stringtranslate.com

Wikipedia: tablón de anuncios de administradores

Tareas abiertas


Páginas recientemente puestas bajoprotección extendida confirmada

Solicitud de revisión de cierre de RfC enWikipedia: fuentes confiables/tablón de anuncios#RFC: The Telegraph sobre cuestiones trans

Si bien los matices de esta discusión son bastante complejos, los editores generalmente se dividieron en tres bandos.
El primer bando sostuvo que todo el cierre fue fundamentalmente defectuoso (y el tercer párrafo no es más que un ejemplo sorprendente de esto). Argumentaron que S Marshall no sopesó adecuadamente los argumentos y, en cambio, contó los votos; que los participantes combinaron sesgo y falta de confiabilidad; que las pruebas de la falta de fiabilidad de The Telegraph fueron en gran medida refutadas; que si hubiera sopesado correctamente los argumentos, habría descartado gran parte de los votos de la parte poco confiable como opiniones sin fundamento; y que la discusión original debería haberse cerrado con un consenso de que la cobertura de The Telegraph sobre temas transgénero es generalmente confiable. En conjunto, los argumentos de esta parte fueron convincentes y no refutados, y señalaré que incluso el propio S. Marshall esencialmente admitió que consideró principalmente las opiniones de los editores sobre la confiabilidad de The Telegraph (en lugar de evidencia y argumentos específicos).
Los otros dos bandos estuvieron de acuerdo en que no haber consenso era la lectura correcta, pero estaban divididos sobre si eso debería resultar en que se rebaje la confiabilidad actual de The Telegraph o se mantenga el status quo. Algunos editores observaron que bajar de categoría sin consenso es la práctica estándar bien establecida en RSP, pero otros tantos creyeron que ese era un resultado equivocado, y algunos notaron cómo se presume que los periódicos bien establecidos son confiables ( WP:NEWSORG ) y argumentaron que no deberían No pueden ser degradados sin un consenso afirmativo de que no pueden serlo. No veo ningún consenso sobre esa cuestión y, de todos modos, esta no sería la discusión adecuada para establecer uno allí, pero ciertamente plantea preguntas sobre la práctica existente y una discusión para aclarar esta cuestión puede ser útil.
Dudaré sobre si hubo consenso en que la discusión original debería haberse cerrado afirmativamente a favor de la opción 1, aunque creo que si necesitara encontrar un consenso específico sobre esa cuestión, la parte que lo argumenta probablemente debería haberlo hecho. él. La pregunta más urgente es la práctica de si se debería hacer una nota en RSP para degradar a The Telegraph en temas transgénero. Sobre esta cuestión, encuentro consenso en que la comunidad no articuló una objeción lo suficientemente sólida como para merecer ese resultado. Por lo tanto, existe consenso para revocar el cierre de S Marshall y restaurar el status quo anterior.
Como último punto a tratar, definitivamente no hay consenso en que S. Marshall estuviera involucrado en este tema tal como lo define la política. Sin embargo, como nota personal, comparto la opinión de varios otros editores de que S Marshall al menos parece tener una opinión más fuerte sobre The Telegraph de la que reconoce y que esto parece haber afectado significativamente su cierre. Esta es quizás una buena oportunidad para recordarles a todos que a veces tenemos opiniones sobre temas que no abordamos en Wikipedia, y que incluso cuando esas opiniones no son particularmente positivas o negativas, subjetivamente hablando, a veces siguen siendo específicas y firmes. lo suficiente como para obstaculizar nuestra capacidad de cerrar bien la discusión. Si puede expresar una opinión sobre el tema después de leer solo el mensaje, quizás debería votar. ( cierre no administrativo ) - Compassionate727  ( T · C ) 22:56, 6 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

La siguiente discusión está cerrada. Por favor no lo modifique. No se deben realizar más ediciones en esta discusión.

WP:RSN ( charla, |edición |, historial |, registros, |enlaces,| caché, |vigilancia ) ( cierre de RfC en cuestión ) ( Discusión con un experto )

Closer : S Marshall  ( charla  · contribuciones  · contribuciones eliminadas  · registros  · filtrar registro  · bloquear usuario  · bloquear registro)

Notificado : Charla de usuario: S Marshall#Revisión de cierre

Antecedentes : Hay dos objeciones distintas. Uno al cierre en su conjunto, y el otro al tercer párrafo. Presentamos ambos aquí y pedimos a los editores que digan si apoyan revocar todo el cierre, sólo el tercer párrafo o ninguno.

Razonamiento - Tercer párrafo : En general, estoy satisfecho con este cierre. Sin embargo, el vendedor afirma que Telgraph acepta descaradamente el ampliamente desacreditado engaño de las cajas de arena en las escuelas , lo cual es realmente engañoso. Esa parte del debate se centró en la afirmación no retractada del Telegraph de que un estudiante se identificó como un gato en cierta escuela (lo que se evidencia en un argumento viral en el que un estudiante menciona la parte del "estudiante gato" como un recurso retórico), lo cual debe ser mucho menos de lo que implica "el engaño de aceptar las cajas de arena en las escuelas"; De todos modos, el Telegraph ni siquiera le dio mucho peso a ese hecho.
Ahora, alguien ha citado esta parte del resumen final de la entrada WP:RSP del Telegraph , permitiendo así que esta parte engañosa inflija mucho más daño a aquellos que deseen utilizar RSP para un resumen rápido del consenso existente. Al menos me gustaría que se modificara al menos esta parte.

Como se ve en la página de discusión del vendedor, al menos otros 3 están mucho más insatisfechos, creyendo que el vendedor hizo afirmaciones falsas sobre otras tergiversaciones que se plantearon y evidenciaron. Consulte el comentario de BilledMammal para obtener detalles sobre este argumento. Mientras tanto, los comentaristas aquí tal vez quieran considerar la magnitud de los votantes a favor de la desaprobación que no quedaron convencidos por la falta de tergiversación fáctica. Al final, sin embargo, a mí personalmente sólo me preocupa eliminar o modificar el lenguaje engañoso que menciono en el primer párrafo. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 04:19, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Tenga en cuenta que por "primer párrafo" me refiero al lenguaje problemático que menciono en el primer párrafo de mi declaración, no al primer párrafo del cierre real. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 12:43, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Razonamiento: cierre en su conjunto : hay dos problemas con este cierre; cuanto más cerrador haya interpretado sustancialmente mal la discusión, más cerrador estará WP:INVOLVED .

La descarada aceptación por parte del Telegraph del ampliamente desacreditado engaño sobre las cajas de arena en las escuelas se analiza en profundidad. El artículo en disputa, aquí, es analizado exhaustivamente por la comunidad y, sobre la base de fuentes académicas y un informe de Ofsted, se señalan varias tergiversaciones contenidas en ese artículo. Se cuestiona si se trata realmente de "tergiversaciones" o confusiones entre hechos y opiniones. Hacia el final de esto, el campo "generalmente confiable" se reduce a una afirmación atrevida de que a las fuentes confiables se les permite cometer errores, lo que recibo como una concesión de que el artículo es engañoso. Y si el Telegraph ha publicado una corrección, es que los "generalmente fiables" no la han desenterrado.

Este párrafo citado, que es la única parte del cierre que se centra en los argumentos expuestos, está plagado de imprecisiones. Dicen que se advierten varias tergiversaciones contenidas en ese artículo , pero hasta donde yo sé sólo se alegaron dos tergiversaciones; que el Telegraph respaldó el engaño de las cajas de arena en las escuelas, y que el Telegraph afirmó falsamente que un estudiante se identificó como un gato .

El vendedor dice que estas acusaciones están probadas sobre la base de fuentes académicas y un informe de Ofsted , pero esto es incorrecto. Hasta donde puedo decir, no se presentaron artículos académicos en relación con estas acusaciones, y si bien se presentó el informe de la Ofsted, fue presentado por quienes argumentaron que era "generalmente confiable", quienes señalaron que no tomaba ninguna posición sobre si un estudiante realmente identificó como un gato.

También interpretan el consenso de la discusión sobre esto como que el Telegraph ha abrazado sin vergüenza el ampliamente desacreditado engaño de las cajas de arena en las escuelas . Esta no es una lectura razonable de la discusión; Los editores rechazaron esa afirmación basándose en que el Telegraph calificó explícitamente de engaño las afirmaciones sobre cajas de arena en las escuelas, y este contraargumento fue respaldado por la mayoría de los editores que comentaron sobre la afirmación.

Finalmente, dicen que hacia el final de esto, el campo "generalmente confiable" se reduce a una afirmación atrevida de que las fuentes confiables pueden cometer errores . Si bien algunos editores tanto del lado "generalmente confiable" como del "generalmente no confiable" dijeron que a las fuentes confiables se les permite cometer errores ocasionales, no parece que esta afirmación fuera especialmente común entre el campo "generalmente confiable", y para interpretar esta declaración significa que esos editores están reconociendo que este ejemplo específico es un error es leer algo en estos votos que no está allí.

Dado el número de errores fácticos cometidos en el resumen de la discusión realizado por el cerrador, está claro que es necesario revocarlo y volver a cerrarlo. Esto es particularmente cierto porque el cerrador es WP:INVOLVED , habiendo argumentado en una discusión previa en RSN sobre el Telegraph en relación con la política que, si bien lo consideraban confiable para ese subtema, emplea a personas con opiniones espantosas y aborrecibles . BilledMammal ( discusión ) 05:55, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Más cerca (Telégrafo)

Este es un cierre sin consenso, y hay dos enfoques posibles para lograrlo. El primero es el habitual en WP:AFD, donde sin consenso no hay cambio. La AFD pone la carga de lograr el consenso en el lado pro-cambio. Usuario:Seraphimblade , a continuación, ve claramente que la discusión pertenece a esta categoría.

El segundo es el habitual con las decisiones de contenido, en WP:ONUS. ONUS pone la carga de lograr el consenso en el lado contrario al cambio y autoriza la eliminación del material en disputa.

Para concluir, decidí que la comunidad no tiene una confianza generalizada en la cobertura del Daily Telegraph sobre cuestiones trans y, por lo tanto, no debería figurar como confiable en general. En otras palabras, decidí tratar esto más como una decisión de contenido regida por WP:ONUS ​​que como una decisión de procedimiento regida por el consenso de la AFD. Al hacer esto, eliminé la ventaja de ser el primero en actuar que el lado "generalmente confiable" esperaba y en el que creo confiaba. Lo que está en juego aquí es la pregunta: ¿tuve razón al hacer eso? Si cree que sí, pertenece a la columna "respaldar", y si cree que no, entonces pertenece a la columna "anular".

Es muy discutible y no me opondré si la comunidad me anula aquí en ese punto. Pero creo que tengo razón. Mi posición es que no deberíamos enumerar fuentes como confiables en general cuando la comunidad tiene dudas reales.

La afirmación de que estuve IMPLICADO es mucho menos discutible. INVOLUCRADO significa que no puedes cerrar una discusión en la que has votado y significa que no puedes cerrar una discusión sobre un artículo al que le has hecho ediciones no triviales. Y eso es todo lo que dice. Si se esfuerza INVOLUCRADO para permitir afirmaciones de que está INVOLUCRADO porque participó en un RFC relacionado tangencialmente en RSN al final del año hace un año en el otro lado del debate desde su cierre, entonces ha avanzado mucho. fuera de su forma original, ¿no?

Nosotros, como comunidad, debemos aclarar qué está IMPLICADO y qué no, porque he notado que casi cada vez que se realiza un cierre disputado alguien lo menciona.— S Marshall  T / C 07:25, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Creo que leíste mal INVOLUCRADO. No se trata de discusiones aisladas, sino de disputas en su conjunto, y usted ha estado involucrado en disputas relacionadas con la confiabilidad de The Telegraph y, dada la parte de su comentario que cité, es evidente que también tiene fuertes sentimientos al respecto. BilledMammal ( discusión ) 07:35, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
No, no tengo sentimientos fuertes hacia el Daily Telegraph. Emplea a personas con opiniones espantosas y aborrecibles, y ciertamente tengo mis puntos de vista y opiniones sobre algunas de esas personas, pero eso no es lo que está en juego aquí y el Daily Telegraph en su conjunto no es un tema que me interese.— S Marshall  T / C 07:41, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Eso no es lo que dice ONUS: no pone la carga sobre "el lado anti-cambio". Impone la carga a "aquellos que buscan incluir contenido en disputa". "Buscando incluir" significa quienes lo agregan. No dice "buscando incluir o retener". DeCausa ( discusión ) 13:23, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
La cuestión de política es donde dije esto: mi posición es que no deberíamos enumerar fuentes como generalmente confiables cuando la comunidad tiene dudas reales. - S Marshall  T / C 13:46, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
No tengo una opinión sobre eso. Sólo estaba señalando que has leído mal la ONUS. DeCausa ( discusión ) 15:51, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
La discusión sobre la reapertura del RfC por parte de Seraphimblade continúa en Wikipedia: Revisión de la acción administrativa # Anulación unilateral de un cierre de Seraphimblade . –  Joe  ( discusión ) 13:12, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

La siguiente discusión está cerrada. Por favor no lo modifique. No se deben realizar más ediciones en esta discusión.

