Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0	0	6	6
TfD	0	0	0	8	8
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	0	14	14
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 13 sockpuppet investigations
• 26 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 15 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 6 requests for RD1 redaction
• 38 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 8 requested closures
• 88 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 26 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 8761 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin October surprise 2024-10-31 18:52 2025-10-31 18:52 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement of WP:CT/AP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Sadh 2024-10-31 18:22 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Kamala 2024-10-31 17:02 2024-11-14 17:02 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba Hebraization of Palestinian place names 2024-10-31 09:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Beit Hanoun wedge 2024-10-31 09:39 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Baalbek 2024-10-30 22:09 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Ada and Abere 2024-10-30 21:55 2024-11-03 21:55 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Susanna Gibson 2024-10-30 19:58 indefinite edit,move WP:BLP issues. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Gibson (2nd nomination). Asilvering 29 October 2024 Beit Lahia airstrike 2024-10-30 19:00 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Ganesha811 Hwang Hyun-jin 2024-10-30 13:09 2024-11-06 13:09 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Goodnightmush Khushali Kumar 2024-10-29 21:30 indefinite edit,move Restoring some protection after creating redirect Liz Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism 2024-10-29 20:05 2025-01-29 20:05 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/AP Ingenuity Orakzai 2024-10-29 19:32 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Bangash 2024-10-29 19:29 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Bengalis 2024-10-29 19:24 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Zaher Jabarin 2024-10-29 19:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Killing of Shaban al-Dalou 2024-10-29 18:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:MusicBrainz release group 2024-10-29 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, My Life for Iran 2024-10-29 17:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Palestine and the United Nations 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Israel won't exist in 25 years 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Down with Israel 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Donald Trump and fascism 2024-10-29 17:20 2025-01-29 20:05 edit,move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Tim Sheehy (businessman) 2024-10-29 17:03 2024-11-12 17:03 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: restrict BLP violations from non-XC until after the election OwenX Mykolas Majauskas 2024-10-29 16:25 2025-04-29 13:09 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/BLP -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Tony Hinchcliffe 2024-10-29 01:19 2025-01-29 01:14 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/AP ToBeFree Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon 2024-10-28 20:37 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Kurdish–Turkish conflict 2024-10-28 19:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/KURD; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Macrobiotic diet 2024-10-28 16:00 2024-11-28 16:00 edit,move Persistent spamming: Per a complaint at WP:AN3 EdJohnston User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 34 2024-10-28 13:58 indefinite edit,move Fish and karate Fusion power 2024-10-28 03:46 2024-11-04 03:46 move Liz Mercuria 2024-10-28 02:52 2024-11-27 01:45 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case Spider-Man: Octo-Girl 2024-10-28 02:32 2025-01-28 02:32 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Hamas temporary committee 2024-10-28 02:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Whigfield 2024-10-27 22:44 2024-11-27 22:44 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Rajpurohit 2024-10-27 22:09 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case

Archiving AN

It seems like AN is archiving awfully fast so I looked at this page and found instructions for two different bots to archive this noticeboard. One states that discussions are archived after three days but they are obviously being archived sooner than that and they are not being archived manually. Could someone who is knowledgeable about archiving make sure that the instructions are clear and not confusing and only one bot is archiving this page? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

One of the instructions is commented out; I changed the other to seven days. BilledMammal (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, BilledMammal. I appreciate you checking on this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Advice needed re request to unprotect a draft

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

---

Article Hera Pheri 3 has a long history of deletions, un-deletions and moves. I added protection to it on April 28, 2017. Not all editors/admins involved are still active. SafariScribe has requested on my talk page to un-protect Draft:Hera Pheri 3 created Feb 21, 2023. Guidance on this would be helpful. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason they cant create in their sandbox and move it subject it to review there? Amortias (T)(C) 15:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Scratch that, just realised you mean to unprotect the article not the draft page. Its been submitted for review by AFC, if its approved then an admin could unprotect at that point if it has now managed to reach a suitable style/substance of article. Amortias (T)(C) 15:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That was the guidance I was looking for. SafariScribe it looks like you will have to wait until that review process has been completed. — Maile (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Maile66, @Amortias, thank you for your words. However, I don't believe this situation will escalate to the notice board. The draft after reviewing it as part of AFC work meets WP:NFILM, and the principal photography has already started–WP:NFF. I was about to accept the draft when a pop-up message indicated that the target page is admin-protected, hence my request for unprotection of the target page so that the draft can be moved. I think there may have been a misunderstanding of my intentions. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think things got muddled here. @SafariScribe is a longtime editor and AfC reviewer in good standing looking to complete that review that was asked for. I do not have the on wiki time today to process the AfC move but I've dropped protection to E/C so Safari or any other AfC reviewer can accept and move the article. If folks feel as if it's still not notable (haven't reviewed, taking no position), a new AfD to reflect current consensus would be more helpful than a 7 year old one. Star Mississippi 17:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Star Mississippi for the clear understanding. I have move the article as meeting WP:NF or any required policy. I doubt it won't survive AFD if it is taken there. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Resigning rollbacker/PCR

Won't have a use for them anymore. See ya later, space cowboys. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've removed those two permissions from your account as requested. DanCherek (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Admin Misconduct

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

---

I am a new user so apologies if this is not the correct way to go about it, but it is an issue that undoubtedly needs attention and with the structure of Wikipedia on mobile it has taken me forever to at least find somewhere suitable enough for this.

Prior to creating an account, I had received a year long IP block by Graham87. This has since been lifted, I do not know how, who did it, or whether how up-in-arms I was about it helped bring that along. But it has given me the ability to do something about it and I will take that ability.

I have been very active on the Queensland Fire Department Wikipedia article recently, undoubtedly providing the most information and putting in the most work to ensure that the article reflected the recent rebranding and complete overhaul/transition from Queensland Fire and Emergency Services to QFD.

Recently, however, I was IP banned by Graham87 for alleged “vandalism”. However I can happily provide sources for my information, they are just information I have found presented in a format that cannot be cited (such as ArcGIS maps). Following this, an unknown IP editor came in and completely destroyed a lot of my hard work, making the article extremely difficult to read and removing the neutrality. They even chucked promotional content in it. This user has not been warned or blocked at all, but I was blocked by a guy half way across the country who has numerous complaints online (search ‘graham87 block’ or ‘graham87 ban’ on google and you will find that half of the USA would be able to back me up at the very least).

I feel that action needs to be taken against this user as he fails to follow the etiquette and guidelines of the website he is an administrator for and silences people editing in good faith while letting people while letting the true “miscreants” as he calls them slip by undetected. It’s not something anyone should stand for and is against the very thing Wikipedia seeks to provide and protect. VollyFiremedic (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We can't look into the details without knowing what the IP is (but you aren't obligated to say, and please be aware that doing so may expose personal information such as your location). However, in general, it is very possible that the IP block you experienced was not targeted at you. IP ranges are usually shared between different people who have the same internet service provider, mobile provider, institution, etc. When we have persistent and long-term vandals (and I know Graham87 deals with a lot of these), we sometimes have to block the entire range knowing that there will be 'collateral damage' to others who share that range with the vandal, but haven't done anything wrong themselves. It's unfortunate but necessary. The way around it is to create an account of your own, as you have done – and not take it personally. – Joe (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you add material to an article without sourcing it - as you appear to have been doing - it is likely to be removed again. Editors are regularly blocked for persisting to add unsourced text. If your sources are "in a format that cannot be cited", then you need to find alternative sources. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Yeah I've never edited that article and you may well have been affected by one of my rangeblocks. Graham87 (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is probably 2001:8003:EC74:DD00::/64, who made this edit. Graham87 (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct that is the IP (and another one as well which for some reason was given to me when I added over 1000 additional words). An IP block itself would not have been as worrying to me if it was not then followed by another guy completely messing up the article and adding a whole bunch of stuff that sounds like an advertisement and also removing a lot of my work which resulted in the article not making any sense at some points. I would love for someone to review that as well while we are here if possible.

As for the citing, I am still very new to Wikipedia and the format leaves a lot to be desired for me so citing does not make sense. I was hopeful that other editors could come along and take part in some teamwork to get citations for what I wrote but perhaps I should not have been so helpful. Regardless, I do not see how lack of citations constitutes vandalism. I’m getting a lot of my information from QFD resources and brigade training and adding it in. I understand the need to cite, but my priority remains giving people access to information on topics I am passionate about. And I feel a warning prior to a year long IP ban would have been much more warranted and stand by what I have said previously. VollyFiremedic (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We try to warn users before blocking them but sometimes it's just not practical, especially for wide rangeblocks that affect hundreds or thousands of innocent users as collateral damage, as this one probably is. I can't find any evidence that the IP you're using has ever been blocked. As for citing, it should be a very high priority, given how often Wikipedia content is copied; it can turn up in rather unexpected places. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Graham87 (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:TUTORIAL may be of help to you. If you want to make WP edits that can "stick", learning how to add refs correctly is essential, I can't stress this enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

More admin misconduct

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

---

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 5: it seems User:OwenX thinks that I am not an administrator "in good standing", and says that my status compares to that of someone with a compromised account. I don't know, maybe the racist and sexist trolls have found dates and jobs, and my talk page can be unprotected. Still, if OwenX had looked they could have seen that there was plenty of interaction between me and that editor in other places. But who knows, maybe OwenX can start a procedure to get me desysopped, and we'll see how that goes. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The title is appropriate. Failure to communicate is indeed admin misconduct per WP:ADMINACCT. By XC-protecting his Talk page, Drmies knowingly and willingly shuts down the primary means of communicating with him for an entire class of editors. This isn't an isolated out-of-process deletion or something we can wash over with IAR and get back to our daily business. It is a effectively a declaration that any editor with fewer than 500 edits under their belt doesn't deserve to have a voice. DRV is an editorial venue, not a disciplinary one, but the kind of dismissive tone expressed by him above is one I'm sure ARBCOM would have something to say about. Owen× ☎ 15:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

There are ways to communicate that don't involve going on a user's talk page. You have no right to the time, attention, or talk page space of anyone else, even an admin. Yes, failure to communicate can be an issue, but if you refer to WP:ADMINACCT you'll see that "protecting a talk page" is not among the examples of infractions. That said, Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

And your use of such an argument at deletion review is inappropriate; the protection level of an admin's talkpage has nothing at all to do with deletion review. However, I gather you're fortunate enough to have never seen the threats and harassment aimed at Drmies and his family from LTAs. If you have a complaint about it, take it up with the arbitration committee, not as a specious argument in a tangential forum. Acroterion (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

OwenX, you are so wrong on so many different levels. It is because of Drmies commitment to the project as an admin that their talk page is EC protected. Calling for Drmies admin actions to be vacated and positing that they should be desysoped by ARBCOM for protecting their own talk page from persistent trolling and death threats against themselves and their family, that they receive as a result of the volunteer work they do here for you and other editors, is beyond the pale.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Acroterion, over the years, I have received many threats and much harassment on my Talk page and my User page, including a recent death threat against me and my family. I reported the recent death threat on AN/I, and it was handled by an uninvolved admin. I don't remember if it was revdel'd or oversighted, you may be able to still see it. It never even crossed my mind to block access to my Talk page. I did eventually, many years ago, semi-protect my User page after 160+ vandalism edits, but that doesn't prevent anyone from contacting me, and it's still open to non-XC registered accounts. Our deletion review policy highlights communication with the deleting admin as a key requirement. A deletion by an admin who prevents communication with him is very much relevant to a DRV appeal. If the only way an admin can deal with harassment is to shut down commincation, then he should hang up the mop until the situation allows him to reopen the main communication channel. Drmies has my sympathy for all the harassment and threats, but that does not exempt him from accountability for his actions. Owen× ☎ 15:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk page protection is not equivalent to 'preventing communication.' This is nothing more than a petulant complaint that you cannot not everyone can communicate in the way you they desire. With all due respect, grow up. Dumuzid (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

OwenX is an admin and extended confirmed. Acroterion (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to review both WP:ADMINACCT and WP:DRV then. I too have received threats, but nothing approaching the volume, virulence and specificity that Drmies has: do you think that should be grounds for desysopping? DRV is not a forum for arguing about technicalities or complaints about other editors in order to gain the upper hand. Take it up with Arbcom if you have a policy-based argument. Acroterion (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Drmies should step away from any activity that requires him to be available for contact by non-XC editors until such time as he is ready to reopen his Talk page to all. That includes blocking, deleting, protecting, and most admin functions, with the possible exception of checkuser. Deleting from behind a protected Talk page is an abuse of admin rights, and grounds for automatic vacating when contested in good faith at DRV. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is so asinine, I'm beginning to wonder if your account is compromised. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't agree with your proposal at all as I don't think Drmies has done anything wrong. I'm honestly more concerned you're calling for that AfD to be vacated for this than about anything Drmies has done. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you seriously suggesting that an admin should refrain from acting as as an admin on the project while their talk page is protected due to abuse? Do you have any idea how easy that would be to game from a trolling standpoint? It's a ludicrous suggestion. And your comment "Deleting from behind a protected Talk page is an abuse of admin rights" is equally absurd. I can't take anything you say from this point forward seriously.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

One can argue that you, an admin of many years' standing, should have a better understanding of policy before making such accusations. Acroterion (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I take your views, Acroterion, very seriously. I'm not one of those who dismisses accusations with a, "Haha good luck trying to get me desysopped". Yet I still don't see how we can simply waive a policy requirement of accountability simply because an admin found no better way to handle harassment than to shut down the main communication channel to anyone with fewer than 500 edits. We used to deny promotion at RfA to candidates who didn't enable email contact. Remember those days? If the situation doesn't allow you to fulfil your admin duties in an accountable way, hang up the mop until you can do the job as required by policy. There is no other way to ensure accountability. Owen× ☎ 16:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Reading the trail on Rocky's page, Drmies has email enabled and that's how he contacted him. Drmies was accountable and accessible, just not in one specific channel so not sure your analogy fits there, @OwenX (and I don't think email is required at RfA anymore, although I may be wrong) Star Mississippi 16:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Star Mississippi, for addressing the actual issue at hand. Having reviewed Rockycape's exchange with Drmies following Rockycape's email to Drmies, I struck out my comment at the DRV. Drmies, please accept my apologies for the inappropriate comment. I still wish you would reduce the protection level on your Talk page to just semi, and handle harassers who have a registered account by banning, which would benefit the rest of us too. Owen× ☎ 17:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We already do that. How many prolific abusive sockpuppeteers do you thing we see every day? There are some who've been harassing individual edits, posting threats, and wasting everybody's time, for decades, with hundreds of accounts. Admins who take action against them become targets. Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You are simultaneously complaining about a perceived IAR and then making up a new policy that an admin who has been abused to a sufficient degree can be driven away, rather than dealing with it in a manner that doesn't conflict with policy. The net result is that trolls can target people and win, according to your interpretation. "There is no other way to ensure accountability" is hyperbolic." And I agree that no action is required, except to ask that you remember to confine your comments at DRV to matters pertaining to the request, not to your perception of the justification for the closer's level of talkpage protection. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OwenX, I think you are wrong here. Mandating that all admins allow anyone to post sexist and racist attacks and death threats, and worse, on their talk pages is a non-starter. I know that's not explicitly your goal, but it is the natural consequence if admins must always leave their talk pages unprotected. Good-faith users can easily contact Drmies, such as by leaving a ping on their own talk page. Or by reaching out to a third party. Or, heck, taking it to one of the admin noticeboards. You say, "If the only way an admin can deal with harassment is to shut down commincation, then he should hang up the mop until the situation allows him to reopen the main communication channel." I'm not sure you are aware of the seriousness of some of our LTAs. I get multiple daily death threats, as do several other admins, and I consider myself lucky that I'm currently not targeted for far worse abuse, as I know Drmies has been. I think it's entirely reasonable to protect user talk pages to deal with such attacks. Disclaimer: my talk page is currently restricted to autoconfirmed and confirmed editors, protection applied by me. It was previously protected by Ponyo in a similar manner. I will note this helps but most certainly doesn't prevent the daily death threats I receive. I strongly believe your approach would, very quickly, result in many admins handing in their mop while LTAs would celebrate their substantial win. I think the balance is wrong. --Yamla (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that admins should receive the same protections afforded to all users. The rules do not and should not allow that admins have to take any abuse from troll accounts. I would expect that the community would want all editors respected and protected from threat and harassment. --ARoseWolf 17:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• This is entirely overblown and absolutely no action needed. I've worked with and highly respect both Drmies and OwenX so I don't think I'm Involved in that sense. This is all because an SPA had their personal project deleted and has spent a week bludgeoning and badgering rather than looking for sources. (Disclosure, endorsed the close at DRV but did not !vote in the AfD). Rocky had two means of communicating with Drmies, which they made use of and Drmies responded, which is all that's required of an Admin. Drmies has always been more than responsive, and self protection is not a reason for de-sysop (self or ArbComm). We are not required to be at the beck and call of users or abuse of trolls.Star Mississippi 16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• If I'm reading this correctly, Drmies' Talk has been protected since October 2022. That makes it even more unlikely that this is an admin conduct/contact ability issue or it would have been raised sooner. Star Mississippi 17:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  If it's been a year and a half, the protection should be lifted, as maybe the disruption won't continue. All editors, admins or not, should be equally eligible to have their user talk pages protected, eg with a request at RFPP. If anything, an admin's request for UTP protection should be held to a higher standard than non-admins because of adminacct (and because protecting an admin's page can cause problems like what happened at DRV where a non-XC editor was erroneously called out for not discussing with the admin first, which they couldn't do because of protection). Admins shouldn't protect their own pages because they're involved; another admin should review the request. In this case, if it's been a year and a half, the protection should be lifted and Drmies should make an RFPP request for re-protection if/when necessary. Levivich (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  where a non-XC editor was erroneously called out for not discussing with the admin first that was me, and I apologised for it when I got online this morning. The discussion happened via email and on the requestor's Talk, which was just fine. Let's not conflate the two. Star Mississippi 17:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I also made the same mistake when replying to the editor's enquiry on my talk page, for what it's worth. Daniel (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  If it was proven that Drmies was difficult to contact and unresponsive to editors concerns I would be the first to side with this position. But there are other avenues available to communicate with them and those avenues were used. Drmies was responsive to editors concerns and a discussion was had so I don't see a conduct issue. --ARoseWolf 17:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• From a purely 'policy' perspective and without any context, I tend to agree with Levivich above. But I am also cognisant that Drmies is one of the most targetted administrators we have for abuse, for all the hard work they do with LTAs etc. Ultimately we are all people, human beings, and it is impossible to ignore the human element of this issue — which is that Drmies needs this protection to reduce the impact of their editing on themselves and their family. I think that requires sympathy and understanding, and insofar as I noted my agreement with Levivich as a general statement, I feel like it may be appropriate to ignore this view in this situation. Daniel (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  If Drmies had requested protection at RFPP, it's likely it would have been granted, so we end up at the same place anyway. Conversely, anyone who thinks it shouldn't be protected can request reduction of protection at RFPP as with any other page. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  WP:INVOLVED does not apply when dealing with vandalism. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor and I think having your user talk page vandalized or receiving death threats counts as "conflicts with an editor." (I know some admins strongly disagree with this interpretation because they think it would allow editors to "conflict out" admins by picking fights with them.) Levivich (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Editors and admins who confront people who make graphic threats of violence against them, their families, and others are in no way "involved," as the policy makes amply clear. Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The policy also says that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role [...] is not involved. Interpretation of "conflicts" as it is used here to encompass efforts to prevent long-term abuse of the platform strains credulity. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

