returned and now edit under the same name, but I can't see any linking of the old account (which has a generic vanished name) and its edits and logs to the new one. This was all done some years ago, but the editor is active now. DuncanHill (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Looking to fix a defaced wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Itzler I am a live streamer and is being harrased by multiple trolls, im looking to get this page reverted back to a previous state, and lock the page from further edits. I am the owner of this wiki.
you can see there is trolls by checking the name of the image they provided, and a brief reading Gasnobrakes10 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- While there are grounds for protection on BLP grounds which I plan to enact and potential blocks, please read WP:OWN. You have no specific role when the content is compliant with guidelines here. Star Mississippi 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have reverted to a version on June 22, right before the recent wave of disruptive editing began. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- and I think I got all of the offending content. If I missed any, @Cullen328 or any admin please feel free to continue. I'm about to hop offline. Star Mississippi 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- ETA, I have just semi'ed it. Found BLP violations going back to 2017. Have to hop offline but if someone else has time and can eyeball, that would be helpful. Star Mississippi 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have reverted to a version on June 22, right before the recent wave of disruptive editing began. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
personal attack, spreading rumors
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Michalis1994 accuses me without any proof that I am the same person as a blocked user on Greek Wikipedia. These kinds of accusations, on matters unrelated to editing, besides insulting my person, spread insidious rumors that may cause other users to view me with suspicion.
Extra careful, because you got blocked - who knows what could happen next? Removing cited content is not a great idea, Στρουμπούκη. and You're obviously trolling. Your account has been blocked completely from Greek Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts, whilst your name is... Dora? Yikes D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voice_of_Reason_-_Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1233180463 — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.S. Lioness (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)<diff>
- Once again, this is exasperating. D.S. Lioness has been blocked on Greek Wikipedia for being identified as the person behind the indefinitely banned account ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη. According to Meta, this individual has created over 50 sockpuppets in the past two years [3] [4] [5]. D.S. stands for Dora Stroumpouki, and she even refers to herself as Dora on her talk page. Despite being previously blocked, she has returned with no sign of self-reflection or a willingness to change her behaviour and adopt a more diplomatic approach. What is it that you hope to accomplish here?? Michalis1994 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- what does this have to do with my contribution to english wikipedia? D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just stop removing cited content. Also, your previous behavioural patterns have been moved to the English Wiki, which is not really a great idea. You have been warned. Michalis1994 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? what are you doing here? how can you talk like that to another user? D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just stop removing cited content. Also, your previous behavioural patterns have been moved to the English Wiki, which is not really a great idea. You have been warned. Michalis1994 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am not the same person! D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to stop here. You are the same person and that's why you got blocked on Greek WP. Michalis1994 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.S. Lioness/Archive— Preceding unsigned comment added by D.S. Lioness (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)<diff>
- I would suggest not continuing this discussion. Michalis1994 can file a WP:SPI if they want. It isn't an actionable personal attack. PhilKnight (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.S. Lioness/Archive— Preceding unsigned comment added by D.S. Lioness (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)<diff>
- I'm going to stop here. You are the same person and that's why you got blocked on Greek WP. Michalis1994 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- what does this have to do with my contribution to english wikipedia? D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- spreading rumors about a user's previous activity it is a serious personal attack and hurts my credibility. D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Let's be clear here. You clearly are the same person as is blocked on el.wikipedia, because your global contributions are here for anyone to see. So saying "I'm not the same person" is a lie, and doesn't do you any credit. However your misdeeds, whatever they were, on that Wikipedia do not affect your existence here, as long as the same edit practices do not re-occur. If they do, you can - and probably will - be blocked here as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- My question is how the original poster thought it would be a good idea to open yet another noticeboard thread, when Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#No_cooperation,_no_good_faith (also started by them about the same editor) is still open? This is now the third thread started by the original poster about the same editor in a couple of weeks, if you included this miguided attempt that was eventually merged with the existing thread. I suspected there were some significant competence issues last week based on the ANI, and I am not being dissuaded in my view by subsequent developments. Daniel (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is also an AN3 report too, which I just found. Daniel (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
It is clearly a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Michalis1994 stalking case here. 90 out of 100 edits from Michalis are related with my contributions. I wait for check user results to clear the case, but the offensives are in daily basis. I don't know what to do..D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Removal of perms
Can an admin please remove the perms associated with this account? I tried to come back, but have decided to scramble my passwords and leave this account for good. All the best, Schminnte [talk to me] 18:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed you extra permissions. Let me know if you change your mind. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @PhilKnight you missed autoreviewer I think. The Night Watch (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now done. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @PhilKnight you missed autoreviewer I think. The Night Watch (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
ARBPIA gaming?