S Marshall , no había visto los indicios de su participación en este cierre, pero incluso los ha mostrado aquí. WP:BADNAC establece como la primera razón de reversión para un mal cierre de no administrador: el no administrador ha demostrado un posible conflicto de intereses, o falta de imparcialidad, al haber expresado una opinión en la discusión o estar involucrado de otra manera, con la excepción de cerrar su propia nominación retirada como un mantenimiento rápido cuando todos los demás puntos de vista expresados ​​también debían mantenerse. Usted también ha expresado su opinión aquí y también lo ha hecho antes. Entonces les daré la opción de revertir su cierre, o lo haré, pero será revertido. Una discusión como esta debería ser cerrada por un cerrador imparcial , o quizás por un panel de ellos, pero usted ha demostrado que no es así. Si no revierte su cierre, lo haré. Seraphimblade Háblame 09:41, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Sería algo imprudente y profundamente controvertido. No estoy involucrado en este asunto. La cuestión es si el Daily Telegraph es confiable en sus declaraciones sobre cuestiones trans. Nunca he expresado una opinión al respecto. Históricamente expresé una opinión sobre la confiabilidad del Daily Telegraph en política. Dije que era fiable para eso y sigo considerando que el Daily Telegraph es fiable para la política. Esto no me involucra en su confiabilidad en otras cosas y usted no puede revertir unilateralmente el cierre de un RFC según su propio criterio. Ese no es uno de los poderes que la comunidad ha otorgado a los sysops.— S Marshall  T / C 09:50, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Ya sea revertirlo o no, obligar al cierre a hacerlo con un ultimátum no está bien. CNC ( discusión ) 10:20, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
De hecho, ese es uno de los poderes que la comunidad ha otorgado a los sysops. WP:NAC establece específicamente que los NAC no son apropiados en ninguna de las dos situaciones siguientes: El no administrador ha demostrado un posible conflicto de intereses o falta de imparcialidad al haber expresado una opinión en la discusión o estar involucrado de otra manera con el excepción de cerrar su propia nominación retirada como un mantenimiento rápido [a] cuando todos los demás puntos de vista expresados ​​también debían mantenerse. y El resultado es difícil (especialmente cuando hay varios resultados válidos) o es probable que sea controvertido. Podría decirse que este cierre falla a los dos, pero claramente falla al segundo. Además, establece: Según Wikipedia: Proceso de eliminación § Los no administradores cierran discusiones, [b] los cierres anticipados inapropiados de los debates de eliminación pueden ser reabiertos por un administrador no involucrado . Entonces, tengo la intención de reabrirlo. Para mayor claridad, no tengo intención de cerrarlo; Eso se lo dejaré a otros. No tengo un resultado preferido aquí, pero este cierre no fue apropiado. Seraphimblade Háblame 10:53, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
No harás eso sin contraataque. Esta no fue una decisión de eliminación, por lo que no puedes depender de las reglas sobre las decisiones de eliminación, y es evidente que yo no estoy involucrado. La política no es género.— S Marshall  T / C 10:56, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
No me imagino que lo haré sin que haya reacciones o que la gente me grite. Ya tengo la piel bastante dura. Pero sigo pensando que es necesario hacerlo. Seraphimblade Háblame 11:01, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
He reabierto la discusión. Como se indicó anteriormente, no tengo la intención de cerrarlo ni de ninguna manera involucrarme en la decisión sobre el resultado, pero ese resultado debe decidirse adecuadamente. Seraphimblade Háblame 11:09, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Anular el cierre podría ser prematuro. ¿Es normal provocar un cortocircuito de tal manera en una revisión de un RFC? No parece muy eficiente tener una gran discusión aquí si el resultado ya está decidido. – Novem Linguae ( discusión ) 11:20, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
( editar conflicto ) ¿También cree, según WP:NAC , que todos los cierres de RfC de S Marshall sobre temas controvertidos deberían revertirse? ¿Realmente quiere sentar el precedente de que todos los cierres controvertidos deben ser manejados por los administradores? ¿Crees que tenemos esa capacidad? Creo que éste es un ejercicio de juicio espectacularmente malo . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( discusión ) 11:23, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Entonces, ¿revocaste y volviste a incluirte como administrador involucrado en esta solicitud porque consideras que el cierre estaba involucrado? No puedo ser el único que ve la ironía en esto. CNC ( discusión ) 11:25, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Vi un supervoto/BADNAC aquí y lo anulé. Creo que eso es lo que se debería hacer. No estuve involucrado en la discusión; Me molestó lo claramente inaceptable que era. Ese cierre no resumió las opiniones de las discusiones, sino que expresó las opiniones del cerrador. Si eso no es un mal cierre, no sé qué lo será. Seraphimblade Háblame 11:30, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
¿Y por qué cree que su "molestia" supera las opiniones de otros editores que han expresado su apoyo a este cierre, o incluso aquellos que están de acuerdo en que debería revocarse, pero han decidido expresarlo a través de la discusión? Este fue un juicio muy pobre. –  Joe  ( discusión ) 11:33, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
BADNAC o no, su decisión se burla de este proceso de revisión del RfC. Usted expresó su opinión a continuación para revocar y está claramente involucrado en la disputa aquí, luego siguió adelante y supervotó el resultado. Estar molesto no es excusa para esto, es impactante. CNC ( discusión ) 11:39, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
@ Seraphimblade : restaure el proceso de cierre y seguimiento aquí. voorts ( charla / contribuciones ) 12:11, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Jesucristo, que soberbia. Está bien, que alguien cierre esta revisión cercana, aunque la AN ciertamente no ha visto lo último de esto.— S Marshall  T / C 11:35, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Estoy atónito, Seraphimblade . No sólo elegiste ignorar a todos los editores que te decían que era una mala idea y lo hiciste de todos modos, sino que ahora estás editando una guerra por ello. ¿Cree que así se deben llevar a cabo las decisiones contenciosas? –  Joe  ( discusión ) 11:44, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
La revisión cercana no debe cerrarse. Seraphimblade debería hacer lo correcto o iniciar una nueva discusión aquí sobre el vuelco de Unilaterak. voorts ( charla / contribuciones ) 12:14, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
La discusión anterior está cerrada. Por favor no lo modifique. No se deben realizar más ediciones en esta discusión.

No participantes (Telegraph)

El cerrador no reconoció la importancia de depreciar el valor de los votos de los editores que no se basaran en ninguna evidencia discutida en el RfC, además de las otras cuestiones planteadas anteriormente y por otros editores. Espero que el próximo cierre sea más justo. Jo e J Sh mo 💌 06:26, 10 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
La declaración de nominación de Loki fue analizada exhaustivamente por la comunidad en aquel RFC. Gozó de un apoyo significativo y recibió una oposición significativa y, en general, no hubo consenso sobre su exactitud. La pregunta en cuestión en ese RFC fue: ¿Dónde el sesgo se convierte en falta de confiabilidad? La comunidad no está de acuerdo con la respuesta, pero ciertamente no hay consenso en que el Telegraph sea confiable en general sobre las personas trans.
No dije ni creo que todos los argumentos de Loki fueran irrefutables. Creo que está demostrado que el informe del Telegraph sobre el engaño de las cajas de arena en las escuelas fue extremadamente incendiario, que publicó el informe utilizando un discurso indirecto pero por lo demás acrítico, y que no publicó una corrección.— S Marshall  T / C 07 :06, 11 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Esta no es simplemente una lectura razonable y basada en políticas del RFC. La cuestión en cuestión no era ¿dónde el sesgo se convierte en falta de fiabilidad ? El sesgo no se convierte en falta de confiabilidad. Se puede ser parcial sin ser poco fiable y viceversa. La pregunta era "¿Cuál es la fiabilidad del Telegraph en cuestiones trans?". Ser inflamatorio no es evidencia de falta de confiabilidad. No publicar una corrección no es evidencia de falta de confiabilidad si no se puede demostrar que el artículo publicó una falsedad.
La declaración de nominación gozó de un apoyo significativo y recibió una oposición significativa y, en general, no hubo consenso sobre su exactitud. ¿Es esto más conteo de votos? ¿Dónde has sopesado los argumentos? Samuelshraga ( discusión ) 07:41, 11 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
...y ahora estamos llegando a alguna parte. No es necesario que te pillen en una mentira para engañar. Esos espantosos carteles de recaudación de fondos que la Fundación Wikimedia muestra en nuestro sitio son un muy buen ejemplo de esto: engañar sin mentir realmente. Esta práctica de engañar a la gente diciendo la verdad absoluta, de una manera increíblemente selectiva, se llama paltering y es ampliamente utilizada por especialistas en marketing, políticos, abogados, grupos de presión y, al menos aquí en el Reino Unido, en los periódicos. Y si pudiera leer lo que dijo el bando "poco confiable" sin entenderlo, entonces le sugeriría amablemente que tenga la oportunidad de releer el debate con más atención.
Los "poco fiables" no tenían por qué sorprender al Daily Telegraph en una mentira. Simplemente tenían que sorprenderlos diciendo la verdad de manera tan selectiva que el sesgo se convirtiera en un verdadero engaño.
No tenían que demostrar que el Daily Telegraph tiene la intención de engañar. El engaño puede ser involuntario, particularmente cuando lo hacen los editores que verifican los hechos en lugar de verificar el equilibrio. Sabemos todo esto por las disputas sobre el contenido de Wikipedia: es posible engañar de buena fe.
Todo lo que tuvo que hacer el bando "poco confiable" fue convencer a los wikipedistas (1) de que es posible dejarse engañar por la cobertura del Telegraph y (2) esto sucede con suficiente frecuencia como para afectar la confiabilidad del Daily Telegraph sobre las personas trans.
En mi opinión, fracasaron. No lograron un consenso sobre que el Daily Telegraph no sea confiable.
Luego tuve que decidir qué hacer en ausencia de un consenso.— S Marshall  T / C 08:57, 11 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Es fascinante si esta fue la base de su decisión, dado que no parece haber mencionado esto ni en su cierre original ni ampliado.
Si lo hubiera mencionado, sin duda habría dado una excelente explicación de cómo cuando los editores refutaron las acusaciones de "engañoso" con una defensa de la exactitud de los hechos (por ejemplo, aquí), no entendían el punto. Y señaló a los participantes que en realidad dijeron que ser preciso pero engañoso era la base de su caso a favor de GUNREL.
Y cuando se argumentó que el listón de confiabilidad debería basarse en qué afirmaciones falsas/engañosas podrían citarse en los artículos en lugar de implicaciones engañosas e incitables (primera oración aquí y últimos 2 párrafos aquí ), habría explicado qué contraargumentos encontró. hasta este punto y cómo los ponderó, para llegar a un resultado de No Consenso.
También observo que esta es la tercera explicación separada que te veo dar sobre tu cierre. Todavía no contiene una ponderación de argumentos, pero les concedo que es menos atroz que los dos anteriores. Espero con ansias el próximo. Samuelshraga ( discusión ) 10:46, 11 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Claramente nunca voy a convencerte, pero tengo una oportunidad de convencer a tu audiencia, así que me ocuparé de eso también.
Se me permite explicar a mi persona cercana de diferentes maneras, porque a usted se le permite gastar miles de palabras atacándola de diferentes maneras.
No me corresponde a mí decidir qué contraargumentos son persuasivos. Ese no es el papel del cerrador.
El RFC no es un buzón de sugerencias para el cerrador. Es una inmersión exhaustiva en lo que piensa la comunidad.
No decido quién tenía razón. Yo decido lo que la comunidad en su conjunto piensa sobre el tema.
Creo que la comunidad en su conjunto "no tiene consenso" sobre la confiabilidad del Daily Telegraph en temas trans.
Y creo que RSP debería decirlo.
Y si hubiera ponderado los argumentos de la manera que desea, realmente habría estado supervotando.— S Marshall  T / C 11:42, 11 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Si hubiera pensado que habías sopesado los argumentos de una manera que no me gusta, si hubiera pensado que habías sopesado los argumentos en absoluto, entonces simplemente me habría quejado mentalmente de Wikipedia y no habría acudido a un gran foro central como este.
Las personas en este tablón de anuncios parecen tener mucho respeto por su trayectoria como cerrador, incluso si piensan que no dio en el blanco. Como alguien nuevo en estas discusiones, no veo mucho que respetar en este cierre. De hecho, no veo mucha evidencia de que le hayas dado al RfC más que un vistazo superficial. No fui una de las personas que invirtió mucho tiempo en los argumentos en el RfC, pero si lo fuera, estaría bastante furioso de que alguien viniera y contara claramente los votos sin hacer referencia a argumentos o políticas. Si encuentro que su futuro se cierra, me esforzaré por mantener la mente abierta, en deferencia a las personas que parecen valorar sus contribuciones en general, aunque no en este caso. Samuelshraga ( discusión ) 13:06, 11 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
"Incluso si el cierre de S Marshall fue defectuoso, realmente no quiero pasar por toda la canción y el baile del recierre con lo que casi con seguridad será el mismo resultado", afirmó de manera más detallada. A veces siento que el modelo de consenso tiende a gobernar por gente de la CAVE . Mach61 13:05, 11 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Todo lo mejor: Rich Farmbrough 00:43, 13 de julio de 2024 (UTC).[ responder ]

Participantes (Telégrafo)