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

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Self-requested block of my old account

I would like to request a block on my old account M14325 (talk · contribs), which I no longer have access to. The account has already been blocked in de- and metawiki and now I would like to request a block here as well. Regards, Wüstenspringmaus _talk 07:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Wüstenspringmaus, rather than do it piecemeal, you should probably request a global lock at meta:Steward_requests/Global#Requests_for_global_(un)lock_and_(un)hiding. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, Primefac, they appear to have requested a lock at Meta here, though it was declined and they were re-directed to local admins. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 15:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Good to know, I did wonder if they might disallow self-locking. I don't really see much point in blocking an account that has zero edits and was created two years ago, but... meh.  Done. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Vanished user returned

If a user vanishes and then returns, should pages about that user, eg RfC's that the vanished user deleted, be undeleted, or signatures that they altered after vanishing be restored? DuncanHill (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

So per WP:VANISH, If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed. Though as neither deleting pages (except for user pages) or altering signatures is part of the vanishing process in the first place, they shouldn't have happened and therefore shouldn't need to be reversed. – Joe (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Among the deleted pages are Arbcom candidate statements, an MfD, their own contributions on other users' talk pages, and their own talk page. They also renamed an RfC, altered their own sigs on various pages. Then they returned and now edit under the same name, but I can't see any linking of the old account (which has a generic vanished name) and its edits and logs to the new one. This was all done some years ago, but the editor is active now. DuncanHill (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds pretty exceptional, though the policy does allow for exceptions. Maybe you should email ArbCom about it? – Joe (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds more like scorched earth than vanishing, but if you do have specific concerns about this issue and do not want to divulge here (which I totally understand) I agree that contacting an Arb (or even an Oversighter) is probably the best bet. I also agree, in general, that deleted pages should not be restored purely because they have returned; it's not like the U1 becomes invalid. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Most of them wouldn't qualify for U1 in the first place. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking to fix a defaced wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Itzler I am a live streamer and is being harrased by multiple trolls, im looking to get this page reverted back to a previous state, and lock the page from further edits. I am the owner of this wiki.

you can see there is trolls by checking the name of the image they provided, and a brief reading Gasnobrakes10 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

While there are grounds for protection on BLP grounds which I plan to enact and potential blocks, please read WP:OWN. You have no specific role when the content is compliant with guidelines here. Star Mississippi 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted to a version on June 22, right before the recent wave of disruptive editing began. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

and I think I got all of the offending content. If I missed any, @Cullen328 or any admin please feel free to continue. I'm about to hop offline. Star Mississippi 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

ETA, I have just semi'ed it. Found BLP violations going back to 2017. Have to hop offline but if someone else has time and can eyeball, that would be helpful. Star Mississippi 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

personal attack, spreading rumors

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

---

User:Michalis1994 accuses me without any proof that I am the same person as a blocked user on Greek Wikipedia. These kinds of accusations, on matters unrelated to editing, besides insulting my person, spread insidious rumors that may cause other users to view me with suspicion.

Extra careful, because you got blocked - who knows what could happen next? Removing cited content is not a great idea, Στρουμπούκη. and You're obviously trolling. Your account has been blocked completely from Greek Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts, whilst your name is... Dora? Yikes D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voice_of_Reason_-_Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1233180463 — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.S. Lioness (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

Once again, this is exasperating. D.S. Lioness has been blocked on Greek Wikipedia for being identified as the person behind the indefinitely banned account ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη. According to Meta, this individual has created over 50 sockpuppets in the past two years [1] [2] [3]. D.S. stands for Dora Stroumpouki, and she even refers to herself as Dora on her talk page. Despite being previously blocked, she has returned with no sign of self-reflection or a willingness to change her behaviour and adopt a more diplomatic approach. What is it that you hope to accomplish here?? Michalis1994 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

what does this have to do with my contribution to english wikipedia? D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Just stop removing cited content. Also, your previous behavioural patterns have been moved to the English Wiki, which is not really a great idea. You have been warned. Michalis1994 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? what are you doing here? how can you talk like that to another user? D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not the same person! D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to stop here. You are the same person and that's why you got blocked on Greek WP. Michalis1994 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.S. Lioness/Archive— Preceding unsigned comment added by D.S. Lioness (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

I would suggest not continuing this discussion. Michalis1994 can file a WP:SPI if they want. It isn't an actionable personal attack. PhilKnight (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

spreading rumors about a user's previous activity it is a serious personal attack and hurts my credibility. D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. You clearly are the same person as is blocked on el.wikipedia, because your global contributions are here for anyone to see. So saying "I'm not the same person" is a lie, and doesn't do you any credit. However your misdeeds, whatever they were, on that Wikipedia do not affect your existence here, as long as the same edit practices do not re-occur. If they do, you can - and probably will - be blocked here as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• My question is how the original poster thought it would be a good idea to open yet another noticeboard thread, when Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#No_cooperation,_no_good_faith (also started by them about the same editor) is still open? This is now the third thread started by the original poster about the same editor in a couple of weeks, if you included this miguided attempt that was eventually merged with the existing thread. I suspected there were some significant competence issues last week based on the ANI, and I am not being dissuaded in my view by subsequent developments. Daniel (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is also an AN3 report too, which I just found. Daniel (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It is clearly a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Michalis1994 stalking case here. 90 out of 100 edits from Michalis are related with my contributions. I wait for check user results to clear the case, but the offensives are in daily basis. I don't know what to do..D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Removal of perms

Can an admin please remove the perms associated with this account? I tried to come back, but have decided to scramble my passwords and leave this account for good. All the best, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 18:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed you extra permissions. Let me know if you change your mind. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@PhilKnight you missed autoreviewer I think. The Night Watch (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Now done. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA gaming?

The user Amayorov, despite having an eight-year-old account, made their first edit on 3 July 2024 before proceeding to pass 500 edits and receive extended confirmed permissions on 6 July 2024. All of the edits made, 100s a day, were on European politics and history. Shortly after achieving EC permissions, suddenly it's all 1948 Palestine war, specifically inserting Benny Morris as a source all over the place and doing some work on the Benny Morris biography. Apparently European content has lost its appeal. Make of this what you will. I also have to wonder if, despite having an extant account for 8 years, achieving 500 edits in three days (rather than the 30 days as envisaged in the ECR rule set) is somewhat of a violation of the spirit of the restrictions, even if not the technical function. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Were there any issues with the edits?

Discussions recently have come to the conclusion that absent obvious abuse - unproductive or disruptive edits, or repeatedly making a dozen edits to do what could be done in one or two - it’s acceptable for editors to work towards ECP.

To an extent, this makes sense - if we tell people "this is what you need to edit this topic area" we can’t reasonably expect editors interested in the topic area to not work towards it. BilledMammal (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

see my reply Amayorov (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Issues other than that pushing Benny Morris here there any everywhere with little regard for any other sources is a terrible form of disregard for NPOV? That alone, in a contentious topic area, is pretty disruptive. The 500/30 rule is aimed at ensuring a minimum level of understanding and competency. Yes, some are encouraged to rush the requirements, but we shouldn't encourage editors to rush the requirements. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not "push Benny Morris" but rather expanded on the already existing citations to his work. Recall that Benny Morris' 2008 book had already been the most quoted reference on that page. When necessary, I've added phrases such as "some scholars allege that" etc.

When you and other users disagreed with my edits, I didn't proceed, but rather created sections on the Talk page. Unlike other users, you didn't engage.

I think the extensive sourcing I use in any of my edits illustrate that I at least possess "a minimum level of competency". Amayorov (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have engaged. As of the time of me writing this, there are at least two comments from me to you that you have not responded to. Again, this can be checked. I suggest you desist from misrepresenting very verifiable information in this forum. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You wrote those comments less than an hour before reporting me on the Admin board. Yes –– all of this can be checked.

I suggest you desist from misrepresenting very verifiable information in this forum. Amayorov (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I meant in regardless to the substance of this complaint - with the edits to reach 500.

If we don’t tell editors that they can’t work towards 500/30, then how should they know we don’t want them to work towards them? If the goal is to ensure a minimum level of understanding and competency, and 500 edits isn’t sufficient for that, then let’s modify the requirements - for example, require edits to be a minimum byte size to count, as I have proposed in the past. BilledMammal (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. However, I have clearly written plenty of bytes in my 500 edits, in some cases going as far as copy-editing entire pages that had been poorly translated or unsourced. You can see all that in my edit history. Amayorov (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is patently false. I have made extensive edits to various topics, including military history and Central Asian history, paganism, and engineering. All my corrections were extensively referenced. I have also rewritten several large articles, requiring copy-edit and verification.

It is true that I have re-activated my account in the week. This is simply a reflection of the fact that I have free time, and have grown fond of Wikipedia.

Benny Morris' 1948 book has always been the most referenced book on the topic. I have used not only that book but also others by different authors, as well as sourcing UN archives.

I have added corrections and more references on the subject, including 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight and Palestinian nationalism. None of the other users had an issue with my work.

By contrast, @Iskandar323 has reverted my edits without giving a justification. They also ignored my attempts at a discussion in the Talk pages. Amayorov (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I had a justification, and I have responded on talk. I suggest that you avoid misrepresenting things that can be checked up on (on an administrative noticeboard). And yes, other users have taken up issue with your edits. I'm not sure why you would misrepresent this. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Your justification was RV gf edits - unfortunately, adding random titbits of background information from Morris, removing dates and badly rephrasing other parts is not an improvement.

This is not specific or constructive. In order to clarify your objections, I created discussion topics on the Talk page – which you have ignored. Amayorov (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have responded to some, not all of your posts. However, I would prefer to see what administrators think of this situation before potentially unduly spending more time on explaining why expanding claims from a single source that is, in your own words, already the most [(over-)]quoted reference on the page, is not particularly in the service of NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You have responded to them half an hour ago, almost immediately posting on the Admin board.

Yes, Benny Morris is the most quoted historian on the 1948 war. I barely added new references to him, usually simply extending the existing ones. Amayorov (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I should be grateful that you've helped illustrate quite how over-represented Benny Morris is (more than 50 citations and mentions), but again, that begs the question of why you think this clear imbalance problem should be worsened. If you can't see that there might be an imbalance problem there, that somewhat illustrates why the 500/30 rule exists and why a month of actual editing is, in spirit, what is expected of it. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Because Morris has written multiple, highly regarded books on the 1948 war. He's cited by plenty of other authors, such as Shlaim, Khalidi, Ben-Ami, and others.

Besides, and as I've previously explained, I didn't add much new material. I've clarified previous references and added qualifications to partisan statements. Amayorov (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute, Iskandar323, moreso than any actual gaming. It seems like it might be better to have discussed this with the editor on a talk page, not hauled them to AN. The editor's contributions appear to be in good faith, and while I haven't gone into a full deep-dive or anything of the sort, they don't seem to be unconstructive at first glance. Favoring a specific historian isn't necessarily a behavioral issue, so long as they are willing to discuss inclusion and abide by the results of consensus. Building a culture of continually questioning those who take the time to build a constructive editing history in order to prove they can be trusted with access to contentious topics is a terrifying idea. If I was to accuse someone of gaming for rollback, for example, because they spent a lot of time reverting vandals, it would likely be considered at the very least rude, and at worst a personal attack. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a content dispute for sure, which I will continue in good faith. At the same time, there is only one type of account that I have ever seen that goes from 0 to 100 edits a day on some random topic before switching (after 3 frenetic days) to almost pure ARBPIA edits, and it isn't the constructive variety. There are plenty of dubious accounts that have just passed this threshold currently operating in the contentious topic area. This account, however, caught my eye due to the rapid edit aggregation and glaring topic switch. I have raised the issue of quite a few gaming accounts on this noticeboard, and to date, most of them have raised eyebrows for admins too. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, from my perspective there appears to be some unnecessary edit farming in this user's background. For instance, Sukhoi Shkval did not require 40 edits in a row to achieve this relatively minimal difference, while not managing to add a single in-line citation or new source. On 9К512 Uragan-1M we got some extremely minor, non-substantive copyediting that frankly didn't change the readability of the article much. An improvement? Perhaps trivially, but reasonable editors could disagree there. Worth sanctioning over? IMO probably not, but I don't think Iskandar323's concerns are without merit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 9K512 Uragan-1M, the article had been marked as “roughly translated.” I did my best to correct residual grammatical errors, before marking the issue as resolved.

Regarding Sukhoi-Shkval, I agree that 40 edits were excessive. One reason for this was that I was still learning about the editing tools, discovering new templates and features. Another justification is that I had to decipher some unclear text, such as “Each wing has a rudder that functions as a rudder and aileron.” Here, the first “rudder” is in fact not a rudder at all, but a flap. I had only figured that out once I read through the sources. Amayorov (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't require 40 edits from an experienced editor who knew everything about how wikitext worked, but for somebody figuring it out for the first time I am inclined to assume good faith. jp×g🗯️ 20:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

There may be something going on with ARBPIA, perhaps unrelated to this, but worth thinking about. We had a recently compromised account jump into ARBPIA in the past week, threatening to report other editors if reverted, then reporting a prominent ‘opponent’ to WP:AE, volunteering to be topic banned if the ‘opponent’ is also topic banned, before being Checkuser blocked by an Arb. starship.paint (RUN) 23:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I was going to report this user as well. Account created in 2016 but first edit made a few days ago and quickly put in 500 edits, immediately jumps into Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area, seemingly POV-pushing. Seems to be an experienced user as well. I agree with @Starship.paint that there seems to be something going on with ARBPIA, specifically a surge in sock accounts. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether these plots can provide any illumination. The dramatic change in slope and shape of the bytes added and page byte size change curves after extendedconfirmed has been granted at 500 edits is consistent with the notion of gaming to obtain the privilege in order to enter the contentious PIA topic area. These kind of signal shapes for users that enter the PIA topic area can often be seen for sockpuppets of AndresHerutJaim/יניב הורון, not that that suggests this is an AHJ sock. Wikipedia provides tools to help new users rapidly gain EC. Sometimes this kind of impressive efficiency is thanks to the Wikimedia Foundation Growth team's "Newcomer tasks" project. Also, their first edit being an WP:ARBECR violation is not great. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

When I was doing my edits, I was using almost exclusively Wiki’s backlog. I chose the issues that I could conceivably help with, such as Rough Translation from Russian and French (the languages I speak), and lead rewrite requests. I intend to continue on with this work in the future.

And, yes, I’m interested in the IP history, about which I’ve read a lot. Since gaining extended privileges, I’ve made improvements to those articles. Those edits have arguably been better-sources than any of my other work, due to my having more knowledge to my having more knowledge on the topic. I do not deny that I wanted to contribute to these topics from the start. Amayorov (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Amayorov but you don't need to defend yourself to me. I'm nobody. I'm just providing information. Either way, the notion of gaming in Wikipedia and its relationship to the WP:ARBECR barrier is currently rather vague. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Where did you learn to add a colon prefix to the category name in your busy schedule by the way e.g. :Category:Wikipedia backlog|Wiki’s backlog? Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The visual editor adds it automatically, when I link to the url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_backlog Amayorov (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Either way, regardless of the specifics of this editor, it's important for the community to acknowledge that a) WP:ARBECR was introduced as an entry barrier for good reasons and b) highly motivated people have already discovered ways to essentially tunnel through that barrier. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Not being a tech wizard, I can only judge by what I see over time. I am in the habit of adding awareness notices if I notice new editors (non EC or EC) making edits in the topic area and off the top of my head, I would say that occurs 3 or 4 times a month at least, there appears to be an increase in the number of such editors in recent times, as to what proportion of them are WP:NOTHERE I couldn't say but experience tells me that some at least are in that category. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are underestimating your contribution. This year I think you have provided the awareness notices to 202 users, or thereabouts. That is based on your revisions to user talk pages where the byte size change is in a range consistent with the awareness template size. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The top of my head is very unreliable then, lol. Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: There is an easier way to check; see this log search. Selfstudier has posted 210 this year. BilledMammal (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that's useful to know. Thanks. I've not really spent any time looking at the filters, despite them being a likely information goldmine. On the other hand, the pointlessly harder path is often more fun. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No comment about the gaming accusation, but the ARBPIA edits themselves seem fine. Morris is arguably the most prominent historian in this area, and one of the more neutral ones, with critics from both sides. It's debatable whether some of the added content is important enough to include, but it's reasonable enough, and Amayorov seems open to feedback and compromise. POV pushing involves aggression, which I don't see here. If we were to expect some kind of strict symmetry in editing behavior, the vast majority of us ARBPIA editors would fail that standard. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC) I think it's quite natural that hot topics attract new editors trying to fix (perceived) gaps or biases. I myself got to 500 edits within two months after getting involved in another contentious area. At the end of the day the question should be whether an editor understands and follows the rules. Alaexis_¿question? 21:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest VRT consultations, July 2024

The Arbitration Committee has received applications for conflict of interest VRT queue access and has reviewed them in consultation with the functionaries team. The Community is invited to evaluate the candidacies and comment here until the end of 17 July 2024 (UTC).