The user Amayorov, despite having an eight-year-old account, made their first edit on 3 July 2024 before proceeding to pass 500 edits and receive extended confirmed permissions on 6 July 2024. All of the edits made, 100s a day, were on European politics and history. Shortly after achieving EC permissions, suddenly it's all 1948 Palestine war, specifically inserting Benny Morris as a source all over the place and doing some work on the Benny Morris biography. Apparently European content has lost its appeal. Make of this what you will. I also have to wonder if, despite having an extant account for 8 years, achieving 500 edits in three days (rather than the 30 days as envisaged in the ECR rule set) is somewhat of a violation of the spirit of the restrictions, even if not the technical function. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Were there any issues with the edits?
- Discussions recently have come to the conclusion that absent obvious abuse - unproductive or disruptive edits, or repeatedly making a dozen edits to do what could be done in one or two - it’s acceptable for editors to work towards ECP.
- To an extent, this makes sense - if we tell people "this is what you need to edit this topic area" we can’t reasonably expect editors interested in the topic area to not work towards it. BilledMammal (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- see my reply Amayorov (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Issues other than that pushing Benny Morris here there any everywhere with little regard for any other sources is a terrible form of disregard for NPOV? That alone, in a contentious topic area, is pretty disruptive. The 500/30 rule is aimed at ensuring a minimum level of understanding and competency. Yes, some are encouraged to rush the requirements, but we shouldn't encourage editors to rush the requirements. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I did not "push Benny Morris" but rather expanded on the already existing citations to his work. Recall that Benny Morris' 2008 book had already been the most quoted reference on that page. When necessary, I've added phrases such as "some scholars allege that" etc.
- When you and other users disagreed with my edits, I didn't proceed, but rather created sections on the Talk page. Unlike other users, you didn't engage.
- I think the extensive sourcing I use in any of my edits illustrate that I at least possess "a minimum level of competency". Amayorov (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have engaged. As of the time of me writing this, there are at least two comments from me to you that you have not responded to. Again, this can be checked. I suggest you desist from misrepresenting very verifiable information in this forum. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- You wrote those comments less than an hour before reporting me on the Admin board. Yes –– all of this can be checked.
- I suggest you desist from misrepresenting very verifiable information in this forum. Amayorov (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have engaged. As of the time of me writing this, there are at least two comments from me to you that you have not responded to. Again, this can be checked. I suggest you desist from misrepresenting very verifiable information in this forum. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I meant in regardless to the substance of this complaint - with the edits to reach 500.
- If we don’t tell editors that they can’t work towards 500/30, then how should they know we don’t want them to work towards them? If the goal is to ensure
a minimum level of understanding and competency
, and 500 edits isn’t sufficient for that, then let’s modify the requirements - for example, require edits to be a minimum byte size to count, as I have proposed in the past. BilledMammal (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)- I think that would be a good idea. However, I have clearly written plenty of bytes in my 500 edits, in some cases going as far as copy-editing entire pages that had been poorly translated or unsourced. You can see all that in my edit history. Amayorov (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is patently false. I have made extensive edits to various topics, including military history and Central Asian history, paganism, and engineering. All my corrections were extensively referenced. I have also rewritten several large articles, requiring copy-edit and verification.
- It is true that I have re-activated my account in the week. This is simply a reflection of the fact that I have free time, and have grown fond of Wikipedia.