Soporte de cierre general debido a lo que no es Anulación....necesita otra mirada según mi publicación más abajo. Amigos, veamos cuál es el resultado estructural del cierre general, que creo que mucha gente ha pasado por alto. "No hay consenso sobre cuestiones trans" y "en general, es confiable sobre cuestiones no trans". No veo gente defendiendo un cierre distinto a este. La declaración del "abrazo de la historia del gato" no debería estar ahí, pero eso realmente no cambia nada. Y probablemente necesite un resumen más corto y directo como el que acabo de dar. Si fuera un administrador, SMarshall estaría entre el 5% superior de administradores en cuanto a conocimiento y experiencia para cerrar este tipo de cosas, por lo que NAC no es un problema, excepto tal vez por la óptica del mismo. North8000 ( discusión ) 18:49, 10 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Argumentar que el cierre está bien porque, si bien tergiversa la discusión, te da la respuesta que deseas es... refrescantemente directo, aunque lamentablemente no es único aquí. Si no puede ver personas discutiendo por un cierre distinto a este , puede leer este comentario arriba. Sin mencionar muchos de los otros comentarios que apoyan la revocación. ¿No somos personas? ¿O simplemente no puedes vernos? Samuelshraga ( discusión ) 19:05, 10 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Te animo a que revises los problemas que muchos tenemos con este cierre. De manera similar a cómo una RfA que (cambios anteriores a la RfA) tuvo un apoyo inicial significativo pero luego fue seguida por una "bomba" que provocó un cambio de rumbo, esta discusión se inició basándose en representaciones inexactas de la fuente, que Asumiré que no era la intención de Loki . Esto no se mencionó de inmediato y mucha gente votó mientras continuaba la discusión de los reclamos iniciales. Pero surgió un claro consenso en que las afirmaciones iniciales de desinformación eran, para decirlo sin rodeos, erróneas. Afirmaron que el Telegraph dijo con su propia voz cosas que ellos no dijeron, afirmaron que el Telegraph no se retractó de lo que otras personas habían dicho y simplemente informó sobre ello. Y esa refutación fue ampliamente aceptada por una clara mayoría de editores que publicaron comentarios sustanciales una vez finalizada.
Es por eso que la gente cree que hubo un consenso aquí, después de considerar adecuadamente cómo ponderar los votos que se basaron en la información inicial inexacta, y/o únicamente en su opinión personal, ya sea que les guste la fuente o no, o si la fuente es “sesgada” o no. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( Usuario / ¡saluda! ) 20:16, 10 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
@ Samuelshraga : @ Berchanhimez : Me encantaría profundizar en esto y volver a visitarlo, pero me gustaría tener claridad sobre lo que creo que está diciendo y que debería haber sido el cierre correcto. ¿Es que hubo (simplemente) consenso en que son una fuente generalmente confiable? (sin la redacción separada para cuestiones trans) Atentamente, North8000 ( discusión ) 20:47, 10 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Mi interpretación personal, que acepto que no está necesariamente en línea con lo que otros puedan leer, es que sí: aquellos que votaron por la opción 3/4, y muchos (pero no necesariamente la mayoría) por la opción 2, no se preocuparon por la veracidad de los reclamos en la presentación inicial de Loki, y los tomó al pie de la letra. Muy pocos de ese grupo en su conjunto proporcionaron argumentos claros de por qué la refutación de Chess y otros debería descartarse, y muchos de ellos admitieron que sus argumentos se desmoronaron una vez que las refutaciones comenzaron a llegar. Además, el “cambio de rumbo” hacia un número significativamente mayor de votos para la opción 1, y un número significativamente mayor (si no todos) de votos para la opción 3/4 basado únicamente en prejuicios o mentiras descaradas, creo que todo esto se une para conducir a un consenso de que la fuente es, según nuestras propias políticas, parcial pero generalmente confiable , incluso en el tema de las cuestiones transgénero. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( Usuario / ¡saluda! ) 20:52, 10 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Uf, enlace incorrecto, se supone que va a la página sobre el sesgo de una fuente que generalmente no afecta su confiabilidad, pero sí el móvil. Espero que sepas de dónde estoy hablando, lo arreglaré más tarde cuando esté en casa. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( Usuario / ¡saluda! ) 20:54, 10 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
@ North8000 , probablemente soy uno de los editores con menos experiencia aquí. No vine porque sintiera que habría sido competente para cerrarme (si no hubiera estado involucrado), sino porque el cierre que logramos fue claramente defectuoso. Dicho esto, estoy de acuerdo con la interpretación que hace Berchanhimez de la discusión. Samuelshraga ( discusión ) 21:13, 10 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Entonces, la diferencia entre sus pensamientos y el cierre que yo apoyé es que el cierre dijo que no había consenso sobre temas trans y su pensamiento fue que el resultado fue que son confiables en temas trans. (Por cierto, mi opinión expresada en el RFC fue que debería ser el número 1 y que el número 2 también estaría bien). Eché un vistazo más de cerca. En mi opinión, hubo una pluralidad para el n.° 1 entre el n.° 1 y el n.° 3 que roza el consenso y si se incluyen los sentimientos del n.° 2 con respecto a la idoneidad para su uso en cuestiones trans (una especie de "suficientemente confiable"), entonces habría un consenso claro para los confirmados. usabilidad ("generalmente confiable") en temas trans. Así que ahora creo que esto debería echarle un segundo vistazo. North8000 ( discusión ) 21:32, 10 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Sí, ese también fue mi “conteo aproximado” (recordando que no es un conteo de votos). Combine esa pluralidad aproximada de “confiable pero sesgado” con el hecho de que los principales argumentos a favor de la falta de confiabilidad fueron cuestionados y refutados y muchos editores estuvieron de acuerdo con la refutación, realmente no hay camino hacia la “falta de consenso” aquí. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( Usuario / ¡saluda! ) 23:53, 10 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
El análisis que me hizo cambiar mi posición es el siguiente: Los resultados operativos con respecto a cuestiones trans fueron en esencia: 1. Prohibir el uso en cuestiones trans (opciones RFC # 3 y 4) 2. (opciones RFC # 1 y 2 ) No prohibir el uso en temas trans. Según este análisis (si los argumentos siguen aproximadamente el recuento de personas), "no prohibir" fue abrumadoramente favorecido por un factor de 1,73 a 1.
No, esas no eran las opciones. Había cuatro opciones, tres si se excluyen cuatro por ser esencialmente imposibles de implementar. 1! = 2! = 3, y no se debe suponer que las personas que votaron por 2 apoyan a 1. De hecho, muchas de esas personas dijeron explícitamente que votaron por 2 porque no apoyaban a 1. Loki ( discusión ) 17:26, 11 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Discusión (Telégrafo)

Primero podemos determinar si tenemos un cierre válido y, en caso contrario, lo desocupamos y alguien más puede cerrar sopesando los argumentos. Quizás ellos también lleguen a la conclusión de que "no hay consenso". Entonces estará maduro el debate sobre qué significa exactamente eso . Samuelshraga ( discusión ) 18:55, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
No es necesario debatir lo que significa un cierre sin consenso: se define explícitamente en WP:RSP (eso no tendría sentido si la falta de consenso fuera solo entre las opciones 3 y 4, pero es indiscutible que no es relevante para esta discusión). . Thryduulf ( discusión ) 19:03, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Maravilloso. Dije muy claramente que no creo que debamos tener esa discusión ahora, y la primera cuestión que nos ocupa es si el cierre en sí, es decir, la sentencia de "no hay consenso" y el razonamiento dado (o no dado) al respecto debería mantenerse. . Después podemos discutir, o no discutir, si son necesarias o no más discusiones sobre cualquier tema que se vuelva pertinente. Samuelshraga ( discusión ) 19:06, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Solicité claridad a continuación debido al argumento popular de "sin consenso = sin cambio". Parece bastante claro que es necesario llevar a cabo un debate basado en el apoyo a esta propuesta. CNC ( discusión ) 19:10, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
@ CommunityNotesContributor Lo entiendo. Sin embargo, creo que se han planteado puntos relevantes no relacionados con el debate "sin consenso = sin cambio" y que ponen en duda la validez de la conclusión misma de "no consenso". Me parece que esto es una discusión lógicamente previa que potencialmente podría hacer que la discusión "sin consenso = sin cambio" sea discutible. Samuelshraga ( discusión ) 19:14, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Por supuesto, y en todo caso, se pretende sacar estos argumentos de esta discusión y, en cambio, aclararlos a continuación. Incluso con el RfC revocado, mientras tanto, hay una discusión válida sobre si este RfC debería estar exento del status quo del RSP, o si es necesario haber una discusión más exhaustiva sobre la revisión de cómo el RSP enumera las fuentes. Dado que esta discusión ya surgió, no veo ninguna razón por la que no vuelva a surgir con respecto a otro cierre de NC. CNC ( discusión ) 19:22, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Verdadero. Simplemente no quiero que la discusión sobre este cierre - especialmente los argumentos sobre su fracaso básico en sopesar de alguna manera los argumentos de la discusión - se pierda en la discusión de procedimiento sobre qué hacer si se mantiene el cierre del NC. Por supuesto, eso es más complicado porque algunas personas ahora han apoyado Overturn haciendo referencia a las posiciones de los cerradores sobre cuál es el resultado de NC... y de todos modos ahora estamos en una discusión sobre discusiones sobre discusiones.
Es de esperar que las personas que asistan a esta revisión den la importancia adecuada a quienes señalan que el cierre es un supervoto, que no pondera los argumentos, que cuenta los votos y otras fallas, a pesar de que cada vez más la discusión gira en torno a el problema "NC = cambio o no cambio". Samuelshraga ( discusión ) 19:31, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Muchos de los comentarios aquí parecen implicar que revocar parcialmente modificando el lenguaje no es una opción. ¿Podemos al menos obtener un consenso para modificar el texto que menciono? Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 21:06, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

No me opongo a eliminar el texto que desea modificar. Simplemente creo que esto es muy secundario frente a un problema mucho más grave. No hay ningún argumento aquí de que el cierre influyera de alguna manera en los lados de la discusión. Algunas personas que respaldaron el cierre han afirmado que fue razonado, pero no han dado más detalles sobre sus razones. Samuelshraga ( discusión ) 05:19, 10 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Estaba hablando de muchos de los votos de respaldo. Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 15:47, 10 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Personalmente, creo que como mínimo la eliminación de "y puntos de vista críticos de género" de la nota; de lo contrario, ¿qué sentido tiene tener una discusión por tema si un cerrador puede ampliarla unilateralmente?
Por ejemplo, esta es una historia en The Telegraph sobre una trabajadora social que ganó un tribunal laboral por sus opiniones críticas sobre el género. No parece haber exageración ni inexactitud. Tampoco menciona en absoluto la palabra "trans". Es enteramente una historia sobre la protección legal de esas opiniones y los actos discriminatorios del consejo y el organismo regulador. Se trata de un caso jurídico notable (es decir, la primera vez que se determina que un organismo regulador ha cometido discriminación ilegal) y, como tal, no se le ha dado demasiada importancia.
Tal como está escrito, esto entraría dentro del ámbito de esta nota, porque la nota se ha ampliado más allá de todo lo discutido en el RFC. ¿Por qué? Nulo si se elimina ( discusión ) 08:29, 12 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Sin comentar si debería incluirse en el cierre, una sola historia precisa (suponiendo que lo sea, no la he buscado) no es en absoluto incompatible con un hallazgo de MREL o incluso de GUNREL. Ninguna de las categorías dice que todas las historias (en el área temática relevante) sean inexactas; diablos, incluso el Daily Mail hace las cosas bien a veces. En el nivel más básico, GUNREL significa que generalmente no son confiables, MREL significa que a veces no son confiables; con la suficiente frecuencia como para que no sean confiables en general, pero no con la suficiente frecuencia como para que en general no sean confiables. De la misma manera, generalmente confiable no significa infalible. Thryduulf ( charla ) 08:48, 12 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
La cuestión es que esta es una historia que no es una "cuestión trans", es una cuestión de "visiones críticas de género". El RFC era "poco confiable en cuestiones trans". Si la gente quería que esto fuera parte del RFC, debería haber sido parte del RFC. Agregarlo al final sin que se plantee en el RFC y sin discusión es un WP:SUPERVOTE . Nulo si se elimina ( discusión ) 09:31, 12 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Eso es una tontería, Crítica de género , o su término original no blanqueado TERF , que incluso lo tiene en el nombre, es una cuestión trans y, ya sea que se mencione específicamente o no, está implícitamente cubierta bajo el tema.
No hay ningún cambio en el alcance, por lo que la acusación de un supervoto por esto es arbitraria, pero simplemente se asume WP:COMPETENCY sobre un subtema obviamente vinculado que el cerrador simplemente decidió mencionar. Raladic ( charla ) 15:45, 12 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Y todo eso, por supuesto, es ampliamente discutido (incluido el comentario sobre "blanqueado") y nada de esto se discutió en el RFC, y su encuadre de los problemas en este punto de vista en particular ejemplifica el problema de cerrar de esta manera. (" gritar "? ¿Ese es el papel del cerrador?).
Para dejar esto claro, considere un RFC hipotético presentado afirmando que "Pink News no es confiable en términos de opiniones críticas de género", que actúa como un espejo opuesto al de Telegraph.
Es decir, cuando se afirma que el Telegraph presenta cuestiones trans de una manera sesgada y engañosa, y se centra demasiado en las personas trans desde una perspectiva negativa, inflando las no historias hasta convertirlas en un cebo de rabia sin aliento, se hace la afirmación inversa de que Pink News se comporta de la misma manera con las personas. con "visiones críticas de género". Digamos que todos los argumentos se desarrollan exactamente igual, en las mismas proporciones y un cerrador decide que es un resultado sin consenso.
¿Cree que sería defendible decir que, por tanto, la fiabilidad de Pink News fue cuestionada por "opiniones críticas de género y cuestiones trans"?
Estos son temas distintos con cierta superposición y con una gran cantidad de conflicto donde se encuentran e incluso qué significan los términos , pero aquí el punto de vista del cerrador ha ampliado el alcance del cierre más allá de la pregunta que se hizo. Nulo si se elimina ( discusión ) 15:54, 12 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Simplemente no, existe consenso en Wikipedia (y como tal en el mundo en general, ya que simplemente resumimos la RS) de que las opiniones críticas de género son un subtema de las cuestiones transgénero, como queda muy claro en el capítulo de Criticas de género , por lo que simplemente hay No hay salto aquí.
Tampoco hay ninguna grieta sobre el blanqueo; nuevamente, discutimos esto en Feminismo crítico de género#Terminología , así que simplemente reiteré el consenso en Wikipedia sobre el tema.
Molestar palabras que se incluyeron en el cierre no cambia el hecho. Raladic ( discusión ) 16:00, 12 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Pero WP:NOTSOURCE entonces, no. Y dado que estos son exactamente los argumentos de los que el cerrador ha supuesto la conclusión, sin base en ninguna evidencia, y las muchas, muchas discusiones prolongadas sobre las conversaciones allí, sería mucho más sencillo no haber ampliado innecesariamente el cierre para incluir este punto de vista completamente no discutido. sin una buena razón. Nulo si se elimina ( discusión ) 16:21, 12 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Creo que esto es mucho menos dañino que "la aceptación descarada del ampliamente desacreditado engaño de las cajas de arena en las escuelas ". Aaron Liu ( discusión ) 15:34, 12 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Solicitud de claridad