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Conflict of interest VRT consultations, July 2024

Multiple reverts

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

---

A user has reverted my edits two times each in First Dutch Military Aggression and Second Dutch Military Aggression. Can someone please prevent him from reverting it. I'm trying to avoid violating WP:3RR. Desertasad (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the OP for 72 hours for their homophobic comments they posted at NFSreloaded's Talk page, whom they failed to notify of this complaint. Any administrator is free to block Desertasad for longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I can tell you that if I were an admin, I'd indef. Saying that the legalisation of LGBTQIA+ is a bad thing is extremely disruptive. I've seen users indeffed for less. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree and have made it an indef. – Joe (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the tag. In response to this complaint: the manual reverts in question are here and there on Operation Product, and here and there on Operation Kraai. On the former article OP duplicated information already present in the lead section, on the latter article they moved the informal non-English terms for the military operation up to the first sentence. I considered both contributions redundant and undid them, ultimately resulting in the exchange on my talk page. That said, I don't feel I was pushing any kind of nationalist narrative in this situation or elsewhere. --NFSreloaded (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/蔡瑞月

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

---

Hi Administrators,

Someone upload a wrong portrait of Madam Tsai Jui-yueh on the Traditional Chinese Wikipedia page. https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/蔡瑞月

Someone uploaded using the reference below, Madam was tagged in that News article photo album, but photo is someone else in a group photo https://ahonline.drnh.gov.tw/index.php?act=Display/image/4359360wg9foOB#d6C

The same news article and album you can see Madam Tsai Jui-yueh is in this photo https://ahonline.drnh.gov.tw/index.php?act=Display/image/4359360wg9foOB#0Osa

Can someone please check the reference and correct this page.

該封禁的查封ID是#560409。--Tjyfoundation（留言） 2024年7月8日 (一) 11:27 (UTC) Tjyfoundation (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

zh.wikipedia.org is a different project. There's nothing that en.wikipedia.org can do for you, you need to raise your concern on that project. --Yamla (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

How to raise my concern on that project? Tjyfoundation (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

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

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

Notified: User talk:S Marshall#Closure review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closer

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you misread INVOLVED. It’s not about single discussions, but disputes as a whole - and you’ve been involved in disputes in relation to the reliability of The Telegraph, and given the part of your comment I quoted you clearly also have strong feelings on the subject. BilledMammal (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't have strong feelings about the Daily Telegraph. It employs people with ghastly and abhorrent opinions, and I certainly do have my views and opinions about some of those people, but that's not what's at issue here and the Daily Telegraph as a whole isn't a subject I care about.—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not what ONUS says - it doesn't put the burden on "the anti-change side". It puts the burden on "those seeking to include disputed content". "Seeking to include" means the ones adding it. It doesn't say "seeking to include or retain". DeCausa (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The policy issue is where I said this: My position is that we shouldn't be listing sources as generally reliable when the community has real doubts.—S Marshall T/C 13:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a view on that. I was just pointing out you've misread ONUS. DeCausa (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

---

S Marshall, I had not seen the indications of your involvement in this close, but you have even shown those here. WP:BADNAC states as the first reversal reason for a bad non-admin closure: The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved, with the exception of closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep[a] when all other viewpoints expressed were for keeping as well. You have indicated an opinion even here, and did so beforehand as well. So I will give you the option of reversing your closure, or I will, but it's going to be reversed. A discussion like this should be closed by an impartial closer, or perhaps a panel of them, but you have shown yourself not to be that. If you do not reverse your closure, I will do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

That would be an unwise and deeply controversial thing to do. I am not involved in this matter. At issue is whether the Daily Telegraph is reliable for statements about trans issues. I have never expressed a view on that. Historically I did express a view on the Daily Telegraph's reliability on politics. I said it was reliable for that, and it remains my view that the Daily Telegraph is reliable for politics. This doesn't make me involved in its reliability on other things and you do not get to unilaterally reverse a RFC close on your own judgment. That is not one of the powers the community has granted sysops.—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Either reverse or don't, coercing the closure to do so with an ultimatum is not ok. CNC (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

That is, in fact, one of the powers the community has granted sysops. WP:NAC specifically states that NACs are not appropriate in either of the following two situations: The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved, with the exception of closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep[a] when all other viewpoints expressed were for keeping as well., and The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. This closure at least arguably fails the two, but it dead clearly fails the second. It further states: Per Wikipedia:Deletion process § Non-administrators closing discussions,[b] inappropriate early closures of deletion debates may either be reopened by an uninvolved administrator. So, I intend to reopen it. For clarity, I don't intend to close it; I will leave that to others. I don't have a preferred outcome here, but this close was not appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You won't do that without pushback. This wasn't a deletion decision so you don't get to rely on rules about deletion decisions, and I'm rather self-evidently not involved. Politics is not gender.—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't imagine I'll do it without pushback or without having people shouting at me. I've got a pretty thick skin by now. But I still think it needs to be done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I've reopened the discussion. As above, I do not intend to close it or in any way be involved with deciding on the outcome, but that outcome does need to be decided properly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Overturning the close might be premature. Is it normal to short circuit an AN RFC review in such a manner? Doesn't seem very efficient to have a big discussion here if the outcome is already ordained. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do you also believe, per WP:NAC, that all of S Marshall's RfC closes on controversial topics should be reverted? Do you really want to set the precedent that all controversial closes must be handled by administrators? Do you think we have that capacity? I think this is a spectacularly bad exercise of judgement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

So you've overturned and relisted as an involved admin in this request, because you deem the closure was involved? I can't be the only one who sees the irony in this. CNC (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I saw a supervote/BADNAC here, and overturned it. I think that's what should be done. I wasn't involved in the discussion; I was upset by it because of how clearly unacceptable it was. That close didn't summarize the opinions in the discussions, it expressed the opinions of the closer. If that's not a bad close, I don't know what is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

And why do you think your 'upset' trumps the opinions of other editors who have expressed support for this close, or indeed those that agree that it should be overturned, but have decided to express that through discussion? This was very poor judgement. – Joe (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

BADNAC or not, your decision makes a mockery of this RfC review process. You expressed your opinion below to overturn and are clearly involved in the dispute here, then went ahead and supervoted the outcome. Being upset is no excuse for this, it's shocking. CNC (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Please restore the close and follow process here. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, what arrogance. Okay someone close this close review, although the AN certainly hasn't seen the last of this.—S Marshall T/C 11:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm stunned, Seraphimblade. Not only did you choose to ignore all the editors telling you that this was a bad idea and do it anyway, but you're now edit warring over it. Do you think this is how contentious decisions should be carried out? – Joe (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The close review shouldn't be closed. Seraphimblade should either do the right thing or a new discussion should he started here about the unilaterak overturn. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Administrator Seraphimblade's misuse of the rollback tool is noted here. Per WP:ROLLBACKUSE, points 1–5 obviously don't apply, and 6 cannot, as Seraphimblade failed to provide a custom edit summary explaining the reason for reverting the changes. Not a good look, tbh, either in terms of accountability or conduct. ——Serial Number 54129 12:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've raised Seraphimblade's action at Wikipedia:Administrative action review#Unilateral overturning of a close by Seraphimblade. I'm not sure what to do about this discussion now. – Joe (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think this mini discussion ought to be closed. Peopld can discuss at the review. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Non-participants

• Overturn. Firstly, the close strikes me as making an argument rather than summarizing them, which raises at least substantial concerns of a supervote. But, that aside, the close seems to be a "no consensus", which means no change to the status quo, yet it then calls for a change in the status quo. Given these concerns and the incoherent nature in general, I think the discussion needs to be reclosed in terms of first, determining if there is any consensus whatsoever (if "no", no changes are made), and, if so, what it is and why. While I have not exhaustively reviewed the discussion, I did take a look over it, and I don't think a clear consensus could be discerned from it, so I think a "no consensus, therefore no change" closure would be the most appropriate result. But certainly "No consensus, but make a change anyway" is an incoherent one, so that can't stand. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Responding to I decided to treat this as more like a content decision governed by WP:ONUS than a procedural one governed by AFD consensus. In doing this, I removed the first mover advantage that the "generally reliable" side expected and I think relied on. At issue here is the question: was I right to do that? It is my opinion that "no consensus" often means "no change", even outside of AFD. But RSP is a clear exception to this, as stated in WP:MREL. No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply. The words "no consensus" are literally in the title/definition of what is frequently "option 2" in RSN RFCs. Unfortunately, my opinion on this does not add clarity here, but instead suggests that an RFC like this one, which had a lot of option 1 and option 3 !votes, could reasonably be closed as "no consensus" and become a consensus for option 2. Because of the murkiness of all of this, I leave this as a comment rather than a bolded endorse/overturn, and I simply leave this as food for thought. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agree. RSP is simply a place where summaries of discussions are documented, not much else. We can't omit NC discussions because there was previously consensus for X, Y and Z. Whether previous consensus should remain, or be prioritised over a NC discussion, is another topic that effects more RSP entries than just The Telegraph. CNC (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  As to where the boundary of WP:INVOLVED is, it is my opinion that one is involved if reasonable editors perceive the closer as having an obvious bias. Even if the closer is not actually biased, the perception of such is important, imo. Is S Marshall involved here? I don't know. It will depend on if more than a couple editors feel that he has an obvious bias. A couple clearly think he does, but I think more input is needed before deciding that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  While your obviously entitled to your opinion, INVOLVED is not based on having a perceived bias. You have to prove that bias makes the closure impartial based on disputes or conflicts with other editors within that topic area. CNC (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse close, but can understand re-listing in order to be re-closed by a group of editors to satisfy all these "extra" issues, specifically regarding the closing summary. From a look at the discussion, I don't think any other close could have reasonably ascertained that there was consensus for GR or GU while remaining impartial, and thus no consensus was the correct assessment by default. I found the closing rationale very reasonable, even if I do understand concerns regarding some of the wording. In my opinion the weight given to the dispute of reliability in the closing summary otherwise makes sense. If the RfC failed to gain consensus, it makes sense to use more words explaining why there wasn't consensus from those who disputed reliability, as opposed to elaborating on why editors believed it was reliable, similar to the closure summaries of other contentious RfCs. Concerns over the closure's involvement otherwise need to be supported with diffs, specifically of the closure's involvement in disputes regarding The Telegraph or trans issues, otherwise this "fall back" argument is meaningless. CNC (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  @CommunityNotesContributor: I think you overlooked this diff I provided - sorry, I should have made its presence clearer rather than including it as a WP:EASTEREGG. BilledMammal (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  So no dispute then? Having an opinion is not being involved. Anything else? CNC (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  The dispute was regarding the reliability of the Telegraph. Having an opinion made them a party to that dispute. Editors who are parties to a dispute are forbidden from closing discussions broadly related to that dispute, and whether the Telegraph is reliable for politics is a dispute very closely related to whether it is reliable for trans issues. BilledMammal (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Having an opinion made them a party to that dispute." That's a huge stretch. CNC (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify; they expressed their opinion while participating in the dispute. That makes them a party to the dispute. BilledMammal (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  The discussion was "What do we think of the reliability of this story", the editor provided an opinion on that. They didn't engage in any dispute with other editors, ie argue with other editors, it was an isolated comment. To clarify, this discussion is a dispute, because we are arguing. See the difference? CNC (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  The discussion was Reliability of the Daily Telegraph for politics?, and the notion that it is only a dispute if there is arguing is... novel. Interpreting it that way would mean that editors would even be able to close RfC's they participate in, so long as they don't engage in any back-and-forth discussion.

  This discussion is getting a little deep, so I'll step out now. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  WP:INVOLVED does have novel wording: " Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics,...". This is not a "conflict" with other editors, nor based on trans topics. The wording at WP:CLOSE arguably has a higher bar for contesting: "if the closing editor may have become inextricably involved through previous experience in the conflict area", so a throwaway opinion isn't going to cut it here. CNC (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. I found the close very reasoned. I can understand that some may take issue with the description "unashamed embrace", however the crux of the issue is that the paper published a hoax in the area of gender identity and when it was demonstrated that it was hoax they didn't publish a correction. To me that seems perfectly relevant to the question of whether The Telegraph is reliable on trans issues regardless of the specific wording. TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  What hoax are you referring to with the paper published a hoax? BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  The kitty litter hoax, the claim that accommodations were being made to children who identified as animals. Is there something else that the close referred to as an "unashamed embrace" of? TarnishedPath^talk 03:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  The paper did not make that claim, it reported on others making that claim, cited to them. It did not report that as fact. We don't expect reliable sources to avoid reporting on others spouting falsehoods - otherwise every US news source that has reported on all of Trump's falsehoods would have to be unreliable, since they reported them! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  (however many do expect newspapers to issue updates when falsehoods come to light, but we're going off-topic here. point is, that part of the close unduly exaggerates the consensus on the nature of the issue discussed.) Aaron Liu (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  There was a recent discussion about Al Jazeera that many of the editors commenting here had to have seen (and quite a few participated in) where the conclusion I observed is that is not expected for "news" that was accurate at the time and cited/attributed to another source that later updates itself - so long as their future news stories are in compliance with the updated information. I agree with you that it unduly exaggerates the amount of consensus for "unreliable" to make it a "no consensus". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  That the newspaper published a hoax is not a summary of the discussion. It is one contention that was strongly disputed within the discussion. The term "unashamed embrace" shouldn't be an issue for some, it should be an issue for all, as it wasn't even argued during the discussion. Editors who claimed the Telegraph was knowingly printing false material also often argued that they snuck it in through quotes by dubious actors rather than putting it in their own voice. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn. Closer says that WP:ONUS applies to editors who object to adding a rule so "those who want the status quo need to achieve positive consensus for it", it will be good if admins comment that's not how it works. It's fine to agree with the minority that the cat affair justifies action but that's a vote not an evaluation of consensus. However, adding twaddle to the essay-class WP:RSP page needn't concern admins. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. Given that the closer assessed this as "no consensus", the correct and only outcome is to retain the status quo, which is that the Telegraph is "generally reliable". The spiel above about WP:ONUS mandating some other outcome is not supported by WP guidelines and effectively takes the close into WP:SUPERVOTE territory. This should be reclosed properly, with no consensus meaning no change to the status. That's not to say we would always have to follow the Telegraph on trans issues, of course, ONUS does apply at individual article level across the project, and where claims in the Telegraph represent WP:FRINGE viewpoints when compared with other sources, it's correct to ignore them. That's a far cry from there being a consensus to label it as "reliability disputed" though.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Note that "no consensus" for a source evaluation brings it into WP:MREL, its own status for "no consensus". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  That would apply if the matter had never been discussed before, with no status quo, and this were to establish a new position. But that's not the case. There was an RFC in 2022 which concluded that the Telegraph is generally reliable. This RFC here sought to amend that prior consensus and add a new caveat for trans issues specifically. Altering previous consensus requires consensus, not a lack thereof. Lack of consensus means retain status quo.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Lack of consensus that a source is generally reliable means that it isn't generally reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  It means nothing of the sort. It means nobody could agree if it is or not. You don't get to "win" the argument by default just because some people agreed with you and some people didn't. This principle would also apply if it had previously been declared unreliable. The status quo remains.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  If nobody can agree if it is or is not reliable, then it can't, by definition, be generally reliable. WP:RSP#Legend defines "Generally reliable" as Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  The status quo of RSP is categorising discussions based on consensus or lack of. CNC (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's been referenced before but RSP is a summary of discussions. If there is no consensus over the reliability of a source, or over a particular topic from a source, then it will be documented as such. The reliability of The Telegraph was otherwise previously discussed prior to the RfC. What your implying has broader implications on RSP categorisation. CNC (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn. Potential involvement aside, the bit about WP:ONUS on the closer's talk page takes this into supervote territory. I will leave it to the new closer or closers to decide the outcome. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. This was a good close. Firstly I don't see how a single past opinion about a separate topic that The Daily Telegraph covers would then indicate the closer is therefore WP:INVOLVED in this topical circumstance (i.e., this single opinion doesn't make the closer "inextricably involved... in the conflict area"). This is especially true in this case, where the closer's broader comment was essentially about the apparent ability of the newspaper to still remain factual despite the individual biases of of a subset of employees. Secondly, about the close itself, the legend for Perennial Sources list entries labeled "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" (i.e. Option 2 of RSN RfCs) provides the relevant detail for evaluation here: "Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances." The discussion in this RfC clearly fits the description of "may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate". If discussions are split between Options 1 and 3 (or 4) and no consensus emerges, as was the case here, the discussion then pretty clearly renders into Option 2 territory when it's time to close. It's clear to me the Option 2 of active RfC discussions is for considering the "unclear" and "additional considerations apply" aspects of the label during such discussions, but needn't be explicitly invoked at a level that cements 'consensus for a lack of consensus', so to speak, for it to be the correct outcome. This case shakes out as no consensus about the reliability of The Daily Telegraph for the subject of trans issues, exactly as the closer found it. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse as far as I am concerned, closes deserve some minor presumption of regularity, and there should be a showing of some meaningful issue or bias before we go about overturning one. I see nothing of the sort here, and the close strikes me as well within the range of possibilities that a reasonable closer might choose. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. The closer's summary is rife with misleading claims and analysis, along with real concerns of a supervote, as many others have pointed out at length. I'd like to put specific emphasis on what the closer should have, but did not mention in the summary:
  • 1. The sheer amount of sensationalist claims the original poster had listed that went on to be directly and irrefutibly shown to be either false or misleading. See discussion there at length
  • 2. Directly following that, a re-evaluation of the merits of the one remaining possible 'single mistake' (the child's identity as a cat) to even possibly warrant this RfD to result in a characterization of 'reliability disputed'
  • 3. An accurate presentation of the terms of that misrepresented 'one mistake', which was revealed in discussion to be a mistaken assumption based on information the paper was provided with
  • 4. The major amount of support in the 'unreliable' camp that were either based on non-arguments or used language suggesting they had taken all of the original poster's assertions at face value. A sampling: "it was extensively proven that the Telegraph propagates blatant lies"; another user says "we should never use a newspaper for almost anything"; yet another states "the Telegraph is not a source of expert opinion on this topic... there's no reason Wikipedia needs to publish anything they say about it". There are many more !votes that are non-starters when you read the reasoning.