- Benny Morris' 1948 book has always been the most referenced book on the topic. I have used not only that book but also others by different authors, as well as sourcing UN archives.
- I have added corrections and more references on the subject, including 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight and Palestinian nationalism. None of the other users had an issue with my work.
- By contrast, @Iskandar323 has reverted my edits without giving a justification. They also ignored my attempts at a discussion in the Talk pages. Amayorov (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I had a justification, and I have responded on talk. I suggest that you avoid misrepresenting things that can be checked up on (on an administrative noticeboard). And yes, other users have taken up issue with your edits. I'm not sure why you would misrepresent this. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your justification was RV gf edits - unfortunately, adding random titbits of background information from Morris, removing dates and badly rephrasing other parts is not an improvement.
- This is not specific or constructive. In order to clarify your objections, I created discussion topics on the Talk page – which you have ignored. Amayorov (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have responded to some, not all of your posts. However, I would prefer to see what administrators think of this situation before potentially unduly spending more time on explaining why expanding claims from a single source that is, in your own words, already the most [(over-)]quoted reference on the page, is not particularly in the service of NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- You have responded to them half an hour ago, almost immediately posting on the Admin board.
- Yes, Benny Morris is the most quoted historian on the 1948 war. I barely added new references to him, usually simply extending the existing ones. Amayorov (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose I should be grateful that you've helped illustrate quite how over-represented Benny Morris is (more than 50 citations and mentions), but again, that begs the question of why you think this clear imbalance problem should be worsened. If you can't see that there might be an imbalance problem there, that somewhat illustrates why the 500/30 rule exists and why a month of actual editing is, in spirit, what is expected of it. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Because Morris has written multiple, highly regarded books on the 1948 war. He's cited by plenty of other authors, such as Shlaim, Khalidi, Ben-Ami, and others.
- Besides, and as I've previously explained, I didn't add much new material. I've clarified previous references and added qualifications to partisan statements. Amayorov (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose I should be grateful that you've helped illustrate quite how over-represented Benny Morris is (more than 50 citations and mentions), but again, that begs the question of why you think this clear imbalance problem should be worsened. If you can't see that there might be an imbalance problem there, that somewhat illustrates why the 500/30 rule exists and why a month of actual editing is, in spirit, what is expected of it. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I had a justification, and I have responded on talk. I suggest that you avoid misrepresenting things that can be checked up on (on an administrative noticeboard). And yes, other users have taken up issue with your edits. I'm not sure why you would misrepresent this. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- This seems like a content dispute, Iskandar323, moreso than any actual gaming. It seems like it might be better to have discussed this with the editor on a talk page, not hauled them to AN. The editor's contributions appear to be in good faith, and while I haven't gone into a full deep-dive or anything of the sort, they don't seem to be unconstructive at first glance. Favoring a specific historian isn't necessarily a behavioral issue, so long as they are willing to discuss inclusion and abide by the results of consensus. Building a culture of continually questioning those who take the time to build a constructive editing history in order to prove they can be trusted with access to contentious topics is a terrifying idea. If I was to accuse someone of gaming for rollback, for example, because they spent a lot of time reverting vandals, it would likely be considered at the very least rude, and at worst a personal attack. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is a content dispute for sure, which I will continue in good faith. At the same time, there is only one type of account that I have ever seen that goes from 0 to 100 edits a day on some random topic before switching (after 3 frenetic days) to almost pure ARBPIA edits, and it isn't the constructive variety. There are plenty of dubious accounts that have just passed this threshold currently operating in the contentious topic area. This account, however, caught my eye due to the rapid edit aggregation and glaring topic switch. I have raised the issue of quite a few gaming accounts on this noticeboard, and to date, most of them have raised eyebrows for admins too. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, from my perspective there appears to be some unnecessary edit farming in this user's background. For instance, Sukhoi Shkval did not require 40 edits in a row to achieve this relatively minimal difference, while not managing to add a single in-line citation or new source. On 9К512 Uragan-1M we got some extremely minor, non-substantive copyediting that frankly didn't change the readability of the article much. An improvement? Perhaps trivially, but reasonable editors could disagree there. Worth sanctioning over? IMO probably not, but I don't think Iskandar323's concerns are without merit. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding 9K512 Uragan-1M, the article had been marked as “roughly translated.” I did my best to correct residual grammatical errors, before marking the issue as resolved.