Parte 1

Para aquellos de ustedes que dicen "anular", ¿anular a qué? Por favor sea más claro. Sería útil distinguir entre:

  1. Volcar hacia un consenso. Por favor especifique qué consenso ve.
  2. Revocar sin consenso, por defecto sin cambios. Esto significa que cree que WP:RSP debería seguir diciendo "generalmente confiable".
  3. Anular sin consenso, por defecto con un cambio, pero no el cambio que especifiqué en mi cierre.
  4. Revocar sin consenso, optando por el cambio que especifiqué en mi cierre, pero cambiando el resumen de la discusión.
  5. Anular revirtiendo el cierre, dejando que otra persona cierre sin orientación de la comunidad sobre cómo hacerlo.

Gracias.— S Marshall  T / C 15:17, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

No he leído lo suficiente sobre las políticas relevantes para tener una opinión sobre las preguntas de Wikipedia: ONUS detrás de la opción 2-3. Mi simpatía es para 1, ya que creo que la elección de Wikipedia:GREL obtuvo el mejor lado del argumento una vez que @ Chess intervino, y vi que muchos otros editores pensaban lo mismo, pero no tengo suficiente experiencia en esto para intentar hacerlo. juzgar un consenso yo mismo. Entonces, por defecto, iré a la Opción 5 , porque, como he argumentado aquí, la única razón que usted dio (y solo la dio en su cierre ampliado) para dar peso a la opinión de que el Telegraph no era confiable fue que esta opinión está fuertemente cuestionada. en números significativos , pero usted me dijo en su página de discusión que el punto no es contar votos, y no lo hice, sino sopesar los argumentos, lo cual hice . No hay evidencia de que se hayan ponderado los argumentos, y el cierre no fue ni remotamente una lectura razonable de la discusión, por lo que, en mi opinión, no es necesario abordar las cuestiones de política en las que se basó para implementar su resultado. Samuelshraga ( discusión ) 15:29, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Anular para permitir que alguien que realmente tiene la intención de abordar los problemas con su cercano vuelva a cerrar la discusión con el consenso (o la falta del mismo) que encuentre después de hacerlo. Si un cerrador realmente pondera adecuadamente los argumentos y explica cómo su cierre tiene en cuenta que, aparte de los votantes de "es parcial" y "no me gusta", la mayoría estuvo sólidamente influenciada por las refutaciones de la discusión inicial, entonces ese cierre será suficiente. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( Usuario / ¡saluda! ) 15:53, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Aparte de los votantes de “es parcial” y “no me gusta”, la mayoría quedó sólidamente influenciada por las refutaciones de la discusión inicial. Creo que debes estar leyendo una discusión diferente para mí. Mucha gente se dejó llevar, en mayor o menor medida, por algunas o todas las refutaciones. Mucha gente no lo era. Incluso si se descartan todos los comentarios "es parcial" (muchos de los cuales en realidad eran más complejos que eso y acompañaron votos de todas las opciones), decir que "una mayoría estaba sólidamente influenciada" es una simplificación excesiva y engañosa. Thryduulf ( charla ) 16:12, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Cuando las refutaciones se basaron en el texto real y nadie fue capaz de presentar una refutación clara y consciente de la refutación, sí importa. Cualquiera que vote basándose en "No estoy de acuerdo con la refutación, aunque se trata de hechos en inglés y proporciona el texto exacto del artículo para respaldarlo, pero no puedo decir por qué no estoy de acuerdo" debería perder peso en esa opinión en consecuencia. De lo contrario, aquellos que comentan al principio de una discusión no tienen absolutamente ninguna razón para continuar en la discusión para formar un consenso, ya que su opinión, no importa cuán equivocada se demuestre, seguirá contando.
Si se demuestra que alguien basó su opinión en información inexacta/engañosa, como lo hicieron muchas personas que comentaron antes y después de la refutación, y se niega a aclarar/actualizar para explicar su opinión a la luz de nueva información, su opinión debe ponderarse en consecuencia. . Y eso es lo que sucedió aquí, con la gente - incluido el propio vendedor - suscribiendo una absoluta falsedad de que el Telegraph dijo algo que no dijeron, y nadie pudo proporcionar pruebas de que lo hicieran. Si a la gente se le permite “ganar” discusiones mintiendo descaradamente y sin proporcionar pruebas sólo porque suficientes personas están de acuerdo con esa mentira para promover sus objetivos políticos, entonces esto ya no es una enciclopedia, sino una máquina de propaganda.
El nuevo cierre debe tener en cuenta el hecho de que muchos (para usar su palabra preferida) votos a favor de la falta de confiabilidad se basaron en falsedades, que muchos más se basaron en que no les gustaba y que muchos más se basaron únicamente en prejuicios en combinación con estas otras cosas. Y esto se aplica a ambas partes, pero el bando poco confiable obtuvo muchos más votos que, en el mejor de los casos, fueron inexactos. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( Usuario / ¡saluda! ) 19:08, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Option 3/4 The result of no consensus can't be ignored by RSP as the status quo of RSP is to categorise sources (or topics by sources) with the relevant consensus established or lack of. The Telegraph can't be used as an example of "there was no consensus so there is no change", as this would have broader implications on other sources listed at RSP; Fox News and HuffPost (politics) come to mind as examples of GREL turned NC, but I imagine there are many others that were GREL by default prior to NC. It's unclear whether editors believe we should be making an exception for The Telegraph, or whether the proposal is to re-format how RSP categorises source discussions. If it's the latter, this requires a broader RfC on how RSP categorises sources and has little to do with this RfC. CNC (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this section was opened as a way of disambiguating the intentions of people who support Overturn, I think it's a little unhelpful to have people who endorse the close choosing options as well (not that I think your arguments are unwelcome at all - I already said that I don't as yet feel confident or experienced to get involved on this issue and what you write seems cogent, even if it prejudges the idea that "No consensus" close will be retained). Samuelshraga (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point and had overlooked that, apologies. I've struck my comment and encourage anyone to collapse this discussion. CNC (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral to Option 4 and would oppose everything else. I think the conclusion was the only reasonable reading of the discussion, and closing to any consensus (including, by the way RSP works, WP:GREL) would be inappropriate. I'm not particularly attached to the summary though, and honestly do think that the exact phrasing was stronger than was reflected in the discussion. Loki (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LokiTheLiar, this section was to disambiguate the intentions of people who support Overturn, it could be a bit misleading to include the opinions of people who endorse the close. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. The default in a case of no-consensus is to maintain the previous status quo. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, see comment above re status quo of RfC closures regarding source reliability. Are you suggesting that it should be, and should it be enacted retrospectively as well? This isn't the right venue for that proposal, but I'd appreciate clarity from the "no consensus means no change" crowd as to what they are proposing, so we can draft up an RfC for it and move forward. CNC (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For WP:RSP that is not true. Look at the page; it has an entire category for sources on which there is no consensus, and sources are described as lacking consensus repeatedly throughout the table. Its purpose is to document the current consensus of the community (or lack thereof); it doesn't have the same need for stability or the need to reach a hard decision on some version that applies to article-space. We can't realistically leave an article in no-consensus state, but for RSP we can and frequently do. --Aquillion (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since my preferred option isn't there, my ideal would be overturning the close for a re-evaluation, with no assumption that anyone who didn't assert that the specific examples of alleged reliability presented was conceding the unreliability of those specific examples. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's 5? Samuelshraga (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think so since I'm not suggesting no guidance, but no guidance with the direction of making sure not to make what I personally feel was a particular previous error in determining consensus. I think a closer needs to approach the arguments about reliability more than the feelings about reliability, which I believe (again, my personal opinion) is more in line with establishing consensus and decreasing the chances that this becomes a whole new dreary casus belli in what is already a controversial area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 as per my statement above. I think you got the result right, but the reasoning (especially introducing ONUS) is wrong. Also to note I reject the premise behind Option 2. The RSP (and so RSN) does have a way of indicating that editors don't agree on the reliability of a source (MREL), so I also don't agree with editors that no consensus means no change. The RSP is not article content, and this wasn't an RFC on how to update the RSP. The RFC was on the reliability of the source, on which there isn't agreement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The closer requirements involve being compatible with policies and guidelines. WP:RSP is neither so no arguer or new closer would have any obligation to be compatible with its idiosyncracies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm certainly refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.—S Marshall T/C 17:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What polices and guidelines is RSP not compatible with? Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to overturn a ton of our existing consensus and system, you may open that as a separate proposal. For now, let's please operate within the status quo. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I've caused a misunderstanding, see reply to Thryduulf below. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You explicitly claim that RSP is not compatible with policies and guidelines. It is not irrelevant to ask you to substantiate that claim by listing which policies and guidelines it is not compatible with (and ideally explaining why). Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I belatedly see where you got that idea and it's my fault. After the sentence "The closer requirements involve being compatible with policies and guidelines." I said "WP:RSP is neither ..." i.e. "WP:RSP is neither a policy nor a guideline ...". You seem to have taken it as "WP:RSP is neither compatible with policies nor with guidelines ..." So I should have written more carefully. Anyway, it's true that WP:RSP is neither a policy nor a guideline and your question doesn't relate to that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to explain how you think RSP should be changed in discussion below. CNC (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I've caused a misunderstanding, see reply to Thryduulf above. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policies and guidelines aren't the only kind of consensus out there. RSP's consensus is not overridden by any broader consensus, thus it stands. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what that's arguing for, it remains true that no arguer or new closer would have any obligation to be compatible with its idiosyncracies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word you're looking for with "idiosyncrasies" is "consensus". Aaron Liu (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The next closer does not have a great big problem, because presumably they will actually evaluate and weight the discussion appropriately, rather than taking the initial commenter’s claims at face value, ignoring the amount of support for the refutation of those claims, and in fact repeating those inaccurate claims as part of the close.
I respect you a lot S_Marshall, I really do, and your closes tend to be quite well crafted and explain your decision making very well. This one missed the mark woefully, however, as seems to be clear looking at the consensus forming above that your close was not appropriate. I don’t want you to think that I’m trying to say you intentionally supervoted here - but the fact is you seem to be unable to accept that your close amounted to a supervote, and you, to use your words, “unashamedly embraced” the initial, refuted claims, the refutation of which was agreed to in large part by most editors providing substantive comment after it. You also basically begged it to be taken here - I’m not sure if you did that because you felt confident that your close was not a supervote (when it was), or whether you just didn’t want to deal with it. But you were given the chance to expand on your claims in your close - and you instead posted basically the same closing statement with only a couple additions that did nothing to address the significant plurality (if not majority) of editors who directly discounted the claims you took as fact in your closure. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. I believe S_Marshall almost always does a terrific job, and is extremely valuable to the movement. I disagree with the close, for a similar reason you do, but I really hope it's not taken as a personal attack, but as a polite disagreement on something that is important to get right. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user has struck his overturn !vote.—S Marshall T/C 07:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The crack about how many words have been spilt on this is disingenuous - it's not the fault of the Overturn supporters that S Marshall misrepresented the discussion so blatantly, any more than it is the fault of Chess and others at the RfC that there were so many false representations of the cited evidence in the RfC's proposal. There are a lot of bad arguments to dissect, it takes a fair number of words to do it. Personally, I'd blame the editors who clearly are here to right great wrongs by downgrading sources that disfavour their POV. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely true that someone is making blatant misrepresentations to right a great wrong, although we differ about who it is.—S Marshall T/C 23:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case you thought I was saying you are here to WP:RGW, let me clarify that I don't make that accusation. I do think that of various Endorse and Option 3 supports here and at the RfC, based entirely on the content of their contributions (happy to bring specific examples if anyone demands them). My criticisms of your close have nothing to do with your motivations, I won't rehash those criticisms here, I think they speak for themselves.
But you're welcome to think whatever you wish about why I'm here. If you've written me off as acting in bad faith, that might explain why I find your responses to my criticisms so unsatisfying. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2