The closer did not recognize the importance of depreciating the value of any editors' votes that were not based on any evidence discussed in the RfC, besides the other issues raised above and by other editors. I hope the next close will be fairer. JoeJShmo^💌 06:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn While I think I agree with the closer, the way it was phrased makes it fairly clear this was a supervote at best. Lulfas (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn First, I don't find the WP:INVOLVED argument compelling. Commenting on a previous RFC about the Telegraph's reliability as a whole is approaching the line, but I think it is firmly on the "acceptable" side of it. Reading the close itself, I see substantial defects on the merits to the point that it looks like a WP:SUPERVOTE. The close seems to take assertions made by the 3/4 camp at face value (especially the litter box thing, which was a clear point of disagreement as to what facts they were stating), while minimizing or totally glossing over arguments made by the 1 !voters, especially the comprehensive refutations of the RFC basis by Chess. The weighting applied to these arguments is also strange. Editors on both sides made some poor arguments, but a lot of the 3 and most of the 4 !voters made arguments that were weak or totally irrelevant. Those addressing the opinion pieces or "platforming" certain views mean nothing for reliability, since those are already unusable for statements of fact. Some accepted the litter box claims at face value, totally ignoring the refutations to them much like the close itself did. Other !votes were bare statements of opinion, such as I'd barely trust the Telegraph with the weather, let alone any politics, and least of all any kind of gender politics. When these non-arguments are down-weighted or discarded, I believe the consensus becomes very clear. I would have closed it as WP:GREL, but with an additional note that while factually reliable, there was consensus that their coverage of trans issues is biased and special attention should be given to WP:DUE. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  But that clearly would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE, since there obviously wasn't a consensus in the discussion. The idea that a "refutation" must be accepted by everyone else who !votes subsequent to it is obviously silly. The "refutation" just wasn't convincing to many editors. Loki (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  It was not convincing or not - many editors chose to ignore it completely, rather than explain why they were not convinced. As I stated elsewhere, if an editor wishes to express their view that a refutation is not convincing, that is fine and could be given weight as appropriate, as the person you replied to did. But if all they do is ignore it, their vote must be seen in light of the fact they are ignoring the discussion on it, and only commenting with their opinion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  In which case we must also regard every comment that does not explicitly mention every piece of evidence or (claimed) refutations of that evidence as ignoring that evidence and/or refutation. i.e. the same standards must be applied to everyone. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it is especially controversial to say that a !vote that considers the counter arguments and rejects them is stronger than one that simply repeats the claims with nothing showing they've done any actual analysis of it. I didn't say those should be totally ignored, just weighted accordingly. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's more controversial than you think it is. Imagine the following two !votes:

  • Support I think we should only include a mention of Darwin's Origin of Species, because of the many reliable sources that support it, and the zero that support the "aliens did it" hypothesis advanced by the OP. - Alice
  • Oppose Alice claims that no reliable sources support the "aliens did it" hypothesis, but what about "Aliens Did It" by Quacky McQuackerson? - Bob

  Which of these !votes is stronger? Which should be weighted more highly? Loki (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Considering that in this hypothetical you're "Bob" (Alice claims that the Telegraph doesn't endorse the Litter boxes in schools hoax, but what about this article where they call it a hoax?), that isn't exactly a counter-argument. BilledMammal (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  You are indeed Bob in this case. You are saying that the source says something that everyone with eyes can read for themselves is not what the source is saying. You’ve claimed that the source “states that the litter boxes in schools happened” - but that was clearly refuted as they merely reported on the hoax that was stated by others, with attribution. Ditto for the other things you’ve claimed. To be quite blunt, when an editor is as misleading as your initial claims in the RfC are, and they are so clearly refuted that there is virtually nobody arguing after the fact that isn’t equally misrepresenting the sources, all of the !votes based on the misrepresentation need to be weighted heavily down, or given no weight if they provide zero other justification than the misinformation.

  In other words, we should not be in the habit of rewarding people who promote quackery (such as Bob), or who promote misinformation/misleading reading of a source to try and “win” the argument (like you did). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  You say "everyone with eyes" agrees with you, ignoring the many people with eyes who disagree with you. Loki (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  ...which is what many option 3 !voters did. The difference between these sides which both didn't mention refutations is that more option 3 !voters often did not provide refutations. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  And what I'm saying here is that a weak refutation should not be more heavily weighted than no refutation. If anything it should be weighted less, because it reveals a fundamentally weak argument. Loki (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  That’s absolutely absurd. Someone who is expressing their opinion with reasoning/rationale will always be weighted higher than someone who drives by and “throws a !vote at the house”. You claim it’s weak, then care to explain why a majority of “non drive by” editors after the refutation agreed with it? And of those who didn’t, very few bothered to actually explain what they found wrong with it? Those two things are, in fact, the sign of a strong refutation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree wholeheartedly. This contention seems entirely misconceived to me, and also somewhat oppressive. Giving full reasons can't be mandatory. If I'm at AfD, I shouldn't have to type out, "I concur with the nominator. I too have carried out an exhausive search for sources and I too have not been able to locate an acceptable one. Like the nominator, I don't agree that this person's blog is a useful source for their biography." I should be allowed to type "Delete per nom" in the happy expectation that my contribution will get full weight. People must not be made to feel they have to type out arguments that have already been well made, in full, before their view is counted.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  It depends on the context. If at the AfD the nom says "Fails GNG", and an editor subsequently posts a list of sources, saying "per nom" is a very weak argument - you need to address the rebuttal.

  It's similar here. If you say "Per Loki", you need to address the rebuttal that argued Loki not only failed to provide sources for the claim that the Telegraph endorsed the Litter boxes in schools hoax, but that one of the sources they did provide explicitly called it a hoax. BilledMammal (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's long been understood that WP:PERX is a weak argument. While WP:ATA is an essay, it has broad community support. As mentioned on that page, Where reasonable counter-arguments to the nomination have been raised in the discussion, you may wish to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshalling your own evidence. At least giving some evidence that you've read the opposing arguments and disagree with them shows that you've done some kind of analysis. If we don't weigh arguments according to how comprehensive, informed, and well-grounded they are then all we have left is a headcount. To also quote from WP:CRFC, The degree to which arguments have been rebutted by other editors may be relevant, as long as the rebuttals themselves carry sufficient weight. If one group is responding directly to the other’s arguments but the other isn’t, that may be relevant to determining which group has better reasoning. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  When the arguments they are citing have been solidly refuted with significant agreement with that refutation, then yes, the editor should be expected to justify their agreement or have their argument down weighted accordingly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Considering almost all of nom's original arguments were at best misrepresentations, votes along the lines of "delete per nom" should've been- and should be- majority depreciated. The litter box hoax was a non starter, and nom was reduced to "claims along the lines of a litter box hoax". Further claims were shown to be non-starters as well. Any vote relying on nom's presentation of the issues stated quite possibly could've been completely disqualified, and at the least depreciated. JoeJShmo^💌 01:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @S Marshall, is your reading of the discussion that Loki's opening stood more or less unrebutted? Nominator brought 14 links to the Telegraph in their nomination. 9 were described by nominator as directly saying false things. All 9 by my count conclusively refuted farther in the discussion as nothing more than biased presentation at most.

  The 5 others were to do with the cat-gate at Rye College. Nominator brought two articles from the Guardian and Pink News to show Telegraph coverage was proven false. In fact, while the Pink News at least states that the Telegraph's reporting is false, it certainly doesn't prove it. The Guardian simply carries the school's denial that a student identifies as a cat.

  And then the rub. No one has actually proven that a student did or didn't identify as a cat. But editors continue to dispute whether demonstrating factual inaccuracy is an important part of a finding of unreliability, so there's that.

  Nominator also brought up some academic sources which I haven't had time to look into as deeply but which were strongly contested in discussion (and which you didn't mention in your close anyway).

  So out of 14 Telegraph articles, and 2 articles in the Guardian and Pink News, nominator managed to directly misrepresent the content of 11, and there is, at the very least, a significant case that nominator directly misrepresented the content of the other 5. This was spelled out clearly early in the discussion. But you think "Per Loki" and "Per Chess" should be given equal weight, because Loki actually made the misrepresentations, while Chess only pointed them out? Samuelshraga (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Loki's nomination statement was exhaustively analyzed by the community in that RFC. It enjoyed significant support and received significant opposition, and overall there was no consensus about its accuracy. The question at issue in that RFC was: Where does bias become unreliability? The community doesn't agree on the answer, but there certainly is not a consensus that the Telegraph is general reliable about trans people.

I did not say and do not think that all Loki's arguments were unrefuted. I do think it's proven that the Telegraph's reporting on the litter boxes in schools hoax was inflammatory in the extreme, that it published the report using reported speech but otherwise uncritically, and that it failed to publish a correction.—S Marshall T/C 07:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This is just not a reasonable, policy-informed reading of the RfC. The question at issue was not Where does bias become unreliability. Bias does not become unreliability. One can be biased without being unreliable and vice versa. The question was "What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?". Being inflammatory is not evidence of unreliability. Failing to publish a correction is not evidence of unreliability if it can't be demonstrated that the paper published a falsehood.

The nomination statement enjoyed significant support and received significant opposition, and overall there was no consensus about its accuracy. Is this more vote counting? Where have you weighed arguments? Samuelshraga (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

...and now we're getting somewhere. You don't have to be caught in a lie to be deceptive. Those appalling fundraising banners that the Wikimedia Foundation displays on our site are a really good example of this: being deceptive without actually lying. This practice of misleading people by telling the absolute truth, in an incredibly selective way, is called paltering and it's widely used by marketers, politicians, lawyers, pressure groups, and at least here in the UK, in newspapers. And if you could read what the "unreliable" camp said without understanding this, then I would gently suggest that you have an opportunity to re-read the debate more carefully.

The "unreliable" camp did not have to catch the Daily Telegraph in a falsehood. They just had to catch them telling the truth so selectively that bias becomes actual deception.

They didn't have to prove the Daily Telegraph intends to deceive. Deception can be inadvertent, particularly when it's by editors who're checking facts rather than checking for balance. We know all about this from Wikipedian content disputes: it's possible to deceive in good faith.

All the "unreliable" camp had to do was convince Wikipedians (1) that it's possible to be mislead by the Telegraph's coverage and (2) this happens often enough to affect the Daily Telegraph's reliability about trans people.

In my judgment, they failed. They did not achieve a consensus that the Daily Telegraph is unreliable.

I then had to decide what to do in the absence of a consensus.—S Marshall T/C 08:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It's fascinating if this was the basis for your ruling, given that you don't seem to have mentioned this in either your original or expanded close.

Had you mentioned it, doubtless you would have given an excellent explanation of how when editors rebutted charges of "misleading" with a defence of factual accuracy (e.g. here), they were missing the point. And pointed to discussants who actually said that being accurate but misleading was the basis of their case for GUNREL.

And when it was argued that the bar for reliability should be rooted in what false/misleading claims could be cited in articles rather than uncitable misleading implications (first sentence here and last 2 paragraphs here), you would have explained which counter-arguments you found to this point and how you weighted them, to reach a No Consensus finding.

I also note that this is the 3rd separate explanation I've seen you give for your close. It still doesn't contain a weighing of arguments, but I'll grant you that it's less egregious than the previous two. I look forward to the next one. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm clearly never going to convince you, but I have a chance at convincing your audience, so I'll deal with that too.

I'm allowed to explain my close in different ways, because you're allowed to spend thousands of words attacking it in different ways.

It's not for me to decide which counterarguments are persuasive. That's not the closer's role.

The RFC isn't a closer's suggestion box. It's an exhaustive dive into what the community thinks.

I don't decide who was right. I decide what the community as a whole thinks about the subject.

I believe that the community as a whole is at "no consensus" on the Daily Telegraph's reliability on trans issues.

And I believe that RSP should say so.

And if I'd weighted the arguments the way you want, I really would have been supervoting.—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If I thought you'd weighed arguments in a way that I don't like - if I thought you'd weighed arguments at all - then I would have just grumbled about Wikipedia in my head, and not come to a big central forum like this.

People on this noticeboard seem to have plenty of respect for your track record as a closer, even if they think you missed the mark here. As someone who is new to these discussions, I don't see much to respect about this close. In fact I don't see much evidence that you even gave the RfC more than a cursory skim. I wasn't one of the people who invested a lot of time in the arguments at the RfC, but if I were I would be pretty livid that someone would come on and clearly count votes without reference to arguments or policy. If I encounter your future closes I will endeavour to keep an open mind, in deference to the people who seem to value your contributions in general, though not in this case. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• The idea that a "refutation" must be accepted by everyone else who !votes subsequent to it is not what's being proposed here. I also don't expect S Marshall to take every unrefuted point as fact,

  The ask is that a closing statement explain why an evaluation of consensus was made.

  S Marshall accepted your view that The Telegraph promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax, but did not provide an explanation for why your claim was the consensus and why refutations of it were not. Because your claim was accepted at face value, the consensus was for Option 2.

  I expect closes to explain why opposing views were rejected in addition to summarizing consensus. Otherwise, there is no indication that a closer considered viewpoints other than the one they ultimately endorsed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Very, very well put. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. As Novem Linguae notes in their comment above, no consensus on source reliability is not the same thing as no change or keeping the status quo. We have here a source which where reliability is a matter of contention among editors, with dozens of well explained and policy-grounded arguments for both declaring the source as unreliable and reliable. Even discounting arguments focused on bias instead of reliability, I can see no weighing of the arguments that comes to any conclusion besides that editors do not agree on the reliability of The Telegraph on transgender topics. WP:MREL exists for a reason. RSP provides guidance on whether there is broad consensus on the reliability of common sources. Source evaluation within articles is always a matter of judging the specific claims and context. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 02:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn and reclose to same result. People have already pointed out the problems with the close statement itself, but I think "no consensus" is the correct conclusion to be drawn from that discussion. WP:MREL says Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate which I think is certainly the case here. It would be very hard to close the discussion for one side or the other without that close being a supervote itself. Pinguinn 🐧 11:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse outside of paragraph 3 The INVOLVED concerns do not move me per CNC, and I think S Marshall's interpretation of RSP (that a lack of consensus for reliability should be explicitly noted, not keep the status quo) is correct. With that being said, no consensus was found that the Telegraph articles about the Rye College debacle constituted promotion of a "hoax"; the closer writes about it as if the proposition there was hoax-promotion was agreed upon, and editors disagreed whether that alone was enough to make the Telegraph unreliable. Still, there was definitely not consensus the Telegraph is reliable for these issues; Aquillion's presentation of academic sources that criticize the Telegraph's reporting on this subject was never adequately rebutted, for one.

Even if S Marshall's close was flawed, I really do not want to go through the whole song and dance of reclosing with what will almost certainly be the same result, stated more verbosely. Sometimes I feel as if the consensus model tends toward rule by CAVE people. Mach61 13:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn Agree with the those who have argued that this should be reclosed properly. Even some of the editors who endorse the close recognize there's problems with wording of the close. The best way forward is to overturn the close and close it correctly. I realize this might seem like a waste of time, but when editors invest this much time into a review we might as well get it right. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Its pretty clear from above that many agree with the close substance, like I do as well. It seems that the closer made a comment in the close that led to this discussion, but that doesnt lead me to question the substance of the close. I do not find the supervote nor involved arguments to be convincing either. If the source isnt generally reliable, which clearly it isnt from this and other discussions, then it starts to look more like a drop the stick or SOAP issue to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Participants

• Support close. So, technically speaking, the Telegraph may have "only" supported a clearly false assertion that is very similar to the litter boxes in schools hoax, depending on how narrowly you read that page. However, IMO this is a nitpick. In practice what they said has all the important elements of the litter boxes in schools hoax: the important bit is that they claim a school officially supported students identifying as animals, and not the literal litter box part. If you object to the wording at WP:RSP, then edit that. Loki (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I object to the wording of the part of the close quoted at RSP. As long as the quoted content remains part of the close, I'm pretty sure arguments for removing it are unlikely the gain ground.

  Regardless of whether the hoax includes the situation in the articles mentioned, casual readers are likely to misinterpret what the misrepresentation is at first glance, which is something a summary should avoid. This "nitpick" has been raised at the closer's talk page and he has refused to change this wording. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  As was clearly and prominently refuted during the discussion, the Telegraph did not claim a school officially supported students identifying as animals. They reported, as a reliable source is allowed to, that the parents of a suspended student claimed that the school was doing that, and citing that belief to the parents themselves. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  If you think that was refuted at all, much less clearly, you're wrong. In fact I personally think you're lying, since it very clearly wasn't. Loki (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  It very clearly was, based on the relative amount of “legitimate” !votes for 1/3/4 after it was (legitimate meaning not based on “it’s biased” or “I don’t like it”), and for you to accuse me of lying shows a massive lack of AGF. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  It should be pretty clear that you can't just count votes to decide on a factual claim. Many people weren't convinced by my argument as a whole, but also many were, including several who were specifically convinced by the Rye College thing. Conversely many Option 1 voters, like the closer noted, waved off the Rye College articles as a single mistake without denying they were false. Loki (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yet significantly more people were either not convinced by your claims in the first place, or - and this is the important part - were convinced by the refutations. The mere fact that a relatively small proportion of editors claimed to still be convinced by your evidence does not change the fact that there can be consensus on reliability. If 10% of editors think it’s unreliable, but 90% were happy with the refutation, then it’s laughable to suggest it should be listed as “unclear” - that would be one of the clearest consensuses possible. Yet the closer didn’t even attempt to evaluate how the discussion evolved or the relative strength of the arguments. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've just re-read every bolded "Option 1" !vote, and and while I may have missed something I can't see any who waved off the Rye College articles as a single mistake without denying they were false. If I did miss something, can you link the !votes? BilledMammal (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, I also do not think that S Marshall is INVOLVED based off personal experience closing an RFC while having previously participated in an RFC in the topic area, and having that firmly upheld on close review. Loki (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn, and reclose. The closer did not take into account, or at a minimum failed to explain how they took into account, the number of !votes (primarily on the "unreliable/deprecate" side, but also a few on the reliable side) that were based solely on "I don't like it" or "it's biased thus by default unreliable" standpoints. That fact alone should merit overturning the close, since the closer did not take the strength of those arguments into account and down-weight them accordingly. However, the closer also admits on their talk page that they basically supervoted. They didn't assess the community's belief, and especially Chess's refutation, of the claims regarding the "cat" hoax/"litterbox" hoax. They assessed, without explaining how they felt the community came to that consensus, that it was blatant misinformation, and they based their close in large part on the fact that, since the source published information about that, all arguments for unreliability must be accurate. In fact, Chess and other users (including myself), refuted the fact that it was a "hoax" published by the Telegraph - the Telegraph published what others were saying about it, and cited their sources accordingly when they did report the views/opinions of others. However, the closer did not take into account any of these arguments made. Lastly, there was a clear turn of the discussion after Chess and others discussed and refuted the claims at length during the discussion. Before Chess's comments and the ensuing discussions, there were people claiming that the evidence presented at the start was grounds for unreliability on its own. Many of these people admitted that Chess's refutation was valid, and that their arguments were much less strong. But even more damning for this close, after Chess's refutations and the ensuing discussions had been discussed, there were virtually no !votes for unreliable/deprecate that were actually based on the evidence presented at the beginning. The vast majority, if not all, of the !votes after the discussions were based on the improper arguments such as "I don't like it" or "It's biased thus unreliable", which were not properly weighted by the closer. Ultimately, I thank the closer for making an attempt, but it is clear that the close failed in three primary ways: It did not evaluate the strength of the arguments, it did not evaluate the "turn of the tide" after the opening arguments were largely refuted, and the closer injected their personal opinion as to the "cat/litterbox" hoax into their evaluation. For these reasons, the close should be overturned. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. The close is not close to a faithful conclusion of the discussion. The issues with this close are in the third and fourth paragraphs. In the third, the close takes as a fact The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax. Any reading whatsoever of the discussion will show that the idea that the Telegraph promoted some version of the litterbox hoax is contested, with many editors subscribing to refutations of this point.