Regarding Sukhoi-Shkval, I agree that 40 edits were excessive. One reason for this was that I was still learning about the editing tools, discovering new templates and features. Another justification is that I had to decipher some unclear text, such as “Each wing has a rudder that functions as a rudder and aileron.” Here, the first “rudder” is in fact not a rudder at all, but a flap. I had only figured that out once I read through the sources. Amayorov (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
There may be something going on with ARBPIA, perhaps unrelated to this, but worth thinking about. We had a recently compromised account jump into ARBPIA in the past week, threatening to report other editors if reverted, then reporting a prominent ‘opponent’ to WP:AE, volunteering to be topic banned if the ‘opponent’ is also topic banned, before being Checkuser blocked by an Arb. starship.paint (RUN) 23:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I was going to report this user as well. Account created in 2016 but first edit made a few days ago and quickly put in 500 edits, immediately jumps into Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area, seemingly POV-pushing. Seems to be an experienced user as well. I agree with @Starship.paint that there seems to be something going on with ARBPIA, specifically a surge in sock accounts. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't know whether these plots can provide any illumination. The dramatic change in slope and shape of the bytes added and page byte size change curves after extendedconfirmed has been granted at 500 edits is consistent with the notion of gaming to obtain the privilege in order to enter the contentious PIA topic area. These kind of signal shapes for users that enter the PIA topic area can often be seen for sockpuppets of AndresHerutJaim/יניב הורון, not that that suggests this is an AHJ sock. Wikipedia provides tools to help new users rapidly gain EC. Sometimes this kind of impressive efficiency is thanks to the Wikimedia Foundation Growth team's "Newcomer tasks" project. Also, their first edit being an WP:ARBECR violation is not great. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- When I was doing my edits, I was using almost exclusively Wiki’s backlog. I chose the issues that I could conceivably help with, such as Rough Translation from Russian and French (the languages I speak), and lead rewrite requests. I intend to continue on with this work in the future.
- And, yes, I’m interested in the IP history, about which I’ve read a lot. Since gaining extended privileges, I’ve made improvements to those articles. Those edits have arguably been better-sources than any of my other work, due to my having more knowledge to my having more knowledge on the topic. I do not deny that I wanted to contribute to these topics from the start. Amayorov (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info Amayorov but you don't need to defend yourself to me. I'm nobody. I'm just providing information. Either way, the notion of gaming in Wikipedia and its relationship to the WP:ARBECR barrier is currently rather vague. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Where did you learn to add a colon prefix to the category name in your busy schedule by the way e.g. :Category:Wikipedia backlog|Wiki’s backlog? Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- The visual editor adds it automatically, when I link to the url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_backlog Amayorov (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Either way, regardless of the specifics of this editor, it's important for the community to acknowledge that a) WP:ARBECR was introduced as an entry barrier for good reasons and b) highly motivated people have already discovered ways to essentially tunnel through that barrier. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not being a tech wizard, I can only judge by what I see over time. I am in the habit of adding awareness notices if I notice new editors (non EC or EC) making edits in the topic area and off the top of my head, I would say that occurs 3 or 4 times a month at least, there appears to be an increase in the number of such editors in recent times, as to what proportion of them are WP:NOTHERE I couldn't say but experience tells me that some at least are in that category. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are underestimating your contribution. This year I think you have provided the awareness notices to 202 users, or thereabouts. That is based on your revisions to user talk pages where the byte size change is in a range consistent with the awareness template size. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- The top of my head is very unreliable then, lol. Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are underestimating your contribution. This year I think you have provided the awareness notices to 202 users, or thereabouts. That is based on your revisions to user talk pages where the byte size change is in a range consistent with the awareness template size. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
No comment about the gaming accusation, but the ARBPIA edits themselves seem fine. Morris is arguably the most prominent historian in this area, and one of the more neutral ones, with critics from both sides. It's debatable whether some of the added content is important enough to include, but it's reasonable enough, and Amayorov seems open to feedback and compromise. POV pushing involves aggression, which I don't see here. If we were to expect some kind of strict symmetry in editing behavior, the vast majority of us ARBPIA editors would fail that standard. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Conflict of interest VRT consultations, July 2024
The Arbitration Committee has received applications for conflict of interest VRT queue access and has reviewed them in consultation with the functionaries team. The Community is invited to evaluate the candidacies and comment here until the end of 17 July 2024 (UTC).