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

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

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

An unrelated, modest proposal

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

Agree . Because based on your threshold, it will always be contested. CNC (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before some offsite brane-geniouse[sick] [sic] adds to the red-string corkboard that this is some kind of veiled attempt at shady political ministration, I already commented in the RfC, and furthermore I do not particularly give a rat's what parliamentary hocus-pocus ends up happening here (or at XRV), it's just taxing to see one person try and sit down to close a Tolstoy-length RfC, immediately get massively BTFO at AN over the close, and then all their effort is wasted when a separate group of people sit down to write a panel close. jp×g🗯️ 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This now sound like some kind of veiled attempt at shady political ministration. CNC (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back in 2006 the phrase "muhahahahahahaha" was considered extremely random and funny, and I think we should have a revival. jp×g🗯️ 21:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about absolutely requiring a panel close, since that would mean that some of these discussions would take months and months to be closed, but I do think I'd support a requirement for either an admin or a panel close. I think this particular close was good, but I'd really rather skip the inevitable-closure-review part of the process in the future as much as possible. Loki (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think recommending (not mandating) that such discussions are closed by a panel or highly experienced, clearly uninvolved single admin would be good. Not because non-admin closures are inherently bad (they aren't - some non-admins are better closers than some admins) but because close reviews based on alleged minor procedural errors or the admin status of the closer (which are becoming more common) are a bad thing. Maybe some sort of restriction that said someone who was involved in a discussion may not initiate a review of such a discussion within 48 hours of the close unless they get agreement from someone uninvolved or someone who supported a different outcome to them that a review is justified. However I don't know whether this would actually work or how it could be enforced - it would need more thought before it could be a viable proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think recommending an admin or panel close would be good for RFCs over a certain length, but it would also be a good idea to tack on RFCs in WP:CTOP areas. Most of the contested closes I see are in WP:AP2, WP:ARBPIA, or WP:GENSEX; for those we actually could require it and I think it would help significantly. There are a lot of CTOP areas and many of them are pretty quiet nowadays, so we might just want to do it in certain ones like what I listed here. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is solid evidence that panels (even admin panels) are less likely to be challenged these days. Also given the difficulties we already face in finding closers for such discussions I do not think it wise to add an additional procedural hurdle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it would be bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo in some cases, but I don't think the alternative is having no bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. The alternative, which we are currently posting in, is a hundred-thousand-byte AN thread paired with a twenty-six-thousand byte XRV thread (and this is just on the first day of both). jp×g🗯️ 22:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closes are legitimate when they consider the necessary facts and provide clear reasons for decision. Panels assist greatly in this, because editors can compare notes and ensure they're not missing any relevant information. Obviously, people are going to complain no matter what, but a good close will explain why certain !votes were disregarded and others were not. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this too. And especially when a discussion becomes lengthy, it is much more likely that whether intentionally or not, a closer misses significant portions of the discussion, or in other words, unintentionally falls into a vote-count just because one side may have significantly more words than another. It is not reasonable to expect one person to be able to read a lengthy discussion and not error in some way even if they take hours or days to read through it and attempt a closure. The beauty of a panel is that if one person, or even two, miss something, it is likely that the third/further person will catch it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While panel closes have their uses, I think that generally the best way to catch issues is by having the closer be more verbose. It doesn't increase their workload significantly, and it makes it easy for participants to catch errors and raise them with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main benefits I found in doing a panel close on the ADL RfC was being able to workshop the close statement. Any of the three of us could have closed the thing in a way that was within a reasonable closer's discretion, but together we were able to talk through how the close statement would read to participants on both sides, to non-participants, to people looking back later, and to catch statements that might be too easy to take out of context, could be twisted to claim bias in one direction or the other, etc.
The downside of a panel close is you need to find multiple people willing to take the same level of heat—all three of us in the ADL close panel have been criticized in multiple publications—and then get those people to coördinate. We spent hours on voice calls. Others may exchange many emails. With most things in life, teamwork reduces the total number of person-hours required, but with panel closes it actually increases it. Because of that, I'm not sure to what extent our volunteer ecosystem can support a greater number of panel closes than organically emerges. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make an important point about having at least a bit of review in the closing process, something the panel allows. Is there a way that we could have something like a RfC close, pre-close discussion for some of these topics? I think sometimes there is a level of momentum once the close is "official" but if the closer could state what they are thinking and allow editors some ability to chime in before the ink is dry, would that reduce some of the issues that you pointed out? I'm not sure if this is a practical idea or one that might cause more issues than it solves but perhaps it would help. Springee (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone else noted somewhere in here, WP:Discussions for discussion exists. That said, when a major concern in closing a sensitive RfC is avoiding becoming part of anyone's narrative (to the extent it can be avoided), having a public drafting/review process, where everyone can see suboptimally-phrased past wording, would defeat a lot of that. But I think it's still better than nothing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG, there's already often a backlog of RFCs for close at WP:CR. I don't see adding a suggestion that any RFC over certain length be closed by panel is going to help that, in fact it may just give challengers more ammunition in their claims that entirely reasonable closes are somehow bad. TarnishedPathtalk 03:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be helpful would be a way to stop editors turning RFCs into huge walls of text. In every RFC that ends up this way there are always a small handful of editors (not the same editors, but rather the editors who most care about the issue) that generate the most text. The rebuttal of an argument happens each time that argument is used, but that shouldn't be necessary (it not being a vote). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it basically was necessary here, and the closer still didn’t account for the rebuttal in their closure of the discussion. So if anything, this close, even if overturned, and the number of people supporting it shows that it is necessary to ensure people whose !vote is based on inaccurate information or an idea that has been disproven/rebutted strongly are aware of the fact their opinion is based on that and given a chance to review and expand upon it. And if they don’t, it can’t be claimed “they didn’t see the rebuttal” - it would have to be seen that they did see it, since pointed out to them, and chose to ignore it - which should result in a significant down weighting of their !vote indeed, as it’s basically an admission that “I can’t rebut that rebuttal”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of Wikipedia, this is done by having someone moderate the discussion. The English Wikipedia community has so far placed a higher priority on ensuring everyone gets to weigh in, out of a concern that any moderation would be unduly strict. isaacl (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, WP:BLUDGEON is a conduct issue; people can and have been ejected from topic areas for repeatedly bludgeoning discussions. (If it's just one discussion where they lost their cool then it's probably not worth worrying about.) There's always the option to look up repeat offenders, nudge them to stop bludgeoning discussions, then drag them to AE or ANI if they don't listen. Doing that more often would encourage people to not be so bludgeon-y in general. Another thing that might discourage bludgeoning: Make it unambiguous that closers may, at their discretion, ignore all non-top-level comments in an RFC, if the RFC is already massive (of course this would have to be combined by making it clear to everyone that if they feel some point is vital, they need to edit it into their one top-level comment), and should even say that they're doing so so people understand that their elaborate back-and-forth arguments aren't even being read - to be clear, I'm not saying "exclude them when determining consensus", I'm saying closers should be specifically empowered to say "I'm not reading all that, I'm only reading the top-level comments." RFCs aren't supposed to devolve into threaded discussion anyway, so "at a glance this all looks like pointless natter between people who just want the last word and I'm going to disregard it" seems like a reasonable thing to encourage. Maybe even some sort of "just the main argument" viewer that specifically removes all responses. Or we could flatly forbid threaded responses in RFCs, confining them to a separate comment section that the closer is not required to read. --Aquillion (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a consensus agreement in the community that requests for comments aren't supposed to have threaded discussion. Many of the editors who like to weigh in on how decisions are made think threading is important for facilitating efficient communications. (My variant on this is that I think we should consolidate discussion so the same topics aren't discussed in multiple threads, but that hasn't gotten a lot of support.) Since English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions are based on the idea of building consensus, I don't think enabling evaluators to say "I'm going to ignore the discussion" would gain favour.
Yes, extreme cases of swamping discussion can get addressed. But communications rapidly bogs down way before that point, and before any point where sanctions would be deemed reasonable. The N-squared problem of trying to hold a large, unmoderated group conversation (where there are up to N-squared interactions that can occur) means that everyone can be acting in good faith and yet it becomes very difficult to follow all the points being made. isaacl (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bludgeoning is a lot different than asking someone to reconsider their opinion or explain it further in light of information that they did not address in their original comment - regardless of whether that information was already present or not. Closers should certainly not be permitted to ignore the threaded discussion - because that in and of itself results in "first mover advantage". People would be able to make whatever claims they want, or make their initial !vote based on inaccurate information, and then the closer should just be allowed to ignore the replies/discussion that points that out? Absurdity. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have to let people seek consensus by talking to each other and you have to pay particular attention when someone changes their mind after being persuaded by a convincing point. But you can't allow a passionate editor to have a disproportionate effect on the discussion by sheer volume of text when they're not convincing anyone.—S Marshall T/C 07:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I infodump a wall of text and a dozen other editors cite it, that's not bludgeoning. Neither is posting rebuttals on their own.
Bludgeoning is when an editor repeatedly makes the same argument. This is disruptive because redundant information does not add value to the conversation. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to think of the way to address this - you say you have to pay particular attention when someone changes their mind after being persuaded by a convincing point - that is exactly what happened in this discussion, yet you not only ignored it in your close, you actually found the opposite to have happened. You took those not commenting on the refutations to be claiming that they were wrong, you viewed those arguments to be "stronger" than those refuting the original claims (when the discussion makes clear it was considered opposite by a clear majority of those commenting on the refutations, rather than ignoring them), and you then impressed your personal opinion of the claims onto the close. You seem to be trying to claim that you ignored the refutations and their support because the editors supporting that view were passionate - that's absurd. Just because someone is passionate and/or points out and asks for others to address a comment that a significant plurality of editors not only addressed but agreed with (and in quite a few cases, changed their !vote after reading) does not make it bludgeoning, and even if it was bludgeoning, it does not make their opinions null and void. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of panel closes either. The only concrete effect they seem to have is to make things take a lot longer. I also often get the feeling that the summaries suffer from the lack of a single author. Instead I'd encourage closers to make greater use of WP:DFD to workshop and solicit feedback on contentious closes before they post them. – Joe (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also not a fan of panel closes. It's anecdotal, but I think the ratio of bad-closes/all-closes is worse for panel closes than individual closes. At the very least, anybody thinking about mandating panel closes in any situation should first gather some data about whether panel closes are any less likely to be wrong, challenged, or overturned, than non-panel closes. My impression is that Wikipedia has a lot of non-panel closes -- like dozens or hundreds or thousands, depending on the time scale -- and like less than 1% are wrong/challenged/overturned. Whereas Wikipedia has very few panel closes -- like single digits, maybe a dozen or two dozen in the last like 5 or 10 years? -- and a huge proportion of them (like half) are wrong, challenged, and/or overturned. But my anecdotal impressions aren't data; data would be useful. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea where to start looking to gather that data? Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not useful data to have. People don't even ask for panel closes unless it's really super-contentious, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that more panel closes get challenged or overturned (which I don't know if it's true, but it does seem likely to me).—S Marshall T/C 19:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For individual closes, maybe Legobot's contribs, and/or the page history of WP:CR, to gather a list of RfCs/discussions. But then after that I don't know, seems like a difficult task to calculate the total number of closed discussions vs. how many of them were challenged (AN archives will find some official close reviews, but that wouldn't include those that never went past the closer's talk page).
As for panel closes, I don't even know... probably manually plucking them out of the gathered list of RFCs/discussions.
Overall it strikes me as something that would basically have to be done manually and would take many hours. For a single year, it's maybe doable, but that would leave a tiny sample size of panel closes (maybe low single digits). For this reason, the efficacy of panel closes may never be fully understood. Levivich (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One place to start might be extracting RFC closes from {{archive top}} and {{discussion top}} and checking for more than one signature/timestamp/userpage wikilink. That would reduce a lot of the noise and manual work. I've also thought about having the bot add an RFC tracking template when it removes the current RFC template after the 30 days expiration, that would improve data collection going forward. But on this issue specifically, I think admin or panel would be better than just mandating a panel. I'd also endorse creating a group or userright flag for experienced non-admins who the community trusts to close controversial discussions, and S Marshall would absolutely have a place on that list. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure how I feel about it

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sennalen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus (not even WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS) to either unblock outright or to convert the block to topic ban/s. El_C 13:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user
Sennalen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Sennalen (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction being appealed
Indefinite site block made by Galobtter as an AE action.[4] An appeal was declined at AE.[5]
Administrator imposing the sanction
Galobtter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
Special:Diff/1236676427

Statement by Sennalen

Since the original closing only alleges "disruption" without identifying specific acts, I look to Galobtter's comment[6] on the appeal as the definitive statement of what I am supposed to answer for.