The next paragraph goes on to assert that On trans issues, Wikipedians simply do not have this level of confidence in the Daily Telegraph. The only argument referenced to this point has been the litterbox one. Editors who took issue with the third paragraph therefore found the fourth, which finds that reliability is disputed, to be invalid. However, the closer clarifies on talk that Fourth paragraph is independent of the third.

The assessment that reliability is disputed was therefore not given any justification in the close itself, so closer expanded the close. The expansion provides but one reason why to give weight to the argument that the Telegraph is not generally reliable on trans issues: Although some members of the community have confidence that the Daily Telegraph is reliable on trans issues, this view is strongly disputed by significant numbers. In other words, closer is counting votes. Except closer tells me on talk that the point is not to count votes, and I didn't, but to weigh arguments, which I did.

Closer has shown no evidence of weighing arguments (except in the case of the litterbox hoax claim, in which closer showed no evidence of weighing arguments fairly). Closer claims both not to have counted votes, but also bases their close of "Reliability disputed" on the claim that the view that the Telegraph is reliable "is strongly disputed by significant numbers". If closer is not willing to revert, close should be overturned as closer won't give a consistent account of what the reason is for the close. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support close because I think it's a perfectly reasonable close despite me thinking very negatively of The Telegraph. My emotions want it deprecated, but I know that this is the best we can get. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Seraphimblade, you can't reopen the discussion when it's still at AN... I would say the same if I wanted it overturned. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, and that's misuse of rollback. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support close, but what the hell is (The Telegraph) is a willing warrior in the war on wokery. It gives platform to the most flagrantly gender-critical tracts by anti-woke activists. I'm not sure what "woke" is being used as a synonym for here, but there are better words for the Telegraphs "anti-woke activists". They are called transphobes. Most of them even call themselves "gender-critical", which is the same thing. Also, radical feminists like Julie Bindel are not "anti-woke". Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see gender-critical and transphobic as 100% synonymous although Julie Bindel certainly qualifies as both. I specifically wanted to say that the Telegraph is activist on this issue.—S Marshall T/C 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn - first I would like to thank S Marshall for their effort in closing such a large RfC, as they have done so many times before. Unfortunately despite that, I share the concerns of Berchanhimez and Samuelshraga particularly regarding the litterbox issue, it was far more disputed by editors than what the original and extended closures portrayed. Since this was a significant and prominent part of the close, that causes the entire closure to fall into doubt. starship.paint (RUN) 12:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Kind of overturn I agree with the closing in that when we have such a clear 1 or 3 split we can't just say no consensus so no change. Certainly such a gap means on this topic we need to use caution. I also agree that the closing was not a summary of the arguments and for that reason the closing statement either needs to be changed to align with a true summary of the discussion or another editor should close the discussion. That the source was biased seemed to have consensus but how much did not have a consensus. The closing suggests there was agreement on how biased the source was. I also agree that some of the language used in that part of the closing appeared to be expressing an opinion rather than summarizing the discussion. Since much of the discussion centered on the litter box hoax it is important to get that part of the close correct. I think all would agree that there was a clear dispute regarding if the source was just reporting or if they were embracing. As such the claim that the statement, "The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax" is clearly inaccurate. I don't have a strong view on the involved claim but I'm not sure I view that as disqualifying in this case. Springee (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn

The close expansion includes: Towards the end of this, the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. I don’t see this in the discussion.

Also, there is no mention of the general disparity between those who supported Option 1, who generally discussed the question of whether the Telegraph is reliable on transgender matters - which is what the RfC was supposed to be about - and those who supported Option 3, who mostly said we should not use the Telegraph on transgender matters because it is biased – which is not what the RfC was supposed to be about.

On the contrary, the closing comment summarises the attitude of those who preferred Option 3, It is a willing warrior in the war on wokery. It gives platform to the most flagrantly gender-critical tracts by anti-woke activists.without making the obvious conclusion that such views are irrelevant to an RfC on reliability. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn, the weighting and evaluation of the arguments was done poorly, and the tone of the original close leaves much to be desired. Unfortunately, some of the summaries of the arguments (like the cat story) was either done poorly, or added onto through the closers own arguments trending towards a supervote. Lastly, whether or not the closer is clearly involved, there is definitely a strong appearance of involvement, which is enough IMO. FortunateSons (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support closer, oppose close. It's a real stretch to accuse S Marshall of being involved for having an opinion on a related matter (or even on this matter). We're not robots nor should we pretend to be - and I have previously seen S Marshall demonstrate high competence in separating personal views from the principles at hand in a discussion. However, I do agree that the close rationale erred in endorsing a point that had been thoroughly rebutted in the discussion, and in taking a bold interpretation of WP:ONUS. It is not clear to me that the policy on onus with respect to article content should automatically apply to discussions of general reliability. This is a point that could potentially be argued in the abstract, but in this specific case, when our starting point is a previous RfC finding general reliability, then the onus should very much be on bringing new evidence, and the focus of the close should be on whether or not that evidence has been successfully rebutted - not on whether there was a dispute. If there's no consensus that the new charges are valid, then they should be considered unproven, and the status quo should remain. Proving unreliability should be hard, as a countermeasure to the chilling effect of a downgrade. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. The closer was WP:INVOLVED with respect to The Telegraph's reliability in the context of political topics, as their comment from April 2024 shows. And the sort of involvement does somewhat show in the close; the close does not faithfully represent the consensus attained on key points, and it doesn't appear to attempt to summarize what the arguments on each side were. Instead, the close reads much more as if it were a !vote in the RfC, where the closer inserts his own analysis of the source (It is a willing warrior in the war on wokery) and appears to give definitive weight to one questionable interpretation of The Telegraph's reporting (unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax) as if it were to have reflected the broad consensus of the discussion.
  Because the closure should represent the discussion faithfully, and this closing summary is more of an argument than an attempt to do so, it should be overturned. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• SMarshall was not INVOLVED. I'm not going to express an opinion about the close as a whole as I fear I would fail to avoid the relitigation that multiple editors here are doing) but I see absolutely no evidence that SMarshall was INVOLVED within the meaning of that policy and so that allegation should not be factored into the assessment of the close. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn - the finding that there was no consensus the Telegraph is not reliable, but the source should still be considered "not generally reliable" (in some unspecified way) is unreasonable. It is probably better to vacate it entirely rather than modify it to a pure "no consensus" close. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  No consensus (MREL) also means "not generally reliable" (GREL). It does not mean "generally unreliable" (GUNREL). Everything that isn't GREL is not generally reliable to put it simply, such as a "pure no consensus close". CNC (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's just how WP:RSP works. The normal rule of no consensus = no change doesn't apply. Instead "no consensus" is a status, and it's WP:MREL. Loki (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is ridiculous. If there is "consensus for no consensus" that is one thing, but a "no consensus at all so a specific change must happen" is a supervote. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  You might think it's ridiculous but that's how RSP works. "Generally reliable" is defined to mean "there is a consensus that this source is generally reliable". There is a specific category for sources about which there is no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think we're at the point of "beating a dead horse". I've asked below in the clarity section on whether this RfC should be an exception to the status quo, or whether RSP should be changed, and if so whether it should be retrospectively; but so far there are no proposals. Any closer of this discussion is surely aware of how RSP operates by now. CNC (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support close to prevent time-wasting: I supported option 3 but find the close a clear reading of the discussion. While it's not a vote count, we should be on the same page about the trend of the discussion. By a quick count: ~55 editors said option 1 (with many arguing it was biased but not enough to effect reliability), ~8 supported option 2, ~50 said option 3/4, ~8 said 1/2, and ~4 said 2/3. That leaves us with a clear majority in favor of "there are issues with calling this straight up reliable" (~8070(fixed per starship) v ~55, with, as I noted, many in the latter camp acknowledging it does have a GC slant). Editors presented RS that supported the claims of bias as well. When such a large outpouring of editors have significant concerns regarding a source's reliability, that must be reflected in the close - there was no earthly way this could have been closed with "the community agrees this is reliable on trans topics". WRT claims that those questioning it's reliability did so on WP:IDLI grounds - editors considered platforming anti-trans activists and talking points in every article a clear sign of unreliability/bias just as if their editorial line was obviously pro-flat earth or pro-race realism (please note that regardless of your opinions on whether the GC movement is correct or not, RS do overwhelmingly say it's a hate-based movement supportive of disinformation). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Addition error. 70 per your numbers. Not 80. starship.paint (RUN) 16:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • P.S. Everyone should disclose how they voted Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

    I simply don't see how you think counting votes is an argument in support of a close, especially when the closer's only justification is that they counted votes. (Leaving aside the fact that counting 1/2 !votes as against calling it WP:GREL is a stretch. Those votes explicitly support calling it generally reliable, and are broadly saying they would accept/support adding a note in RSP, not downgrading the source. I conclude this by actually reading those comments, rather than counting them.) Samuelshraga (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Could you address the reasons we, or at least I, brought up the close review? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

    Gladly: to start, please take my comment in the context that the close review grew beyond your point.

    • Regarding the "overturn whole close": I do not believe the closer was involved (which would, in my view, entail either participating in the discussion or being generally active in GENSEX). I do not believe he misread the discussion in finding MREL.
    • Regarding your specific note on the litter box hoax: I actually agree with you it could have been better (though on procedural grounds I think it was fine and this 2 pronged close review is wasteful of editor labor). Being more specific:
      • The litterboxes were extensively discussed and would inevitably have been mentioned in the close. An uninvolved editor weighed up the arguments on both sides, and believed that the "hoax promotion" had better ones - but it could have been the other way or more equivocal and still be a valid close imo. To be clear, I think The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax is discussed could have been better phrased as Whether the Telegraph embraced the widely-debunked ...
      • That being said, I think it should have been a more general statement on misinformation: misrepresenting the Cass Review, incorrect statements on "desistance", use of meaningless scarewords like "gender ideology" or "trans agenda" in its voice, and etc. Particularly, as many noted, platforming FRINGE groups to make false statements on issues while portraying them as experts and disregarding more mainstream ones.
        • Sidenote to that, I disagreed with the extended close's statement about its historic homophobia and advocacy for conversion therapy (neither of which is the paper's current editorial position). - They no longer support LGB conversion therapy, but its blatant in practically every article that they support it for trans people, and I would further argue that their repeated framing of issues as LGB v T, as if they're mutually exclusive, is homophobic in itself.

    Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

    To your point on the "litterbox hoax" and their reporting on it, your recommended alternative sentence starting with "whether" changes the meaning completely. SM's close referred explicitly to the fact that many people "believed" they "embraced" the hoax, and did not address the fact that, aside from those whose !votes were based on their opinions on the underlying subject as a whole, the majority of editors did not see it as being reported as truthful in the reporting - and in fact a reading of the articles in question confirms that they are right to not see it that way. If editors base their !votes on "facts" that are disproven, whether before or after their !vote, then their !vote needs to be weighted down accordingly - not given full/extra weight as SM did. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

    This seems to be a bit of a point of dispute in these discussions. I think some of the endorse editors look at the yellow rating and reasonably say, "with arguments on both sides and a clear 1 vs 3 division yellow is the only reasonable outcome." I can get behind that. However, I also agree with editors who note that there were clear errors in the summary of the arguments. I don't see how a reasonable close could state as fact that the source embraced the litter box hoax. That was a clear point of contention and if neither side convinced the other then we shouldn't treat it as some sort of consensus outcome. When doing a closing it's not just that the color needs to be right, the summaries need to be accurate as well. We don't have that here. At minimum editing the summary to reflect the actual state of the discussion is warranted. Personally, I think having a new closing is better. Springee (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn. Two distinct issues here:

1. Imbalance and inaccuracy in the summary. Rather than fairly sum up both sides of the discussion, the close is weighted towards the unreliability perspective to an extent that does not reflect the genuine course of discussion. Vigorously contested assertions (e.g. the notion of The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax) are treated as fact. At times S Marshall appears to be carrying on the argument in his own close (e.g. Towards the end of this, the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. And if the Telegraph has published a correction, then the "generally reliable" camp hasn't unearthed it.)
2. The, um, let's call it "novel" interpretation of ONUS such that a supposedly "no consensus" close somehow ends up in effect a consensus to downgrade? I don't have much to add to what Barnards has already said: (1) ONUS is geared towards discussions about whether to include specific things like an image or a certain paragraph in an article, not broad discussions about the reliability of a source; and (2) there's an existing RfC finding consensus for general reliability, so that should be the assumed baseline we're working from.

S Marshall made an odd comment about the decision to adopt this interpretation: In doing this, I removed the first mover advantage that the "generally reliable" side expected and I think relied on. The part about editors advocating for reliability "relying on" a supposed first-mover advantage comes across to me as if he is taking the view these editors are abusing or at least leaning on procedure to get a preferred result. This does not seem to be a fair characterisation to me.

I don't see how S Marshall is INVOLVED, though. – Teratix ₵ 16:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support close. It was a very reasoned, balanced close. I would have preferred a "generally unreliable" close, but I accept that S Marshall made a good faith effort to close this RfC in a balanced and impartial manner. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn, and reclose per Berchanhimez. S. Marshall deserves some credit for stepping in where angels fear to tread, but a no-consensus outcome doesn't justify changes to the status quo. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  It explicitly does at WP:RSP, and in fact "no consensus" is part of the definition of WP:MREL. Loki (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Let's leave it for Part 2 to deal with. CNC (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse close and this relentless badgering of closers when a consensus doesn't go someone's way needs to stop. I've seen it a lot in the last year and if it's not stamped down on it's going to be next to impossible to find anyone to volunteer to close anything but the most obvious community discussion. Daveosaurus (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse close. It accurately reflects the discussion and the state of consensus (or lack thereof) on the topic; and the arguments it mentions are summarizing ones from the discussion, not new ones presented by the closer. The WP:QUO / WP:ONUS argument doesn't make sense to me - those policies are for article space, where we have no choice but to decide on one version even when we lack consensus. RSP isn't an article, it's a summary documenting where the community stands on specific sources; a lack of consensus can and should be documented there. No-consensus outcomes get lodged there as a matter of course; AFAIK that's how it has always worked. It would be misleading to do otherwise and would lead to disputes where people attempt to rely heavily on a source only to face conflicts and be told that there's no consensus on it. There is an entire category for no-consensus outcomes on RSP, and numerous entries on the table that use that specifically in their language; it makes no sense to not use that here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Summarizing a minority opinion that was strongly refuted, and the refutation of which was agreed with by a majority of editors commenting after the refutation, does not a no consensus finding make. Even if you believe that SM was not imposing their own opinion on the closure, the summary of the opinions presented and their relative strength was insufficient as it did not take into account the "turn of the tide" in !votes after the refutation, and in fact it tries to claim that after the refutation the reliable camp's arguments got worse - the exact opposite of what happened. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• endorse close. I think the language used could have appeared to be more neutral, but it is clear that there is no consensus on the telegraphs reliability on this topic. That some people seem to think consensus is needed to confirm there is no consensus seems nonsensical, unless we all do a close that could never be decided. I don't think the close is perfect but it's certainly good enough and every editor involved could probably be more useful spending time elsewhere. For transparency's sake I voted option 3 on the RFC and was deemed a SPA. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn The assumption that people saying that mistakes happen were conceding that the specific example brought up was actually a mistake was not supported. That leaves a fundamentally damaged evaluation of the wider consensus as to whether there were mistakes in this area, which is a key aspect of changing the assumed reliability of this source. The result is an artificially strong consensus not supported by the arguments. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. The only policy-based reason S Marshall's close was based on is whether or not The Daily Telegraph endorsed the Litter boxes in schools hoax. The conclusion S Marshall reached is that The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax is discussed at great length. This is a WP:SUPERVOTE because it sides with Loki's original claim without any explanation. One of the central disputes of the RfC was whether or not the "Litter boxes in schools hoax" encompassed a student merely identifying as a cat, which is the falsehood The Telegraph supposedly said. The assumption that these were equivalent made it impossible to reach any other conclusion than Option 2 or 3, which I will show below.

S Marshall's only mention of specific Option 1 arguments is that the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. This misses the point, which is that The Telegraph promoting a blatant hoax is not equivalent to getting a detail in a story wrong. S Marshall did not address this in this point in their close because of the aforementioned SUPERVOTE, which assumed equivalence between kids using litter boxes and kids identifying as cats. If the equivalence was treated as a disputed point, the concession that the article is misleading matters much less, since it is no longer a concession that The Telegraph promoted a blatant hoax.