On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Conflict of interest VRT consultations, July 2024
Multiple reverts
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user has reverted my edits two times each in First Dutch Military Aggression and Second Dutch Military Aggression. Can someone please prevent him from reverting it. I'm trying to avoid violating WP:3RR. Desertasad (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've blocked the OP for 72 hours for their homophobic comments they posted at NFSreloaded's Talk page, whom they failed to notify of this complaint. Any administrator is free to block Desertasad for longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can tell you that if I were an admin, I'd indef. Saying that the
legalisation of LGBTQIA+
isa bad thing
is extremely disruptive. I've seen users indeffed for less. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)- I agree and have made it an indef. – Joe (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can tell you that if I were an admin, I'd indef. Saying that the
Appreciate the tag. In response to this complaint: the manual reverts in question are here and there on Operation Product, and here and there on Operation Kraai. On the former article OP duplicated information already present in the lead section, on the latter article they moved the informal non-English terms for the military operation up to the first sentence. I considered both contributions redundant and undid them, ultimately resulting in the exchange on my talk page. That said, I don't feel I was pushing any kind of nationalist narrative in this situation or elsewhere. --NFSreloaded (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Administrators,
Someone upload a wrong portrait of Madam Tsai Jui-yueh on the Traditional Chinese Wikipedia page. https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/蔡瑞月
Someone uploaded using the reference below, Madam was tagged in that News article photo album, but photo is someone else in a group photo https://ahonline.drnh.gov.tw/index.php?act=Display/image/4359360wg9foOB#d6C
The same news article and album you can see Madam Tsai Jui-yueh is in this photo
https://ahonline.drnh.gov.tw/index.php?act=Display/image/4359360wg9foOB#0Osa
Can someone please check the reference and correct this page.
該封禁的查封ID是#560409。--Tjyfoundation（留言） 2024年7月8日 (一) 11:27 (UTC) Tjyfoundation (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- zh.wikipedia.org is a different project. There's nothing that en.wikipedia.org can do for you, you need to raise your concern on that project. --Yamla (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- How to raise my concern on that project? Tjyfoundation (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues
- 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
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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.
, andThe 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
- @Seraphimblade: Please restore the close and follow process here. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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:
- 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)
- Administrator Seraphimblade's misuse of the rollback tool is noted here. Per WP:ROLLBACKUSE, points 1–5 obviously don't apply, and 6 cannot, as Seraphimblade failed to provide a
custom edit summary explaining the reason for reverting the changes
. Not a good look, tbh, either in terms of accountability or conduct. ——Serial Number 54129 12:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)- I've raised Seraphimblade's action at Wikipedia:Administrative action review#Unilateral overturning of a close by Seraphimblade. I'm not sure what to do about this discussion now. – Joe (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think this mini discussion ought to be closed. Peopld can discuss at the review. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've raised Seraphimblade's action at Wikipedia:Administrative action review#Unilateral overturning of a close by Seraphimblade. I'm not sure what to do about this discussion now. – Joe (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Non-participants
- 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)
- WP:INVOLVED does have novel wording:
- The discussion was
- The discussion was
- 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 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)
- So no dispute then? Having an opinion is not being involved. Anything else? CNC (talk) 10:13, 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)
- 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)
- What hoax are you referring to with
- 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)
Participants
- 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)
- 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 thatFourth 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 thatthe 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Discussion
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 the, 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)