The case against me was based on routine edits that are of no significance without a context of already assuming bad faith. I have observed all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and as ever remain committed to observing all policies and guidelines in the future. It's not necessary to like me personally or agree with all my content positions. All that matters per WP:Blocking policy is that blocking me does not prevent any disruption; therefore the block is against policy. I look forward to writing many more quality articles on diverse subjects in the future. Sennalen (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if anyone finds my tone too defensive or not apologetic enough. There is an appropriate order to things: an act is alleged, evidence for it is presented, a rule or principle the act violated is identified, and only then is it possible to reflect on the error of my ways. I can't just skip to the end without the previous steps. If I have made a pseudoscientific edit, I really want to know what it is. If there is one, I will be deeply embarrassed and disappointed in myself. As a matter of WP:ADMINACCT it shouldn't be a guessing game for me.
I'm glad people are starting to notice some other editors have avoided scrutiny, but I disagree with saying they are on the opposite side of a conspiracy theory from me. We are all on the same side against the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. It's a false, dangerous, and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. I was the first person on Wikipedia to try to systematically explain why the conspiracy theory is factually wrong[17] (rather than just asserting that it's a moral outrage.) This follows WP:EVALFRINGE, describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas. There is a timesink, and it comes from editors whose feelings about the topic are too strong to treat it objectively. That's especially damaging when they export their feelings about the conspiracy theory to ordinary articles in history and sociology. That's what I have been up against.
Replacing the existing sanction with something less severe sounds like an idea worth exploring, but there is no reason to split the difference between truth and falsehood. The truth is that I have no problematic agenda. The value of a sanction is what it prevents. A topic ban from covid would stop me from supplying requested sources. For cultural Marxism (broadly construed) it would stop me from planned expansions on the theory of communicative action or the aestheticization of politics. That's not serving the community's interests. Sennalen (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(additional statement by Sennalen pasted from talk page by me) Schazjmd (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to XOR'easter for taking the time to investigate my comments. I only tried to document the evolution of the policy over time, not to argue that it was better or worse at any stage of that evolution, so I'm sorry if I gave that impression. There is no "editor cabal", but some editors mis-apply the policy, as recognized for example by DGG.[18] My behavior when unblocked will be as always to follow the policy as written.
To reiterate to @S Marshall:, I don't cast doubt on academic consensus about any of the topics. I have presented the academic consensus in every CTOP I have been involved in. All content I added was accurate, verifiable, and neutral. When challenged, I listened and built consensus. It's not that I'm treated more harshly for breaking the rules than my opponents. I'm treated more harshly for following the rules than they are for breaking them. I don't doubt that it takes a lot of time to generate novel reasons to cast doubt on reliable sources. Since Wikipedia is WP:NOTMANDATORY, no one actually has to spend time doing that.
Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks says that showing evidence no violation took place is a valid form of appeal. I have demonstrated that Galobtter's accusations were false, and she says she has nothing more to add. The timesink here is persisting with disproven allegations. Sennalen (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the third statement Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galobtter

Re EggRoll, I don't have anything to add beyond what I said at the last appeal. Galobtter (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial

Sennalen's second statement presents this diff as showing them to be the first person on Wikipedia to try to systematically explain why the conspiracy theory is factually wrong (rather than just asserting that it's a moral outrage.)Since I reverted that inclusion, Sennalen reinserted it, and it eventually did not make its way into Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, I'd like to use it as a potential "best case" example that actually shows why Sennalen's interventions in these areas have proved to be unproductive time sinks - and perhaps to show that "moral outrage" doesn't motivate the objections to their contributions.

Sennalen presents this edit as explaining "why the conspiracy is factually wrong", and I wouldn't doubt the sincerity of that intention. However, what that edit actually does - in my view but also the consensus view on article Talk (see this archive) - is to say, effectively, that the things Sennalen lists as "wrong" are how Cultural Marxism in the conspiracy theory differs from real (sic.) Cultural Marxism (my words from the archive linked above).

In fact, about six months after their attempt to distinguish what parts of the conspiracy theory are "factually wrong", Sennalen launched a malformed RfC (found at this archive) to establish that something called "cultural Marxism" existed apart from a conspiracy theory. Sennalen's insistence on this POV, in spite of repeated findings of community consensus from 2014 to 2023 that there is no there, there, makes for tiresome reading on Talk and is, in my view, inherently disruptive. An editor who engaged to restore this content, alongside Sennalen, was the same one who later appealed Sennalen's OWNTALK editing ban (for proxying); that editor was subsequently indef-blocked for disruption.

The bottom line is that Sennalen's edits do not accomplish the avowed goals they have in mind as their intended purpose; they consistently cause disruption and lost editor time in various domains, and this filing shows no sign of a change in their approach to editing that would lead to less disruptive results. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Novem Linguae

I guess I'm involved in COVID-19 origins so moving my statement up here. Oppose revoking the block, per HandThatFeeds and S Marshall. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XOR'easter

Oppose revoking the ban, as the argument for doing so reads like a request to do more of the same civil POV-pushing that led to it in the first place. (See Galobtter's statement in the March 2024 appeal for why the race-and-IQ topic was included.) I have edited in these topic areas, but not (AFAICT) in the specific disputes that led to the ban or the AE discussions about them, so I am commenting in this section to be on the safe side. XOR'easter (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The overview of the history and meaning of WP:FRINGE does not put any concerns to rest; rather the opposite. For example, it complains at considerable length about language that has been stable for a decade and a half, while selectively quoting the older text, e.g., omitting the qualification that the guideline won't even attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which may well be impossible. The older phrasing somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications is treated as more precise than the newer departs significantly from the prevailing views, despite the obvious vagueness of every qualifier. It then advances without evidence a claim that a new interpretation of "fringe theory" has gained ground on Wikipedia, accusing a nebulous editor cabal of refusing to read sources. Far from allaying any concerns, this "overview" is a promise to sealion more. XOR'easter (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

I started an AFD on Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 and have participated in a merge discussion concerning it, so I guess that makes me involved. This unblock request is mostly defensive and there is a severe lack of acknowledgment for what led to the block or what they will do differently in regards to those issues. I'm not convinced that their previous disruption will cease and therefore oppose unblocking them. TarnishedPathtalk 05:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Sennalen

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved editors. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appeal of a 6 year old topic ban on closing/relisting deletion discussions

SUCCESSFUL APPEAL
There is consensus to lift Jdcomix's topic ban from closing and/or relisting any deletion discussion. DanCherek (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was indefinitely topic banned from closing/relisting any deletion discussions in February of 2018. Since it has been 6 years since the topic ban was enacted, and the enforcing admin said I could appeal in 3-6 months, I would like to appeal my topic ban long after that time. I have gained a lot more experience on AFD policy in that time through observation, and don't plan on closing any non-SNOW/speedy discussions. My focus is almost entirely on RC, edit filter, and new page patrol now, so to be honest, I just want a clean slate after so much time even though I don't plan on closing many (if any) AfDs. Jdcomix (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undo

Handled by Black Kite (non-admin closure) — Buffs (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

please undo this [20] and [21], this is vandalism, thanks  Rafael Ronen  09:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see IP vandalizing this article seriously, need to undo to February 10, 2022  Rafael Ronen  09:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and revision-deleted. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: thanks  Rafael Ronen  01:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LTA attacking noticeboards

Being discussed here. Star Mississippi 02:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not sure who it is, but there is a very persistent LTA attacking our noticeboards with constantly changing IP addresses. I've blocked a half dozen or more and protected a number of the targeted boards. Unfortunately, it is getting a bit late where I am and I need some sleep. Extra eyes would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No action taken on stockpuppet and vandal User:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya

Handled by Extraordinary Writ (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 09:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya

.245CMR.•👥📜 06:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to start a page

Handled by Jake Wartenberg (non-admin closure) — Buffs (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I request permission to create a page, Thulani Victor Mbuyisa, a Roman Catholic bishop in South Africa. I thank you. SiniyaEdita (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Help:Your first article. All the best, Miniapolis 22:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A "first article" page is not relevant here (the user then requested assistance at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit where the request was removed with a suggestion to "try the Article wizard" in the edit summary). The reason an article or draft could not be created is because of the title blacklist: .*thula.*(victor|makhubu).* # Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nokuthula27 - it looks like this could be changed to .*thula.*(victori|makhubu).* # Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nokuthula27. Peter James (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at these sockpuppets in 2020, it looks like they were all focused on creating an article for a South African model, Thula victorious, I'm not sure how this other page title got caught up in this title blacklist. Liz Read! Talk! 19:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SiniyaEdita: I have made the change to the Title Blacklist proposed by Peter. You should be able to create the page now. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Histmerge

Cryptic has waved their magic wand. Star Mississippi 17:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could an admin perform a histmerge of Wikipedia:Robert Dell (Engineer) and Robert Dell (engineer)?

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I s'pose. —Cryptic 22:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user is abusive Materialscientist

Warning editors about poor sourcing is not abuse. The OP is advised to read WP:RS as Materialscientist has advised, and then to learn how to include citations in the article, rather than putting them in edit summaries where readers of the article will never see them. Citations must be easily findable. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I tried editing a page and he said no that there was no links provided but i did explain to that person i provided links. Viking Fox Queen (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are meant to notify users if you start a discussion about them. This is NOT OPTIONAL. I have now notified User:Materialscientist here.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very difficult for Materialscientist to abuse anybody, considering he has an... inexemplary track record for communication, shall we say. SerialNumber54129 13:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog

There is a tremendous backlog of RD1 requests. I just thought I'd drop a note. Scorpions1325 (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the people contributing to the backlog (in the good way, not the adding copyright violations way!) I just want to say thank you to @DanCherek for dealing with it. It's much appreciated. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Scorpions1325 (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Brand revdel request

Diff (admins only)

-thx Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, an edit like that deserves an indef block and revdel. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked indefinitely: User talk:IronMike6#Indefinite block. El_C 11:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban proposal for Wikieditor662

So after this thread advising this editor to slow down and not to jump into Wikipedia's deepest waters , Wikieditor662 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) took it upon themselves to create a good article review and pass a page as a good article. Enough is enough; Wikipedia does not have the time or resources to deal with such rank incompetence. I'd do the indefblock myself but I'm far too involved. Pinging those involved in the previous discussion: @Lemonaka, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Gerda Arendt, Usedtobecool, Softlavender, Aza24, Super Goku V, GhostOfDanGurney, Robert McClenon, and Just Step Sideways:. Also see their aborted arbitration request, which is just another piece of weirdness from this user. I was beginning to be more inclined to assume good faith with them but now I'm not so sure. I started this discussion here per the guidance in the banning policy; if I should have made it a subsection of the previous ANI discussion, or something else, then feel free to move/reformat it as required. Graham87 (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC) P.s. the article in question is Nimm von uns, Herr, du treuer Gott, BWV 101; here's a video of the work (uploaded by the copyright owner), which would make excellent accompanying music for any Wikipedia editing in my opinion. Graham87 (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that this was the first time they edited the article in question, so far as I can tell. It was right after Gerda Arendt's GA nomination of the article. Kinda thinking that they followed them to that article. Might have been in good faith, but this is still disruptive. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked and Gerda did mention the article on Wikieditor662's talk page. Graham87 (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah gotcha. At least that clears up how they got there. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your time.
The good article nomination writes that "The nomination may be reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article." I did overlook the part that says "If you are not a significant contributor to the article, secure the consent of the significant contributors before nominating." However, the part that seems to be the problem is that I'm a month old account doing this, but it's confusing as nowhere did I find it saying you have to be very experienced to review good articles. Why is that? Also, I don't understand what was wrong with my nomination, as I did follow the criteria and it passed all of it.
Even though I don't agree with every accusation, from everyone's comments it seems that I have wasted much of people's time, and I deeply apologize for that. Timesinking or trolling is not at all my intention and I just want the best for Wikipedia. If a ban on me is necessary, then I understand. I am very ambitious and I guess this is causing damage. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because ... most people wouldn't be confident enough in their abilities to write a good article review until they're experienced editors. I for one have never done one in my life and don't plan to; I don't like seeking out accolades for my own articles and am not really a fan of the system around it ... and it's a lot of responsibility to put on one person. Ambitious people either sink or swim hard on Wikipedia, and it looks like you're doing the former. Graham87 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be much slower to make edits and to reply to talk page discussions or here on ANI. Think three times, wait a day. Until you make such a commitment editors will not take you seriously. Really. Mostly read, compare, and make useful, short edits. You are off to a fast start, but you are not carefully examining statements from experienced editors. Consider making only a few edits to Wikipedia each day while reading policies, guidelines, and essays. Help make this a better place to work. I suggest this will bring you acceptance as an editor. This notice board is expecting a change in attitude—show that you pay close attention to advice; evidence so far indicates that you do not. Please, show you are worth the time invested by others. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 04:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC) —[reply]
ps Perhaps Smuckola should strike a bit from a line in his, um, !vote. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 01:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC) —[reply]
Support having Smuckola strike that, it's a objectively a PA. The Kip (contribs) 00:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Why did you block me? Hippobunny123 (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you posted here, you are not blocked, unless you created this account to post here, thus evading your block. 331dot (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was their only edit. They did create the account to post here. Who are they? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CU shows nothing. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tell us who you are and what you did. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's a my possible explanation, this user used something like open-proxy when edited and showed with a block page, then they stopped using them, nothing found from Checkuser and no socks found?
@Doug Weller @Hippobunny123 -Lemonaka 17:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka Good idea, thanks. I see they are editing now. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller It may be related to this user that got blocked from the main space for continuously creating unsourced stub articles. See here. User:Hippobunny123 has been editing similar articles, including Draft:Southern Hoiho which was created by the blocked user. As User:331dot mentioned, is likely a block evasion. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DaHuzyBru Great catch, thanks. I ran a check and they are the same. @Cullen328: you need to see this. Doug Weller talk 06:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Doug Weller, are you telling me that somebody that I blocked tried and failed to evade their block? I wonder how often that block evasion has happened in the 21st century? Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Posting here because AIV is currently protected, but DK1964 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is very obviously WP:LTA/D86 continuing to block-evade, see [23], [24], and [25]. Please do not protect that last page (Redacted)2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:641C:8D6D:8AF:85B9 (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DK1964 has been indeffed by another admin. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure review of Talk:MeToo movement § Proposed merge of Weinstein effect into MeToo movement

In any merge discussion, the bare minimum requirement for the pages to be kept separate is for those opposing to articulate and agree on distinct scopes. That did not happen here. The vast majority of editors felt that the terms were synonymous — I count 12 supports to 4 opposes, with a few IPs on both sides — and among the minority who did not, there was never agreement between even two editors on how the content of the two articles should differ. The secondary oppose argument, that the MeToo movement article is too big for a merge, was dispatched with the counterargument that the article ought to be trimmed down and that there's not much worth merging.