Closers are also supposed to disregard votes not based on policy per WP:DISCARD, and not judge on headcount. S Marshall's close does not obey this. Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, but S Marshall says Although some members of the community have confidence that the Daily Telegraph is reliable on trans issues, this view is strongly disputed by significant numbers. as an explanation of their decision. [4] The close also makes references to the controversy over homophobia, transgender breast milk, and other factors, but does not explain how those subpoints helped reach a decision. If the closer does not analyze a point I will assume it did not play a part in the decision.

To summarize, the close began by assuming that Option 3 was correct on the most significant part of the discussion, and then judged the entire rest of the RfC on those grounds. This assumption should not have been made and a proper close would fairly summarize the dispute over whether implying a student identified as a cat is equivalent to saying students are using litter boxes in schools. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's actually worse, as S Marshall claims that the close is not based on the finding on whether the Daily Telegraph embraced the litterbox hoax. So there was no policy-based reason for the close. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn close. It is clear from this edit[5] that the closer had a POV that should have been declared. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC).

  The community has already found in a similar situation that voting in an RFC in the topic area does not make a closer WP:INVOLVED. Loki (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't just two discussions in the same topic area; it's two discussions about the reliability of the same source. BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and in the previous situation I had !voted in an RFC whose result was directly relevant to the close. However, the community very clearly endorsed the close and overwhelmingly said I was not WP:INVOLVED.

  The thing you're missing here is that WP:INVOLVED is not about bias or opinion. It's closer to WP:COI: the point is that you cannot close a discussion that you participated in. But having an opinion on the discussion doesn't matter, that doesn't make you involved at all.

  In general, Wikipedia policies don't prevent an editor from doing something due to having expressed an opinion on that topic. Instead, they prevent editors from doing things because of concrete relationships with discussions or topic areas: you can't cite your own research and you can't close a discussion you !voted in, regardless of what you think of it. This is also the case over at the perennial WikiProject dispute where community consensus soundly rejected your interpretation, which I bring up to make the point that you appear to have similar misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy in multiple areas. Loki (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  There's situations where there's only one correct POV. This is one of them. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn (Option 5, but I would be happy with 2 too). Reading the original discussion, I thought that the accusations about inaccurate reporting of "litter boxes in schools" had been well argued against. In their initial statement, the closer appears not to consider these arguments, but simply labels the Telegraph's statements as misrepresentations. At the least the closer should have addressed these prominent arguments and explained why they did not agree with them. This implies to me an insufficiently in-depth analysis. The closer's revised statement says a little more on this topic, but I was shocked that the decisive step of their reasoning is an obvious non-sequitor: "The 'generally reliable' camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading." This seems almost flippant; Wikipedia should be able to do better than this in analysing the evidence and arguments. JMCHutchinson (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse and overturn (I did 'participate' in the RFC although I didn't comment on the reliability of the Telegraph in this RFC, but I did comment on a previous RFC that the Telegraph was unreliable on this specific issue). The close that 'there is no consensus on the reliability of the Telegraph on transgender issue' (or WP:MREL), is IMO the correct reading of the discussion (so I endorse it). However, with apologies to an editor I respect, I do think the reasoning in getting there is flawed. The close doesn't engage with all the arguments and rebuttals in the discussion, dissatisfaction with which has lead to this review (not helped with how the RSP was updated). Given this is now the third RFC on the matter in a short space of time, a close that satisfies all involved (even if it doesn't agree with them) is sorely needed. I do wonder if the RSP had simply been updated with the plain "In regards to transgender issues the reliability of The Daily Telegraph is disputed.", without the additional details then we wouldn't be here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. I appreciate the sincere attempt on such a divided issue, but I believe that such a contentious non-consensus warranted a more conservative close, both in resolution and in wording.

As others have noted, the close turned largely on one story, the notorious "cat" drama. That the closer refers to a story that categorically was not a "widely debunked litterbox hoax" in such terms does not inspire confidence that the arguments have been properly weighed. A story featuring elements of otherkin in schools is not automatically a "litterbox hoax". The incident in question happened, and absolutely nobody denies that. The school acknowledged it and reviewed its processes in the aftermath. I wrote out a transcript of the recording here for anyone still for some reason curious about this debacle. I won't rehash the arguments yet again but I don't think any fair weighting of the refutations can support a close describing this as a "debunked litterbox hoax" when there has been no hoax, no litterbox, and no debunking.

As for the specific wording, as I raised on talk, the closer needlessly inserted the text "and gender critical views" into the closing statement, widening the unreliability notice beyond what was suggested. This was not part of the original RFC, and no evidence was presented either way as to the reliability of The Telegraph for "gender critical views".

Editors may have personal opinions on how separable "gender critical views" are from trans issues or what the closer even means by "gender critical views", but that is a discussion in an of itself, and one which simply did not take place and whose outcome should not be assumed like this. This unsolicited addition is unwise in an already polarised RFC, and if this is overturned I would suggest a future closer stick to the wording of the RFC only and leave this particular can of worms unopened. Void if removed (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Arguing that the close is fine because while it misrepresents the discussion, it gets you the answer you want is ... refreshingly direct, though sadly not unique here. If you can't see people arguing for a close other than this, you might read this comment above. Not to mention many of the other comments supporting overturn. Are we not people? Or can you just not see us? Samuelshraga (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I encourage you to review the problems many of us have with this close. Similar to how an RfA that (pre-recent-changes to RfA) had a significant early support but was then followed by a “bombshell” that caused a turn of the tide, this discussion was started based on inaccurate representations of the source, which I will assume was not Loki’s intent. This was not called out immediately, and many people !voted while discussion of the initial claims was continuing. But a clear consensus emerged that the initial claims of misinformation were, to put it bluntly, wrong. They claimed the Telegraph said in their own voice things they didn’t, they claimed the Telegraph didn’t retract what other people had said and it merely reported on. And that refutation was widely accepted by a clear majority of editors who posted substantive comments after it was done.

That is why people are believing there was a consensus here - after properly considering how to weight the !votes that were based on the initial inaccurate information, and/or solely based on their personal opinion whether they like the source or not, or of if the source is “biased” or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga: @Berchanhimez: I'd be happy to take a deeper dive on this and revisit but would like clarity on what I think you are saying that the correct close should have been. Is it that there was (simply) a consensus that they are a generally reliable source? (without the separate wording for trans issues) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

My personal reading of it, which I accept is not necessarily in line with what others may read, is that yes - those !voting for option 3/4, and many (but not necessarily most) for option 2, did not care about the veracity of the claims in the initial filing by Loki, and took them at face value. Very few of that group as a whole either provided clear arguments as to why the refutation by Chess and others should be discounted, and many of them admitted that their arguments fell apart once the refutations started coming through. Further, the “turn of the tide” to significantly more option 1 votes, and significantly more (if not all) votes for option 3/4 being based solely on bias or flat out lies, I believe that this all comes together to lead to a consensus that the source is, by our own policies, biased but generally reliable, even on the subject of transgender issues. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Ugh, wrong link there, it’s supposed to go to the page about bias of a source not generally affecting its reliability, but mobile. Hopefully you know where I’m talking about, will fix later when I’m home. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@North8000, I'm probably one of the less experienced editors here. I didn't come because I felt I would have been competent to close myself (had I not been involved), but because the close we got was so clearly flawed. That said, I agree with Berchanhimez's reading of the discussion. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

So the difference between your thoughts and the close which I supported is that the close said that there was no consensus on trans issues and your thought was that the result was that they are reliable on trans issues. (BTW my sentiment expressed at the RFC was that it should be #1, with #2 also being OK.) I took a harder look. IMO there was a plurality for #1 between #1 and #3 bordering on a consensus and if you include #2 sentiments regarding suitability to use on trans issues (a sort of "sufficiently reliable") then there would be a clear consensus for confirmed usability ("generally reliable") on trans issues. So now I think thhis sould get a second look. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that was my “rough count” too (remembering that it’s not a vote count). Combine that rough plurality for “reliable but biased” with the fact that the main arguments in favor of unreliability were contested and refuted and many editors agreed with the refutation, there is really no path to “no consensus” here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The analysis that caused me to reverse my position is this: The operative results regarding trans issues were in essence: 1. Prohibit use on trans issues (RFC choice #'s 3 & 4) 2. (RFC choice #'s 1 & 2) Don't prohibit use on trans issues. By this analysis (if arguments roughly follow head count) "don't prohibit" was overwhelmingly favored by a factor of 1.73 to 1.

No, those weren't the options. There were four options, three if you exclude 4 for being essentially impossible to implement. 1 != 2 != 3, and people who voted 2 should not be assumed to support 1. Indeed many of those people explicitly said they were voting 2 because they did not support 1. Loki (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support close, this is a very tough debate to find any resolution for and I think that S Marshall's decision is a pretty fair and balanced choice. S Marshall highlighted the key aspect of the debate which is a general agreement on the bias of the Telegraph but a disagreement on how much that bias affects the paper's journalistic integrity. Saying that when dealing with the subject of trans people the Telegraph should be used carefully seems like a reasonable precaution. (I voted for option 2 on the basis that reviewing a number of the linked articles showed a fairly strong bias on the topic, my primary concerns being their deliberate misrepresentation and laundering of sources. If I was working on material related to the subject, I would want to cite more neutral and nuanced sources that had clarity and more journalistic integrity.) Gnisacc (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per JoeJShmo, The Wordsmith, Berchanhimez, Samuelshraga, Teratix, Chess, Void if removed, etc. The close is frankly an inadequate and inaccurate summary of the discussion. Others have already noted multiple issues with the "litterbox hoax" paragraph, which treats one side of a hotly disputed point as fact and proceeds from there. Almost no weight is given to the rebuttals, which disputed not only whether the Telegraph "embraced" the story, but whether the story was an instance of the hoax and whether it even was a hoax at all. I do not believe the original text supports the bizarre claim that these users were "reduced" to arguing that the Telegraph is "allowed to make mistakes". The next paragraph that summarizes the rest of the RfC is equally bizarre. It devotes no attention to the handful of journal articles which were held up multiple times as evidence of the Telegraph’s supposed "unreliability", but in actuality explored only the source’s bias. It highlights a single brief comment one user made about Julie Bindel (whose "platforming" as an opinion columnist would indicate bias, not reliability) but fails to mention more significant points of debate such as the Thoughtful Therapists issue, which was brought up in the RfC's opening statement and rebutted at length by multiple users. And it elides the well-reasoned rebuttals by simply saying that "there was discussion", while neglecting to evaluate the relative merits of those discussions. I do not have confidence that the close properly engaged with the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments being made on both sides. Rather, the close seems to treat the fact that the source's reliability was vociferously disputed as justification enough. Astaire (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - The close was a reasonable read of the discussion and came to a very narrow decision. All of the arguments for overturning focus entirely on process wonkery & nitpicking word choice in order to try and unravel the close by tugging on a loose thread. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. Look, I'm not going to lose sleep over some minor changes to the wording per the OP's concerns, if that's the ultimate result here, but for my part, I think this was a mostly reasonable summary of the results of the discussion. Did I feel there was a bit of unnecessary color commentary with pointed observations about the source frame as objective facts? Yeah, I did get some twinges about that while reading the close, and I think it's worth S Marshal taking that into consideration in the future. But I rather suspect that, rather than this being a case of the closer trying to interject unnecessary personal perspective into the result, it was a conscious rhetorical method for acknowledging the understandable and unavoidable emotional subtext of the dispute. I get the feeling that S Marshal recognized that there was really only one way to close this discussion under existing policy and consensus of the discussion itself, but was uncomfortable doing so without paying some recognition to the circumstances under which some editors have come to dislike the source. So he called the spade for the spade in a way that would make the Telegraph skeptics at least marginally less likely to feel that their sentiments had been dismissed wholesale.
  But any caveats not withstanding, I think S Marshal did an adequate job with this close, given the complexity of the issues and the highly divisive nature of the discussion. Personally I would have been marginally more supportive of a straight "no consensus" result as opposed to "reliability disputed", but this a fraught area, and we have to start finding a way to come together on these issues (or at least reigning in the constant relitigation of habitual issues. In that light, I think we could have gotten a lot worse here. I understand the quibbles, and I came close to casting a different !vote here, but considering all factors, I don't think S Marshal's something-for-everyone approach here was arbitrary, unintentional, or ill-advised.
  Further, I think there's more to be gained by just embracing an overall reasonable close than by micromanaging every last sentence into a form that is most pleasing to the majority, even if I was a part of that majority and even if I feel that the result would be more ideal. For the benefit of procedural efficiency and community harmony, I think we need to start leaning back towards the traditional tendency of just letting the initial close stay, warts and all, so long as it does not obviously and massively misrepresent the actual consensus. I don't love every syllable of S Marshal's close, but I still think that it was a well-executed one made under difficult circumstances, in the final analysis, and I don't blame him for trying to pay some lip service to the concerns of the minority. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Aaron Liu: If you are only concerned with amending that sentence, do you mind withdrawing this request so that those of us are who are concerned with the close more broadly can submit? The issue is that it makes it difficult to focus on the broader issues if you start the discussion with a narrow scope, while the opposite is less true. BilledMammal (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  If we really need multiple requests, then maybe those could be in parallel? I feel like we could do all of them here and hopefully find "express" consensus for that sentence while the rest of the discussion continues.

  Unfortunately I'm ill-equipped to discuss this out right now as I have to go to sleep, sorry. I sure have planned my day well. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've attempted to make it parallel as you propose; if you feel that isn't an appropriate way to handle it, please move my comment. I've also renamed the sections "participant", "non-participant", and "closer". BilledMammal (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 09 July 2024 (UTC)

  The original sections were how {{RfC closure review}} prefilled it. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  A close review can and should result in discussion of all the issues present, as I've done in my comment above. Ultimately, the one issue Aaron Liu identified should be grounds enough to overturn this close, as it amounts to a supervote, but I doubt this is going to be closed quickly and you (BilledMammall) should feel free to identify your issues in your !vote for people to consider. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Aaron Liu: you wrote a couple of times in your reasoning that you want amendment to the first paragraph with reference to the litterbox claim. Just wanted to nitpick that it actually appears in the third paragraph, if you want to edit for us pernickety types. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  By first paragraph, I meant the first paragraph of my statement. It seems that this has been... misrepresented! I'll fix that soon. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• @BilledMammal: You commented 44 times in the original RfC; now you've opened this close review and you are already badgering people here, seven replies in a few hours. It's wearysome. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I didn’t open this, and I’ve commented less than other editors involved here - I don’t think my participation has been unreasonable, although if you disagree I encourage you to raise the issue on my talk page as this is the wrong location for that discussion and I won’t reply further on that topic here. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  The threading makes it look as though yourself and AaronLiu opened the close review together. If that's not the case, then perhaps your long section should be under a separate Level 3 subheading. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  To simplify the maybe-confusing structure of this, I think claiming that we both opened it would be for the best, as with retaining the current formatting of rationales. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment As a close review I think we need to focus on the mechanics of the close. An editor who endorses or rejects the close because they agree with the outcome doesn't add weight to the discussion. Specific concerns were raised with the closing. Endorse responses that address the concerns with reason should be given weight in these discussions. Responses that simply endorse (or reject) the outcome without addressing the concerns raised should be discounted. This is like a legal appeal where we aren't arguing the case, rather we are arguing that the process was or wasn't followed (with supporting evidence). I feel this is a standard that should apply to all close reviews which often seem to devolve into a second round of litigating the original question. Springee (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Just a comment for non-British editors who might not know: The Daily Telegraph is one of the most prominent newspapers in a country where a large proportion of the population still read newspapers. I think you'd struggle to find an adult British person who doesn't have some sort of opinion on it, even if it's just "as absorbent as the rest of them, in a pinch." If the contention is that nobody with an opinion on the Torygraph (damn, there's me out) should have closed this discussion, you're likely disqualifying all British editors. Kind of like saying that an RfC on Fox News couldn't be closed by an American. Which may be fine, I just thought I'd mention it. – Joe (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  As a Brit, I can confirm this sentiment. This is also true of The Guardian, The Independent and The Times. We have a small selection of notable left-leaning and right-leaning broadsheets, and most Britons have an opinion on them. This is potentially similar to WaPo and NYT that are widely known, as I assume most Americans have an opinion on these either way as well. CNC (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I assume that most Americans have never heard of, or would not recognize, the majority of British newspapers. I would even wager that more would confuse The Times with The New York Times than would know what The Daily Telegraph is. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Precisely. The point was that S Marshall is from the UK (maybe that wasn't obvious), so naturally they would have some sort of opinion on The Telegraph without necessarily being bias. The "as well" was in reference to the overall comparison, not Americans knowing British newspapers. There's a rationale for having non-British editors close this one. CNC (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that (non-)Britishness is required here; it isn't reasonable for us to ask people to not close something on the basis of nationality. Instead, As WP:INVOLVED reminds us, people are at times incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. When one is able to put their feelings aside and objectively read a discussion, this is less of a problem, but having strong opinions to such an extent that one's ability to faithfully summarize a discussion become colo(u)red by them is incompatible with our expectations for a closer. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  But nobody has demonstrated that Smarshall does have such strong opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've admitted in this discussion to having strong opinions about some of the Daily Telegraph's political columnists. Fact is, the Telegraph gives platforms to people who want to privatize the NHS and bring back the death penalty, and I find that abhorrent. I don't (and still don't) have a personal opinion about the Telegraph's view on transgender people, and I deny that gender and politics are the same thing.—S Marshall T/C 15:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Just thought I'd point out that the (now-reverted) new entry on RSP has already been used to justify content removal with unwarranted stridency: [6]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, yes? WP:MREL is not WP:GREL. Almost everyone in the RFC including the vast majority of Option 1 voters agreed that the Telegraph is biased, which would mean that citing them without attribution is inappropriate. So I don't know what your point is here. Loki (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  There was WP:INTEXT: "The organisation has said". Based on attribution, it's not necessary to state the source if you are stating the author(s) of the claim. Overall, kind of a moot point when it's not due in the lead anyway. CNC (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree the text was undue, and I have removed it. The point of mentioning it here was that the wording of the RSP entry was being used to support strident assertions about reliability that were in no way reflective of the much more circumspect discussion. If that's what people take away from all this, the process has failed. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  While I see your point, the misinterpretation of source reliability listed at RSP isn't exclusive to that entry (as you may well agree). The RfC itself was also used a source, which is merely what the RSP entry was summarising. It's fair to say that misinterpretation of MREL sources is widespread, and this example just provides more weight to that argument. CNC (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think what's notable is that it took a mere 2 hours from the update to Perennial Sources to an edit war breaking out, and this does not lend to an interpretation of "no consensus" that favoured stability. Void if removed (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree to a degree, but also don't think any GREL to MREL change ever intends to favour stability, or necessarily makes things unstable. Personally I think we should favour reliability of sources over stability, meaning context-based rationales in this case. I don't believe editors misinterpretation of MREL is a good reason to change the status quo though; the cause of the problem is a lack of understanding, the edit warring is just a symptom of that. CNC (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  The issue is how RSP works; its very subjective how we assess sources, and that means that the interpretation of our assessments is also very subjective. I think we should rework the process, but that's a different discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Given that the party employing that rationale was WP:INVOLVED in this RFC and voted 3/WP:GUNREL, I wonder: if you don't understand what it is you're voting for, is the vote valid? Void if removed (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yellow doesn't mean attribution is required nor does it mean Green source beats Yellow source. Instead it means we need to use caution when deciding if the material is being given undue weight by the source in question (which can effect how much weight it should be given on Wikipedia). It also means we shouldn't take interpretations as always correct. However, it doesn't mean we should question basic facts taken from the source. If they say 500 people attended or the topics were X, we should assume they are correct. This by the way is a general issue issue with RSP's buckets, not specific to this topic. Springee (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  WP:MREL is questionable as it stands because it is unable to distinguish "no consensus on whether a source should be used" from "consensus that it's unclear when a source is used". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  What is the practical difference between them? Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: None, right now. That's the problem, since WP:MREL is seen as "unreliable with exceptions" in practice. Editors !voting "Option 2" can win by default simply by preventing a consensus from emerging. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, why would that be harmful? If numbers are filtered and weighed into a close, I don't see what's wrong with that. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  If there is no consensus, why is it harmful for RSP to state that there is no consensus? If there is no difference in practice between between "no consensus for general reliability or general unreliability therefore it's medium reliability" and "consensus that it's medium reliability", why is not distinguishing between the two harmful? Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Are RfC participants supposed to reply in the Non-participants section, or should they keep comments in their own section and/or §Discussion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve never seen a close appeal where it doesn’t happen, so I assume they are allowed to. BilledMammal (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  In fact, I haven't seen any close review with the headings format of the {{RfC closure review}} template, lol. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I have no objection to participants replying in the non-participants section. I think the goal of the headings is to group the top level comments together, which is accomplished even if those top level comments are getting replied to. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• As expected, people are already using this outcome to try to shift the balance of articles, and are also angling to go down the slippery slope and get other UK news media also declared unreliable on this issue, so that ultimately only one side of this active political debate can be covered as mainstream and non-fringe. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's completely irrelevant to the close. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not entirely. That this was the motivation of certain editors on the RfC and the expected result of a non-WP:GREL close was brought up in the discussion. The fact that the closer ignored this in their close (and that it immediately turned out to be spot on) is yet another demonstration that the closer didn't do a very good job of weighing arguments. If they did, they certainly didn't show their working. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Editors are putting a lot of thought into closer's arguments about whether a "No consensus" finding on the RfC moves the Telegraph into WP:MREL or preserves the status quo. I think this discussion is premature, given that the closer has given next to no justification for a "No consensus" close - they explicitly disavow that it depends on the (misrepresented) summary of the litterbox hoax discussion in the close, and in their expanded close their only argument is a count of votes (which they also explicitly disavow on their talk).

First we can determine whether we have a valid close - and if not we vacate and somebody else can close by weighing the arguments. Maybe they too will conclude "No consensus". Then the discussion of what exactly that means will be ripe. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no discussion needed about what a no-consensus close means - it's explicitly defined at WP:RSP (that wouldn't make sense if the lack of consensus was only between options 3 and 4, but that's unarguably not relevant to this discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful. I very clearly said that I don't think we should have that discussion now, and the first issue at hand is whether the close itself, meaning the judgement of "No consensus" and the reasoning given (or not given) for it should stand. Afterwards we can discuss, or not discuss, whether further discussions are or aren't needed on any topic that becomes germane. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I've requested clarity below due to the popular argument of "no consensus = no change". It seems pretty clear that this is a discussion that needs to take place, based on support for this proposal. CNC (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor I understand that. However I think that relevant points unrelated to the "no consensus = no change" debate have been raised, and call into question the validity of the "no consensus" finding itself. This seems to me to be a logically prior discussion that could potentially make the "no consensus = no change" discussion moot. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Granted, and if anything it's intended to draw these arguments out of this discussion and instead clarified below. Even with the RfC overturned, in the meantime, there is a valid discussion of whether this RfC should be exempt from the RSP status quo, or whether there needs to be a more thorough discussion on reviewing how RSP lists sources. Given this discussion has already surfaced, I see no reason why it wouldn't surface again regarding another NC close. CNC (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

True. I just don't want the discussion about this close - especially the arguments about it's basic failure to in any way weigh the arguments from the discussion - to get lost in the procedural discussion in what to do if the NC close is upheld. Of course that's more complicated because some people have now supported Overturn referencing closer's positions on what the outcome of NC is... and anyway now we're in a discussion about discussions about discussions.

Hopefully people coming to this review will still put appropriate weight on those who point out that the close is a supervote, that it doesn't weigh arguments, that it counts votes, and other failings, notwithstanding that more and more of the discussion is about the "NC = change or no change" issue. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

I don't object to removing the language you want amended. I just think this is very secondary to the much more serious problem. There is no argument here that the close weighed the sides of the discussion in any way. Some people endorsing the close have asserted that it was reasoned, but they haven't elaborated on its reasons. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about many of the endorse !votes. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for clarity

Part 1

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

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

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

I haven't read enough of the relevant policies to have an opinion on the Wikipedia:ONUS questions behind option 2-3. My sympathy is to 1, as I think the Wikipedia:GREL choice got the better side of the argument once @Chess stepped in, and I saw many other editors thought the same, but I'm not nearly experienced enough in these to attempt to judge a consensus myself. So by default I will go to Option 5, because as I have argued here - the only reason you gave (and you only gave it in your expanded close) for giving weight to the view that the Telegraph was unreliable was this view is strongly disputed by significant numbers, but you told me on your talk page that the point is not to count votes, and I didn't, but to weigh arguments, which I did. There is no evidence of argument-weighing, and the close was not remotely a reasonable reading of the discussion, so the policy questions relied on to implement its outcome don't need to be addressed in my opinion. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Overturn to allow someone who intends to actually address the problems with your close to re-close the discussion with the consensus (or lack thereof) they find after doing so. If a closer actually weights arguments appropriately and explains how their close takes into account that, aside from the “it’s biased” and “I don’t like it” !voters, the majority was solidly swayed by the refutations of the initial discussion, then that close will be sufficient. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

aside from the “it’s biased” and “I don’t like it” !voters, the majority was solidly swayed by the refutations of the initial discussion I think you must be reading a different discussion to me. Many people were swayed, to a greater or lesser extent, by some or all of the refutations. Many people were not. Even if you discount all of the "it's biased" comments (many of which were actually more complex than that and accompanied !votes of all options) calling that "a majority was solidly swayed" is a misleading oversimplification. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

When the refutations were based on the actual text, and nobody was able to actually present cognizant and clear refutation of the refutation, it does matter. Anyone !voting based on “I disagree with the refutation, even though it’s English language facts and provides the exact text of the article to support it, but I can’t say why I disagree” should have that opinion decreased in weight accordingly. Otherwise, those commenting early in a discussion have absolutely no reason to continue in the discussion to form a consensus - since their opinion, no matter how badly it’s proven wrong, will still count just as much.

If someone is proven to have based their opinion on inaccurate/misleading information, as many people commenting both before and after the refutation did, and they refuse to clarify/update to explain their opinion in light of new information, their opinion must be weighted accordingly. And that is what happened here, with people - including the closer himself - subscribing to an outright falsehood that the Telegraph said something that they didn’t, and nobody could ever provide proof that they did. If people are allowed to “win” discussions by blatantly lying and not providing proof just because enough people agree with that lie in furtherance of their political goals, then this is no longer an encyclopedia, but a propaganda machine.

The new close needs to take into account the fact that many (to use your preferred word) !votes for unreliability were based on falsehoods, that many more were based on not liking it, and that many more were based solely on bias in combination with these other things. And this goes for both sides - but the unreliable camp had significantly more !votes that were inaccurate at best. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2, as I stated above. You closed as no consensus but then inserted your own opinion on what should happen instead of just leaving the status quo in place. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Your opinion regarding Option 2 is appreciated below in Part 2. CNC (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 5, since I thought the close rationale was flawed. starship.paint (RUN) 16:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• If the close is reverted, then it should be reclosed by someone else based on their reading of the arguments presented in the discussion, taking into account any relevant comments here. So sort of option 5 but not exactly. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 5. – Teratix ₵ 16:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 3/4 The result of no consensus can't be ignored by RSP as the status quo of RSP is to categorise sources (or topics by sources) with the relevant consensus established or lack of. The Telegraph can't be used as an example of "there was no consensus so there is no change", as this would have broader implications on other sources listed at RSP; Fox News and HuffPost (politics) come to mind as examples of GREL turned NC, but I imagine there are many others that were GREL by default prior to NC. It's unclear whether editors believe we should be making an exception for The Telegraph, or whether the proposal is to re-format how RSP categorises source discussions. If it's the latter, this requires a broader RfC on how RSP categorises sources and has little to do with this RfC. CNC (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that this section was opened as a way of disambiguating the intentions of people who support Overturn, I think it's a little unhelpful to have people who endorse the close choosing options as well (not that I think your arguments are unwelcome at all - I already said that I don't as yet feel confident or experienced to get involved on this issue and what you write seems cogent, even if it prejudges the idea that "No consensus" close will be retained). Samuelshraga (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a very good point and had overlooked that, apologies. I've struck my comment and encourage anyone to collapse this discussion. CNC (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm neutral to Option 4 and would oppose everything else. I think the conclusion was the only reasonable reading of the discussion, and closing to any consensus (including, by the way RSP works, WP:GREL) would be inappropriate. I'm not particularly attached to the summary though, and honestly do think that the exact phrasing was stronger than was reflected in the discussion. Loki (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar, this section was to disambiguate the intentions of people who support Overturn, it could be a bit misleading to include the opinions of people who endorse the close. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 5. Springee (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 2. The default in a case of no-consensus is to maintain the previous status quo. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not, see comment above re status quo of RfC closures regarding source reliability. Are you suggesting that it should be, and should it be enacted retrospectively as well? This isn't the right venue for that proposal, but I'd appreciate clarity from the "no consensus means no change" crowd as to what they are proposing, so we can draft up an RfC for it and move forward. CNC (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

For WP:RSP that is not true. Look at the page; it has an entire category for sources on which there is no consensus, and sources are described as lacking consensus repeatedly throughout the table. Its purpose is to document the current consensus of the community (or lack thereof); it doesn't have the same need for stability or the need to reach a hard decision on some version that applies to article-space. We can't realistically leave an article in no-consensus state, but for RSP we can and frequently do. --Aquillion (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Since my preferred option isn't there, my ideal would be overturning the close for a re-evaluation, with no assumption that anyone who didn't assert that the specific examples of alleged reliability presented was conceding the unreliability of those specific examples. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that's 5? Samuelshraga (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think so since I'm not suggesting no guidance, but no guidance with the direction of making sure not to make what I personally feel was a particular previous error in determining consensus. I think a closer needs to approach the arguments about reliability more than the feelings about reliability, which I believe (again, my personal opinion) is more in line with establishing consensus and decreasing the chances that this becomes a whole new dreary casus belli in what is already a controversial area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 5. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 4 as per my statement above. I think you got the result right, but the reasoning (especially introducing ONUS) is wrong. Also to note I reject the premise behind Option 2. The RSP (and so RSN) does have a way of indicating that editors don't agree on the reliability of a source (MREL), so I also don't agree with editors that no consensus means no change. The RSP is not article content, and this wasn't an RFC on how to update the RSP. The RFC was on the reliability of the source, on which there isn't agreement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 5 Sweet6970 (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Well, okay then. I see nothing that tempts me to revert myself, so when, after the requisite amount of wrangling, someone else comes along and closes this, their entire menu of options seems to be either (1) no consensus to overturn or (2) consensus to overturn but no consensus what to overturn to, in which case the next closer has a great big problem. If you want, you can make this less of a headache for that hypothetical person by supplying with reasoned arguments for what the close should have been. It would help even more if you could take the trouble to ensure that these arguments are compatible with the rather idiosyncratic way that WP:RSP works.—S Marshall T/C 16:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The closer requirements involve being compatible with policies and guidelines. WP:RSP is neither so no arguer or new closer would have any obligation to be compatible with its idiosyncracies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm certainly refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.—S Marshall T/C 17:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What polices and guidelines is RSP not compatible with? Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to overturn a ton of our existing consensus and system, you may open that as a separate proposal. For now, let's please operate within the status quo. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I've caused a misunderstanding, see reply to Thryduulf below. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You explicitly claim that RSP is not compatible with policies and guidelines. It is not irrelevant to ask you to substantiate that claim by listing which policies and guidelines it is not compatible with (and ideally explaining why). Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I belatedly see where you got that idea and it's my fault. After the sentence "The closer requirements involve being compatible with policies and guidelines." I said "WP:RSP is neither ..." i.e. "WP:RSP is neither a policy nor a guideline ...". You seem to have taken it as "WP:RSP is neither compatible with policies nor with guidelines ..." So I should have written more carefully. Anyway, it's true that WP:RSP is neither a policy nor a guideline and your question doesn't relate to that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to explain how you think RSP should be changed in discussion below. CNC (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I've caused a misunderstanding, see reply to Thryduulf above. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The next closer does not have a great big problem, because presumably they will actually evaluate and weight the discussion appropriately, rather than taking the initial commenter’s claims at face value, ignoring the amount of support for the refutation of those claims, and in fact repeating those inaccurate claims as part of the close.

I respect you a lot S_Marshall, I really do, and your closes tend to be quite well crafted and explain your decision making very well. This one missed the mark woefully, however, as seems to be clear looking at the consensus forming above that your close was not appropriate. I don’t want you to think that I’m trying to say you intentionally supervoted here - but the fact is you seem to be unable to accept that your close amounted to a supervote, and you, to use your words, “unashamedly embraced” the initial, refuted claims, the refutation of which was agreed to in large part by most editors providing substantive comment after it. You also basically begged it to be taken here - I’m not sure if you did that because you felt confident that your close was not a supervote (when it was), or whether you just didn’t want to deal with it. But you were given the chance to expand on your claims in your close - and you instead posted basically the same closing statement with only a couple additions that did nothing to address the significant plurality (if not majority) of editors who directly discounted the claims you took as fact in your closure. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Well said. I believe S_Marshall almost always does a terrific job, and is extremely valuable to the movement. I disagree with the close, for a similar reason you do, but I really hope it's not taken as a personal attack, but as a polite disagreement on something that is important to get right. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 per my !vote above. Option 2 is against current policy and would require changing WP:RSP or establishing a specific carve-out for this case, neither of which are palatable. Pinguinn 🐧 11:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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:

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

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

I'm not sure there is an easy answer here. If we had say 50% (by numbers and quality of argument) say a source is 1 while the other 50% say 2, I would be inclined to go with status que. However, if things are the same ratios but we are dealing with 1 vs 3 (green vs red) then it seems hard to justify status quo. Perhaps I'm thinking about it a bit mathematically, but if nocon shifts it a half point I would err on the side of no change. If nocon shifts a whole point, I would move it. I would also note that if we are talking about moving the source up vs down I would err on the side of more general source inclusion vs less. As this applies to the discussion above, I would say such a clear divide should be yellow with an understanding that we really mean case by case, not yellow is generally excluded but perhaps could be used here or there. Springee (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:MREL does state "may be usable depending on context." but nonetheless you make valid points, even if it's a big can of worms. If I understand correctly, what you're suggesting is a "case by case" assessment based on the RfC itself? The next question would be should this be decided by the closer, or by discussion and consensus at RSP? I've otherwise included another option for "case by case" basis of inclusion, which while I still think is a CoW, appears a relevant option based on your comment. CNC (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, when I was talking about case by case I was referring to a source that is decided to be yellow and how we use it in articles. This is a general complaint about how yellow sources are sometimes treated as less legitimate than green ones. Sometimes editors play a game of green source beats yellow source and ignore case by case usage context. For example, if a green source briefly said, "this is bad" while a yellow source offers 3 detailed paragraphs discussing pros/cons but mostly pros in detail I wouldn't presume the green source article proves the yellow source wrong. In this case I would say the yellow source is the stronger of the two. As for RSN closings, I think they will always be case by case but hopefully most cases will be easier to untangle. Springee (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

My mistake. Naturally I agree that a compilation or MREL sources is more reliable than a single GREL, depending on the context of course, but generally I agree with the concept. I'm not sure what you mean by "As for RSN closings, I think they will always be case by case but hopefully most cases will be easier to untangle". CNC (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at WP:RSP, for several of the first "no consensus" colored topics, the discussions were closed with consensus (Anadolu Agency, AllSides Media, Apple Daily, Arab News). This "no consensus" supervote is not inline with general practice, and cannot stand. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

So Fox News and HuffPost (politics), among others, should be overturned, per Option 3? CNC (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_406#RfC:_downgrade_Fox_News_for_politics?: It is clear the overwhelming consensus is to downgrade Fox News to generally unreliable for politics starting in November 2020. Once again, there is consensus in the close. If the result here is "no consensus", it cannot be used to justify any change in treatment. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No. Per WP:FOXNEWS: "Historically, there has been consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. However, many editors expressed concerns about the reliability of Fox News for any topic in a 2023 RFC. No formal consensus was reached on the matter, though." Should it be overturned then? Please tell me you otherwise looked past RSP entries beginning with A. CNC (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Would you like me to reference WP:HUFFPOLITICS as well? CNC (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I am strong on assuming that the status quo for no consensus at RSP holds for this discussion. I don't think we should be questioning the long-standing tradition at RSP, which has its own reason, to derail this CRV. If someone would like to change that, they should start their own proposal. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm also of the strong opinion that "the status quo for no consensus at RSP" is relevant, but the reality is many editors have expressed their concern over RSP listing prcoess and therefore it requires evaluation, here and now. This section of "Request for clarity" is not an attempt to "derail this CRV", but instead to refine discussion of this topic to this section. CNC (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that nobody wanted to destroy our efforts here. However, in my opinion, if we try and bite off more than we may chew, that is what's going to happen. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Putting aside policy questions around privileging "status quo vs MREL", I think it's relevant that many editors who supported Option 1 and Option 2 in the RfC found that - especially after the detailed rebuttals (by Chess and others) - that there was simply no case to answer on unreliability, notwithstanding that some editors continued to allege it.