The closer initially justified a no-consensus close in part by stating, erroneously, that Consensus for both sides had about equal numerical support. He then modified the close once challenged on his talk page. Still, given the overwhelming numerical support for merging, and that without a baseline agreement on distinct scopes there is no hope for the pages to evolve in a useful direction, this nomination clearly should have succeeded. Sdkb talk 15:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding the adminship privileges of ScottishFinnishRadish

As the OP was helpfully advised (and ignored), the only body that is going to deal with an adminship issue is the Arbitration Committee, and they would need a lot more convincing evidence than anything that has been provided here, which is effectively nothing. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello,

I would like to raise a concern regarding the adminship privileges of ScottishFinnishRadish.

Reasons for my concern:

  1. Premature Adminship Grant: User ScottishFinnishRadish joined Wikipedia in 2021 and gained adminship in 2022. Adminship necessitates not only exceptional editing and involvement but also consistent and sustained contributions over a lengthy period. Granting adminship after just a year of editing is alarmingly premature, as it is insufficient time to fully understand and evaluate an editor's behavior and reliability.
  2. Edit Count and Quality: As of August 2024, ScottishFinnishRadish has a total edit count of 54,664, however, only 9,865 of these edits are in the mainspace. This indicates that at the time of gaining adminship, they likely had about 4,000 edits on Wikipedia articles. The majority of these edits take place on talk pages in the form of arguments and other behavior that damages the editor retention rate, such as targeting new editors and stretching policy far beyond the means of fair interpretation to dish out an abundance of unwarranted deletions and blocks.
  3. Harassment and Misconduct: I have personally experienced harassment from ScottishFinnishRadish, who has baselessly wiped my contributions and failed to take simple policy-based actions to peacefully resolve issues. Instead, they have favored arguing and engaging in selective scoping behavior, further contributing to a hostile editing environment.

This user, who was only on Wikipedia for a mere year before being handed the highest privilege a user on this project can receive, is deeply concerning. I am requesting their adminship privileges be reconsidered. I will seek consensus on this if not able to find a resolution here.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards, 9t5 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence presented(diffs) that supports your claims. As such I'm calling for this to be closed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up comment - most recently, after deleting an entire section of an article and citing WP:BLP as the reason, ScottishFinnishRadish spoke to me on my talk page to which I had informed them that according to policy all they needed to do was remove the perps name from the entry on History of violence against LGBT people in the United States. After juveniles reverting of each others edits, they felt the need to start a discussion on the matter at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and in under 5 minutes, another admin agreed with me that all that needed to be removed was the perps name — and they went ahead and did that. An admin should be aware enough of policy to do that themselves and not need to start a discussion about it. That is concerning. What’s more concerning is that I have now discovered in the wake of that a stretch of edits where SFR was deleting my contributions and citing WP:BLP even when it is absolutely not relevant, like the removal of a file used at Sigma Nu. These are editing flubs based on not understand the policy clearly.. understandable.. forgivable. BUT AN ADMIN??? Why was he given adminship so prematurely? Why is he making amateur mistakes still? I will tell you why it’s because he is still new to Wikipedia. Remove his admin privileges. That’s ridiculous!
9t5 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you start providing diffs of this misbehaviour, the only thing that's going to happen is scrutiny of your behaviour. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 9t5's defense, they can't show a lot of diffs because one of the articles they're talking about was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mateer (musician) - despite the fact that the posted a less-than neutrally worded request at the Article Rescue Squadron (see Special:Diff/1236882976) where they accuse (without evidence) ScottishFinnishRaddish of acting in bad faith, trying to WP:OWN the article, and possibly imply that SFR is trying to delete LGBT history from Wikipedia? I'm a bit unclear on that last point. In 9t5's defense, they did eventually change the tone after a warning.
Disclaimer: 9t5 and I have interacted once on discord, when I complimented their userpage, and once on Commons, when I nominated one of their files for deletion as a copyright violation- and 9t5 made a comment saying You must be really proud of the work you do, huh? (I still stand by my original thought that 9t5 AGF on a dodgy Flickr license)GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens I spot-checked Sigma Nu and ScottishFinnishRadish did not cite BLP when removing the image, at least not in the edit summary. In the absence of diffs, I agree that this should be closed, and perhaps refiled with more diffs and less impassioned language. Mackensen (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of Sigma Nu, the person arrested for the assault was not a member of the frat, had been removed from the party by members, and the assault happened outside of the frat's property. Additionally, in one of the sources it states, The victim called a friend who came to help and he was provided first aid by the Sigma Nu fraternity brothers.[26] This isn't a controversy involving the frat, and the image adds weight to the false impression that the frat had anything to do with it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as History of violence against LGBT people in the United States goes, I always start a BLPN thread when I have to make multiple BLP reverts, and as I was on my phone I wasn't able to edit the large section the violating text was in. There are also other BLP concerns in the article, which is why I requested additional eyes. I also started a discussion on the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another follow up - I am DISTURBED. I have only now just realized that after engaging in an AfD discussion with @ScottishFinnishRadish where I cited my 87% live rate for my edits on Wikipedia, my live rate —- in two weeks time — has plummeted to 50%. Meaning my contributions to this project were targeted by an admin simply. because I had the audacity to call them out for not following policy. I am disturbed, upset and hurt by this. All the while.. this “admin” that was given this privilege so incredibly prematurely touts themself as an advocate for editor retention. How? By targeting new editors? Hurting their contributions because their ego is hurt? Not only does it make me fear for this project, it makes me fear for the prestige of adminship. What a joke.
9t5 (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"When the facts and the case are against you, pound on the table." Are you just here to pick fights in a contentious topic area? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why was the discussion archived after only two hours?

There is a clear consensus that 9t5 should be blocked indefinitely. They may appeal the block after six months at AN. —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is what happens when you put adminship in the hands of narcissistic amateurs. Need I remind you that the media reads these editor discussions as the information on this encyclopedia serves as the source of foundational information in global databases. The issue is far from one that can be brushed off like that, and while I am respectfully going to end the arguing now, I ask you to question why you all just went crazy on me, because that is seldom the behavior of the innocent. Talk:Sigma Nu#Admin acting like a child

Good night. 9t5 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the ScottishFinnishRadish complaint, I agree. The prior discussion was archived far too early, which prevented us from discussing the appropriate WP:BOOMERANG sanctions against you. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i point the participants on this noticeboard to the recent addition 9t5 has made to their userpage. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They made a similiar accusation in Special:Diff/1238830998 to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Premature adminship; as the discussion had already been closed by @HouseBlaster(courtesy ping as MFD closer)thisq addition should not have been made and I would like to invite @9t5 to self-revert before somebody else does it for them.
I'm making a similiar courtesy ping to @Black Kite as the closer of the prev. AN report. (And thank you for trying to head this off early before anybody could dig themselves further into any holes. Regrettably, hints were not taken). GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have noted in the closure that it was procedural only; Fastily had already CSD'd it. I have amended my closure to reflect that. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Between the personal attacks, the likely undisclosed use of LLM output, and the lack of awareness of BLP policy, some block of 9t5 is called for. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
regarding LLM usage - see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Premature adminship, and their two other essays which seem to also be LLM-generated, Wikipedia:The Importance of Creative Contests for Community Engagement on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Herd mentality (this one seems like it's only partially LLM). their opening comment in the initial thread above this seems like it's LLM-generated as well. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, while the deleted essay was obviously LLM and detected as 100% AI by (ironically) LLM-text-detecting AIs, their opening post in the report does not read like something that guaranteed had heavy use of AI, and QuillBot thinks only part of Edit Count and Quality and the whole of Harassment and Misconduct is AI generated.
The Harassment and Misconduct one is the only one I would think was for sure written mostly by them, because it's clearly the reason they made all of this, so I don't agree with QuillBot either...
Breaking WP:AGF policies and throwing around accusations without any evidence against admins and users disagreeing with them is clearly a self-fulfilling prophecy on getting admin actions imposed against them though. – 2804:F1...D5:33ED (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LLM detectors are very unreliable. their noticeboard comments definitely could be their own stilted writing; it just struck me as oddly-written and in the context of their obvious LLM usage elsewhere, seemed plausible to me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second this. The Kip (contribs) 23:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that some media read talk pages but what on earth does "encyclopedia serves as the source of foundational information in global databases" mean? I'm going to assume you wrote this rather than used an LLM to come up with meaningless nonsense, so please explain. Yes Wikipedia is way too often used by other sources as the sole source of information without even checking our cites which they then repeat, I mean we even have the well documented problem of WP:CITOGENESIS because of that, but it's not even close to whatever "source of foundational information in global databases" means. Nil Einne (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked 48 hours as a minimum for the repeated personal attacks towards SFR. Galobtter (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I considered indefinitely blocking 9t5 for disruptive editing four hours ago, but I am travelling today and didn’t want to ‘block and run’. The conduct in the intervening period has done little to change my opinion on this being the best course of action. I would support increasing the 48 hour block to indefinite. Daniel (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would still support an indef. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was thinking of a longer block and based on the conduct here an indef seems fine but needed more time than I had to look into it. Galobtter (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
has anyone else got an email from 9t5? ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Svampesky (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9t5 ban from using LLM for writing

In addition to the above instances of LLM use, I will also add that they added a plaintext list of 34(!) sources to the middle of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mateer (musician), claiming that it was a plaintext image they found online. Besides the absurdity of asking other AfD participants to ask them to wade through 34 sources – none of which even had a convenience link – I have a very hard time believing that a random website happened to have a plaintext list of GNG-eligible sources just lying around. In fact, this google search for just one of the citations only turns up copies of the AfD discussion. I suspect that this was another instance of asking a LLM to do their dirty work for them.

Wasting the community's time with LLM complaints and starting RfCs with a snowball's chance in hell of success without even a hint of WP:RFCBEFORE is disruptive, so I am proposing an indefinite ban from using LLM content anywhere on Wikipedia, appealable after six months and every six months thereafter. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is too soft. I propose a community ban for 9t5 for competence issues and (attempted) harassment of ScottishFinnishRadish. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a cban is probably a bridge too far at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, i think we can give it a bit to see what their response to this discussion is. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support and i'd support an indef block. this stuff really needs a legit explanation. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's LLM generated, their post to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mateer (musician)[27] is basically the same list they posted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Thomas Mateer two year ago[28]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page access

Would an uninvolved admin be able to pull TPA? (For the remainder of the current block.) They are currently posting a "timeline" and other screeds. Yes, I am doing that thing where I create a new section for my own Very Important Comment. But I do feel like this is a separate thing which belongs in a different section. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as I was writing this, they posted the {{admin help}} template. Sigh. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have revoked it now. —Ingenuity (t • c) 04:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EmailUser access

I'm uncertain whether I can publish emails. Could ArbCom review the email I just forwarded (subject: 'Personal attack from 9t5 to Svampesky') containing the personal attack and make a decision on EmailUser access? To make it clear, I'm not suggesting filing an ArbCom case over this, I'm following the advice in the footer of the email. Svampesky (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emailing ArbCom about email attacks is definitely fine to do. @Ingenuity: it seems like you have set the block to be email disabled but talk page enabled, was that intentional? Galobtter (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was intentional, but I'm still debating whether I should've just left it turned off. If they continue using it for ranting like they were earlier, I won't hesitate to re-revoke it. —Ingenuity (t • c) 18:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It continues over on Commons, I was tagged in this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/File:This_Is_Called_Emotional_Abuse.jpg Out of the five emails I recieved from them, they published #1 and #3. My comment at 06:11 UTC here was in reply to email #2 (recieved at 05:58 UTC), an email which wasn't published. I understand that this file is outside the scope of the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard; but I'm just making a note of it here and will be ignoring it going forward. Here are the timestamps for the record: 1. 04:49 (UTC), 2. 05:58 (UTC), 3. 06:18 (UTC), 4. 06:37 (UTC), 5. 14:43 (UTC) Svampesky (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's now starting to work it's way into a global block, seeing as it's cross-wiki harassment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file was deleted by AntiCompositeNumber. If a global block a consensus-based decision, could I request that this file be temporarily restored, until the discussion is closed, so that those involved can see the extent of the nonsense? Svampesky (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Global blocks and locks are handled by individual stewards (like me), who have the ability to see deleted content on all wikis. I don't generally lock accounts for problems on two wikis, but if the cross-wiki harassment continues to another wiki a global block or lock is likely. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to have joined eswiki and ruwiki this morning. I don't think the Commons block is the end of this. Svampesky (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:AntiCompositeNumber - What is the difference between a global lock of an account and a global block of an account? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not ACN (or a steward) (or qualified to be answering this question whatsoever) a global lock completely locks the user out of their account (to where they cannot log in), whereas a global block just shows the standard "you have been blocked" message when they try to edit a page. Accounts have only been gblockable for a few weeks (although IPs have always been gblocked) and I have never seen a gblocked account (I think it's intended for when IP masking/temporary accounts become a thing). Queen of Hearts talk 06:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kierandude

Perhaps an admin could take a look at this user's contributions? Everthing they've uploaded and created seem to be associated to some kind of "fan fiction" they're working on. This could be a WP:YOUNG user who's just not aware of WP:NOT, which is why I'm asking about this here instead of WP:ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. This looks like a walled fictional garden. Acroterion (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They've even created a category for their fiction. Category:Fiction_by_Kierandude (swiftly deleted) Schazjmd (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're making some edits that seem OK, but then are also creating pages like User:Kierandude/When an AI writes Wikipedia, User:Kierandude/Soulhouse Your In Bird, User:Kierandude/Ruin This Page, User:Kierandude/Catulia, Template:Not actually fair use and Template:Kierandude. They seem to have made the "Not actually fair use" template just so that they could post it on my user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kierandude/Soulhouse Your In Bird are mangled lyrics of Birdhouse in Your Soul. So mangled that I don't even know if they're a copyvio anymore. —Cryptic 22:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no idea what the point of User:Kierandude/Ignore all rules is supposed to be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I, but I don't see a reason for any other actions right now. It would be nice if they were a little more responsive though. Acroterion (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: I understand and thank you for what've you done so far. This probably can be closed now (I guess) since several administrators seem to be monitoring the situation and Kierandude has been advised how to best move forward on their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thewikizoomer

I've just come across some edits by this editor and looking back on their edits immediately issued them with a DS template for gender issues. But looking further back, these are some of their edits for the last two weeks.

Clearly the editor can't be trusted with editing such articles, so I am wondering what the best course of action is. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this and this also don't leave a good impression. Nobody (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure that WP:BITE doesn't apply to an editor who has been here more than two years and has over 3,000 edits. Black Kite (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that this editor is very active tagging articles for PRODs and AFDs, usually offering only very brief deletion rationales. Despite this, many have been successful. Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are they incorrect? If not, sounds like a net benefit. Buffs (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP user 24.50.25.163

Hello, this anon is removing my warning for not assuming good faith in the edit summary for Toy Story 2. I am getting tired of reverting their talk page edits. Felicia (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're allowed to remove warnings from their own talk page (see WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME). I've reported at AIV for persistent vandalism and block evasion, though. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 15:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

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

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refresh of arbitration policy and procedures

The Arbitration Committee has been working on a refresh of the arbitration policy and procedures. We invite interested editors to participate in the community consultation, which will be open until at least 16 August. Maxim (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Refresh of arbitration policy and procedures

IP User 23.241.114.84 Threatening Messages

Blocked, TPA revoked, edits cleaned up. —Ingenuity (t • c) 00:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The IP User 23.241.114.84 has left vaguely threatening messages on my talk page with links to 4chan about how they're watching me. Here. Given that the recently blocked User:Nocomputersintexas shared [33] edit history with the IP [34], I'm inclined to believe they are related incidents. Brocade River Poems 23:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Given the attacks and their lulz edit their motivation is clear. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Replacement needed

Due to an undocumented bug in the MassMove script, where it occasionally just decides to execute a dozen page+talk moves with a broken find+replace, I have been spending the last half-hour or so trying to repair this clusterfuck:

Anyway, I managed to manually move the 22 pages, and then delete the 22 asinine redirects from the erroneous pagenames. But on the third task, which is to retarget the original page titles that are now redirecting to redlinks, I cannot: because for some reason, an insource search is bringing up nothing. Can someone, please, for the love of Christ, figure out how to do this? The search URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3A%22Environmental+impactEnvironmental+effects%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns118=1&ns119=1&ns710=1&ns711=1&ns828=1&ns829=1 and the search string is insource:"Environmental impactEnvironmental effects" -- this needs to be changed, on the 22 applicable pages, to "Environmental effects" -- for some reason the search is just proudly wrongly displaying nothing. jp×g🗯️ 01:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like 'MassMove' is one to avoid! Go to the red linked page and in the LHS menu, click on 'What links here'. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed them all. 11 of them plus talk pages. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will sort out the double redirects. Also amended 'effects' to 'impact' in the lead section of the articles where appropriate. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure it doesn't show with insource: because redirects are excluded from the search results (intitle:"5P" brings the redirect target, but not the redirect itself, for example). – 2804:F1...14:B176 (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"intitle:" is appropriate for redirects, eg intitle:"Environmental effects of transport" but those redirects that had "Environmental impactEnvironmental effects" in the title were deleted so there’s nothing to find. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tell page movers that they should leave a redirect when moving pages from bad page moves or else you end up with a lot of broken redirects. You can always delete the mistaken "bad" page later but the bots need a redirect to correct all of the existing redirects to the articles or talk pages. For some reason, many page movers tend not to leave redirects behind when they move articles. Luckily, because there is such a gigantic time replag going on right now, Anomie Bot III hasn't issued broken redirects reports for days so no pages got deleted accidentally. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My plan was to go through and AWB the old titles to semi-manually correct the redirects to go to the new titles, which I seem to recall doing before to fix redirects -- I figured it was some sort of weird database lag thing, but I guess redirects just don't show up in searches at all(?) so maybe I was just misremembering the entire thing. So it goes, I guess. jp×g🗯️ 06:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, WP:VPT may connect you with technical editors and technical solutions quicker than AN. The insource question, and fixing the MassMove script, would be perfect topics for VPT. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is now also a discussion at WP:ANI#Environmental impact of bitcoin that appears to be related to this. Left guide (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftified an RTOA attempt

Would an admin mind taking a look at Cornelius (Planet of the Apes) to make sure I didn't make a mess when trying to draftifying the attempt of another user to create and article titled "Cornelius (Planet of the Apes)" as Draft:Cornelius (Planet of the Apes) with this edit. I didn't realize this was WP:RTOA attempt until after I draftified the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kingsif

The user is reverting edits and imposing their own opinions on the article 'List of footballers who achieved hat-trick records'. This is the second time I have entered into an argument with them on the same article. The first time, he accused me of sexism just because I put a (Women) label next to each woman on the list. I ended the argument the first time because I don't like getting into too many problems. This time, he is trying to revert my edit despite me explaining the reason. I request the administrators to put a stop to this. Mishary94 (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first time, we had a discussion, and I did not accuse you of sexism - I said using only women as a defining category but not men, youth, amateur, could be read as sexism. This time, I have given you like three reasons why your explanations do not justify your edits. I have participated in discussion and it is a radical acceleration to come to ANI instead of just replying to me at the relevant talkpage. Especially when if you want to change the definition of a header, that's something that warrant discussion before making changes. But you made it, I reverted it with reasons, and am participating in discussion - see WP:BRD. Coming to ANI because you don't like that your edit and explanation wasn't just accepted is out of line. Kingsif (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mishary, you need to understand that if a revert happens, you need to discuss why it happened. Usually the edit summary provides enough reason, but the talk page exists too. Also, if Kingsif is reverting you while you aren't discussing, you risk an edit war, plus disruption, making this a WP:BOOMERANG. Conyo14 (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motions regarding My very best wishes

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) are repealed.

And it has resolved by another motion that:

My very best wishes' topic ban from World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, imposed under the Eastern Europe contentious topic procedures, is repealed.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding My very best wishes

Rollback abuse by User:Jasper Deng

Initial complaint about an abuse of rollback has been shown to not be substantive. Discussions about individual pages should take place at their respective talk pages. Users are also reminded that AN is for repeated, serious, or otherwise intractable issues that cannot be resolved during the course of normal discourse on a user talk or article talk page. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user misuses MediaWiki rollback by using it to make unexplained/vague/disruptive reversions of good-faith edits as he did in Magnetic field. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This is WP:Twinkle, not WP:Rollback. You also ought to have discussed it with me on my talk page before trying to raise it here, and when you did, you failed to notify me as clearly required by procedure.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your userpage says the otherwise. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an editor can use Rollback, doesn't mean that they used it for a particular edit.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, he is abusing his rights. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrongly assuming I used them here in the first place. Since it seems like I wasn't clear the first time, let me be a bit more blunt: if you do not drop this frivolous complaint, you are in for a WP:BOOMERANG especially in light of your earlier and now-continuing WP:IDHT behavior.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To remind you my behavior was a case of WP:Edit warring not WP:IDHT. Also, I have already apologized in my talk page for the same. Now better not try to change the subject Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did engage in IDHT behavior in response to my edit warring warning and are now engaging in it again here. The time to drop this WP:STICK was as soon as it was explained to you that I didn't use rollback in this instance. Drop it now. Otherwise this conversation will indeed become a WP:BOOMERANG and be about you and your (in addition to WP:IDHT) childish behavior (examples: unhelpful; "better not try to change the subject").--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How? Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the length of this conversation and the one at User talk:Jeaucques Quœure#August 2024 and how resistant you are in both cases to what you are being told.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smh I asked you how to drop the WP:STICK? Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the essay, and just stop commenting here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edits at Magnetic field show that Jasper Deng did a single revert with a comprehensive edit summary. That is model editing, not abuse. See WP:ROLLBACK for the details; an edit using rollback is tagged in the page history. Please discuss article content at the article's talk page and bear in mind that many edits are reverted: it's part of life here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what was comprehensive about that edit summary?
  • Disregarding the diagrams.
  • Labelling vector equations are "useless".
Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no violation of rollback, and this does not belong on AN. If you don't understand Jasper Deng's explanation of his edit then ask hm for clarification on the article's talk page or his user page, not here. Meters (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meatpuppetry by User:ImperialAficionado

I found a meatpuppet of a user who is pushing Muslim POV everywhere

Various Edits of Kemiliogolgi and imperialaficionado overlap, for example [35][36] here here too

I guess these proofs must be enough to prove Imperialaficionado as a sock/meatpuppet of kemiliogolgi Raged Pratihar (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the OP's attempt to post this at SPI. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R2dra.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:CNMall41

This user suddenly start targeting my created articles and put them into a Afd, i don't know why ? as a woman i am feeling harrassed. that's why i'm reporting here, Please do something. Xegma(talk) 05:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Can you specify which "articles" I "target[ed]?" As far as the accusation of sexism, I hope you have evidence of that as such an accusation is not appropriate without such. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well which 2 articles i am talking about and you put them into Afd, and i have also checked you edited all my created articles on last 3 days. Now I am asking Why ? you put them into Afd and can you not tag that 2 articles with "More citation needed" or "Notability guidelines" tages and let me improve those articles. and that's why i am feeling harrassed and also disappointed. :( Xegma(talk) 06:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Podrías haberlos mejorado con más citas antes de crearlos pero aquí estamos. Sugeriría echar un vistazo a WP:CIVIL y también me gustaría recibir una respuesta a su acusación de sexismo antes de solicitar un WP:BOOMERANG en WP:ANI . No tengo ningún problema en discutir algo si te sientes agraviado, pero lanzar acusaciones tan fuertes no es algo aceptable. — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por CNMall41 ( discusión • contribuciones )
Sabes muy bien de qué 2 artículos estoy hablando . El resto de nosotros no. No dude en vincularlos. Y estoy de acuerdo en que acusar a alguien de sexismo sin pruebas es inapropiado. – Novem Linguae ( discusión ) 07:30, 9 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
Si desea que cualquier presentación aquí se tome en serio, debe fundamentar las acusaciones que hace. No ha proporcionado una sola diferencia que respalde estas acusaciones o incluso indique un problema. Este no es un lugar para reservar expediciones de pesca. Que dos artículos que cubren temas de notoriedad muy marginal sean nominados para su eliminación no constituye ni remotamente acoso. Ojalá tengas mucho más que esto; no hay inmunidad por realizar presentaciones vejatorias. CoffeeCrumbs ( charla ) 07:34, 9 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]