The discussion wasn't framed around an open discussion of the question "Is the Telegraph reliable?" It was framed as "Do the examples brought by (mainly) Loki establish that the Telegraph is not generally reliable?"

Editors who supported GREL clearly thought that the case for GUNREL had been refuted, and saw little need to make positive arguments in favour of GREL. If a finding of MREL is really the outcome of this close (or the close which follows it after overturning) of this RfC, it's implausible to me that a new RfC will not quickly be generated to make the positive case for reliability on transgender issues (and gender-critical views, which the closer inexplicably included).

Quantitative arguments to do with the volume of articles published and number of factual inaccuracies, any retractions or corrections which have been published, Wikipedia:USEBYOTHERS and others spring to mind. I am sure that such evidence would have been raised if GREL supporting editors thought that the discussion would be interpreted this way. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

UBO was actually raised, though sources supplied to evince UBO were disputed; the dispute was not resolved by the time the second month came in and discussion fizzled out. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

An unrelated, modest proposal

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

Agree. Because based on your threshold, it will always be contested. CNC (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Before some offsite brane-geniouse^{[sick] [sic]} adds to the red-string corkboard that this is some kind of veiled attempt at shady political ministration, I already commented in the RfC, and furthermore I do not particularly give a rat's what parliamentary hocus-pocus ends up happening here (or at XRV), it's just taxing to see one person try and sit down to close a Tolstoy-length RfC, immediately get massively BTFO at AN over the close, and then all their effort is wasted when a separate group of people sit down to write a panel close. jp×g🗯️ 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This now sound like some kind of veiled attempt at shady political ministration. CNC (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Back in 2006 the phrase "muhahahahahahaha" was considered extremely random and funny, and I think we should have a revival. jp×g🗯️ 21:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about absolutely requiring a panel close, since that would mean that some of these discussions would take months and months to be closed, but I do think I'd support a requirement for either an admin or a panel close. I think this particular close was good, but I'd really rather skip the inevitable-closure-review part of the process in the future as much as possible. Loki (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I think recommending (not mandating) that such discussions are closed by a panel or highly experienced, clearly uninvolved single admin would be good. Not because non-admin closures are inherently bad (they aren't - some non-admins are better closers than some admins) but because close reviews based on alleged minor procedural errors or the admin status of the closer (which are becoming more common) are a bad thing. Maybe some sort of restriction that said someone who was involved in a discussion may not initiate a review of such a discussion within 48 hours of the close unless they get agreement from someone uninvolved or someone who supported a different outcome to them that a review is justified. However I don't know whether this would actually work or how it could be enforced - it would need more thought before it could be a viable proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I do think recommending an admin or panel close would be good for RFCs over a certain length, but it would also be a good idea to tack on RFCs in WP:CTOP areas. Most of the contested closes I see are in WP:AP2, WP:ARBPIA, or WP:GENSEX; for those we actually could require it and I think it would help significantly. There are a lot of CTOP areas and many of them are pretty quiet nowadays, so we might just want to do it in certain ones like what I listed here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is solid evidence that panels (even admin panels) are less likely to be challenged these days. Also given the difficulties we already face in finding closers for such discussions I do not think it wise to add an additional procedural hurdle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, it would be bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo in some cases, but I don't think the alternative is having no bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. The alternative, which we are currently posting in, is a hundred-thousand-byte AN thread paired with a twenty-six-thousand byte XRV thread (and this is just on the first day of both). jp×g🗯️ 22:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• If you do the heavy lifting then you're going to get close reviews, panel or admin or bureaucrat or founder. We need to think about how we conduct them. I've noticed that someone who doesn't like your close virtually always alleges involvement, as well as supervoting and all the other things that challengers pretty much have to say, because we have this weird culture where saying "I think the closer was wrong" always fails but "the closer made a technical procedural error" often succeeds. If we change that culture we'll make better decisions.—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is the most annoying part: even if the close is (imo) a correct interpretation of consensus, a single closer will often give rise to all sorts of objections along the lines of "well how do we know this random person is correct?" or "but they aren't even an admin!" or "they said while instead of whilst!" et cetera. This can give people a ready-made rationale to disregard or overturn the result later on because "well the close was half-assed" etc... in the example of the ADL RfC, there were actual think tanks and newspapers talking shit about the close, so I think that making it more difficult to raise objections to the manner of the close is overall better for the decisionmaking process.

  Of course this doesn't need to be done in all cases, but I think it would be condign to at least point out that people are prone to demanding it. jp×g🗯️ 22:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think the root of the issue is that closers are often vague. For example, in this close you say on the basis of scholarly sources and an Ofsted report, various misrepresentations contained in that article are noted. You don't explain what those misrepresentations were, which ones were supported with scholarly sources and an Ofsted report, or what the community consensus was on each of them. This makes it very difficult for editors to determine if your close is correct.

  Sometimes this is even done deliberately, to make it harder to challenge the close, something I very much disagree with - if there is something wrong with a close we want to be able to identify it. I'm not saying you do this but some closers, by their own admission, do.

  Because this makes it difficult to determine whether the closer is actually wrong editors need to consider the information that is available to them - whether the close appears to be a supervote, and whether the closer has previously expressed opinions on the topic that might have tainted their reading of consensus. I think if we fix that issue, if we expect closers to provide more detail, then I think the rest will fix itself.

  That's not to say every close needs such detail, but some, including this one and the ADL one, would have benefited from it. BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody at all is ever satisfied by providing more detail about the closing method, in any circumstances.

In the 10+ years I've been closing RfCs on Wikipedia, I've been asked to expand on my close more than a few times. Exactly 100% of the people who asked for this have gone on to issue a close challenge, and exactly 0% of them have been satisfied.

I'm afraid that long experience of this tells me the only reason anyone ever asks for more detail is because they're hoping you'll say something they can attack at AN.—S Marshall T/C 15:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been closing discussions for as long, and I focus more on RM's, but my experience differs - I find that sometimes the editors are satisfied by my expansion.

Other times, they do go on to use what I said in a close appeal - but personally, I think that's a good thing. If I said something wrong then that means I probably made an error in my close and I want the community to be able to find and rectify that error. When closing, my goal isn't to write a close that will survive a close review, but to write a close that will accurately reflect consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

To expand on this, I wanted to use the example of a question I asked you: What misrepresentations are you referring to here? As far as I can recall ... the only alleged misrepresentation raised was whether a student actually identified as a cat.

If I was asked a question like this as closer I would be happy to answer it. This is because the nature of it means only two things can happen; either I can satisfy at least that concern, preventing or at least reducing the scope of any close review, or can I discover that my close was flawed. I see both these results as a positive.

Honestly, I greatly respect you as a closer. In discussions about NACs I've previously cited you, along with Paine Ellsworth, as two of our best closers. In this case, however, I think you made a (very rare!) mistake. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• The legal system has tried to solve this problem by having a standard of review. We should implement this on Wikipedia by clarifying what level of deference we give to closers, given that we already have this as an informal policy. In my opinion, we should only defer to the closer when a closing statement considered an issue being disputed, and when the closer's judgement is based on the arguments people have made. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Barkeep49 that there is no evidence that having a group of evaluators of consensus leads to less followup discussion. I also don't think it's appropriate to treat admins as being specially privileged to evaluate consensus. In my view, the problem is that the community has certain expectations regarding how consensus is evaluated, and typically there'll be someone whose viewpoint didn't prevail that chooses to point out any deficiencies they see. I know the community historically dislikes bureaucracy, but if we were to introduce some, I'd suggest building up a list of experienced evaluators of consensus who can be asked to determine the result of divisive discussions. Note that the only way to become experienced is to evaluate some discussions, so the community needs to be tolerant of users stepping up to do so, even if they make mistakes. Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion could serve as a place to foster greater experience in evaluating discussions (at its genesis, I had feared it would be just another place to where disputes would spread, but up until now, that hasn't happened). isaacl (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  At one point I had thought about proposing a userright flag called discussioncloser that could be given out to trusted users like template editor and rollback. It wouldn't have any technical permissions, but maybe there could be an edit filter restriction non-discussioncloser users from using our close templates on certain pages. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Closes are legitimate when they consider the necessary facts and provide clear reasons for decision. Panels assist greatly in this, because editors can compare notes and ensure they're not missing any relevant information. Obviously, people are going to complain no matter what, but a good close will explain why certain !votes were disregarded and others were not. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this too. And especially when a discussion becomes lengthy, it is much more likely that whether intentionally or not, a closer misses significant portions of the discussion, or in other words, unintentionally falls into a vote-count just because one side may have significantly more words than another. It is not reasonable to expect one person to be able to read a lengthy discussion and not error in some way even if they take hours or days to read through it and attempt a closure. The beauty of a panel is that if one person, or even two, miss something, it is likely that the third/further person will catch it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

While panel closes have their uses, I think that generally the best way to catch issues is by having the closer be more verbose. It doesn't increase their workload significantly, and it makes it easy for participants to catch errors and raise them with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

One of the main benefits I found in doing a panel close on the ADL RfC was being able to workshop the close statement. Any of the three of us could have closed the thing in a way that was within a reasonable closer's discretion, but together we were able to talk through how the close statement would read to participants on both sides, to non-participants, to people looking back later, and to catch statements that might be too easy to take out of context, could be twisted to claim bias in one direction or the other, etc.

The downside of a panel close is you need to find multiple people willing to take the same level of heat—all three of us in the ADL close panel have been criticized in multiple publications—and then get those people to coördinate. We spent hours on voice calls. Others may exchange many emails. With most things in life, teamwork reduces the total number of person-hours required, but with panel closes it actually increases it. Because of that, I'm not sure to what extent our volunteer ecosystem can support a greater number of panel closes than organically emerges. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you make an important point about having at least a bit of review in the closing process, something the panel allows. Is there a way that we could have something like a RfC close, pre-close discussion for some of these topics? I think sometimes there is a level of momentum once the close is "official" but if the closer could state what they are thinking and allow editors some ability to chime in before the ink is dry, would that reduce some of the issues that you pointed out? I'm not sure if this is a practical idea or one that might cause more issues than it solves but perhaps it would help. Springee (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As someone else noted somewhere in here, WP:Discussions for discussion exists. That said, when a major concern in closing a sensitive RfC is avoiding becoming part of anyone's narrative (to the extent it can be avoided), having a public drafting/review process, where everyone can see suboptimally-phrased past wording, would defeat a lot of that. But I think it's still better than nothing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG, there's already often a backlog of RFCs for close at WP:CR. I don't see adding a suggestion that any RFC over certain length be closed by panel is going to help that, in fact it may just give challengers more ammunition in their claims that entirely reasonable closes are somehow bad. TarnishedPath^talk 03:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• I can think of 3 panel closes off the top of my head that I strongly disagreed with. I won't name them because I don't want to call anyone out, but my impression is that panel closes do not help improve RFC closing accuracy, so I don't think it'd be a good idea to require them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What would be helpful would be a way to stop editors turning RFCs into huge walls of text. In every RFC that ends up this way there are always a small handful of editors (not the same editors, but rather the editors who most care about the issue) that generate the most text. The rebuttal of an argument happens each time that argument is used, but that shouldn't be necessary (it not being a vote). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yet it basically was necessary here, and the closer still didn’t account for the rebuttal in their closure of the discussion. So if anything, this close, even if overturned, and the number of people supporting it shows that it is necessary to ensure people whose !vote is based on inaccurate information or an idea that has been disproven/rebutted strongly are aware of the fact their opinion is based on that and given a chance to review and expand upon it. And if they don’t, it can’t be claimed “they didn’t see the rebuttal” - it would have to be seen that they did see it, since pointed out to them, and chose to ignore it - which should result in a significant down weighting of their !vote indeed, as it’s basically an admission that “I can’t rebut that rebuttal”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Outside of Wikipedia, this is done by having someone moderate the discussion. The English Wikipedia community has so far placed a higher priority on ensuring everyone gets to weigh in, out of a concern that any moderation would be unduly strict. isaacl (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, WP:BLUDGEON is a conduct issue; people can and have been ejected from topic areas for repeatedly bludgeoning discussions. (If it's just one discussion where they lost their cool then it's probably not worth worrying about.) There's always the option to look up repeat offenders, nudge them to stop bludgeoning discussions, then drag them to AE or ANI if they don't listen. Doing that more often would encourage people to not be so bludgeon-y in general. Another thing that might discourage bludgeoning: Make it unambiguous that closers may, at their discretion, ignore all non-top-level comments in an RFC, if the RFC is already massive (of course this would have to be combined by making it clear to everyone that if they feel some point is vital, they need to edit it into their one top-level comment), and should even say that they're doing so so people understand that their elaborate back-and-forth arguments aren't even being read - to be clear, I'm not saying "exclude them when determining consensus", I'm saying closers should be specifically empowered to say "I'm not reading all that, I'm only reading the top-level comments." RFCs aren't supposed to devolve into threaded discussion anyway, so "at a glance this all looks like pointless natter between people who just want the last word and I'm going to disregard it" seems like a reasonable thing to encourage. Maybe even some sort of "just the main argument" viewer that specifically removes all responses. Or we could flatly forbid threaded responses in RFCs, confining them to a separate comment section that the closer is not required to read. --Aquillion (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus agreement in the community that requests for comments aren't supposed to have threaded discussion. Many of the editors who like to weigh in on how decisions are made think threading is important for facilitating efficient communications. (My variant on this is that I think we should consolidate discussion so the same topics aren't discussed in multiple threads, but that hasn't gotten a lot of support.) Since English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions are based on the idea of building consensus, I don't think enabling evaluators to say "I'm going to ignore the discussion" would gain favour.

Yes, extreme cases of swamping discussion can get addressed. But communications rapidly bogs down way before that point, and before any point where sanctions would be deemed reasonable. The N-squared problem of trying to hold a large, unmoderated group conversation (where there are up to N-squared interactions that can occur) means that everyone can be acting in good faith and yet it becomes very difficult to follow all the points being made. isaacl (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Bludgeoning is a lot different than asking someone to reconsider their opinion or explain it further in light of information that they did not address in their original comment - regardless of whether that information was already present or not. Closers should certainly not be permitted to ignore the threaded discussion - because that in and of itself results in "first mover advantage". People would be able to make whatever claims they want, or make their initial !vote based on inaccurate information, and then the closer should just be allowed to ignore the replies/discussion that points that out? Absurdity. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You have to let people seek consensus by talking to each other and you have to pay particular attention when someone changes their mind after being persuaded by a convincing point. But you can't allow a passionate editor to have a disproportionate effect on the discussion by sheer volume of text when they're not convincing anyone.—S Marshall T/C 07:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If I infodump a wall of text and a dozen other editors cite it, that's not bludgeoning. Neither is posting rebuttals on their own.

Bludgeoning is when an editor repeatedly makes the same argument. This is disruptive because redundant information does not add value to the conversation. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of panel closes either. The only concrete effect they seem to have is to make things take a lot longer. I also often get the feeling that the summaries suffer from the lack of a single author. Instead I'd encourage closers to make greater use of WP:DFD to workshop and solicit feedback on contentious closes before they post them. – Joe (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• For the concerns about backlogs noted above, I’m not sure mandating a panel closure for these long sorts of RfCs would be the best idea (having one person close it takes long enough, mandating that 3-4 negotiate a close would be a bit excessive) - that said, I’m supportive of mandating or strongly recommending that an uninvolved admin handle these closures. Yes, admins aren’t infallible, but it feels more appropriate to have someone who the community’s already entrusted with responsibility handle lengthy/contentious RfCs in CTOPs, rather than a normal user. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawing deletion nomination

I have withdrawn the deletion nomination of a page, see this, an administrator must talk. Hamwal (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that two people have weighed in on the discussion with something other than a keep !vote, the nomination is no longer eligible for withdrawal. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Well you can add a keep vote with reason and state that you are withdrawing your delete nomination. But that will not trigger close in this case. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Opinion sought

A small edit war occurred at LGB Alliance leading directly from the closure of The Telegraph reliability RFC. While no intervention is, at present, required, as parties appear to have stopped warring, two editors are under the impression that it is other editors who were edit warring, not them. There has been discussion of this, with diffs, at Talk:LGB Alliance#Dubious source and at User talk:Amanda A. Brant#Talk:LGB Alliance#Dubious source. As you can see from these pages, both I, BilledMammal and WhatamIdoing have offered our opinions and all of us have been rebuffed. Both Amanda and BilledMammal have thrown WP:EDITWAR at each other during the article talk page discussion. I'm including BilledMammal as among the participants of the edit war, as their edit was warring back to "status quo". Furthermore that "status quo" includes text sourced to The Telegraph, and therefore aligned with BilledMammal's position being very upset about the Telegraph RFC closure, and they had not previously edited this article or talk page.

I would appreciate an admin/admins who will be respected as neutral by all participants (i.e. not those whose position wrt trans/GCF topics is well known and can therefore be rebuffed as biased by one party) to briefly describe what occurred in terms of our Edit warring policy. No editor even remotely reached 3RR. This is simply about what edit warring is, what constitutes participation in that war, not whether their edit warring needed sanctions or whether the content or absence of content was correct. I'm hoping for enlightenment and better future behaviour as a result, rather than anyone to get into trouble. -- Colin°^Talk 13:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Whatever the result of the review above that's a misinterpretation of WP:MREL. Marginal or disputed reliability is not the same as WP:Generally unreliable.

This was edit warring, reverting reverts of other reverts, even multipole editors only each reverting once could still constitute edit warring. After WP:3RR editors may very well get blocked, but that's not a reasont to get right up to that point.

As with most issue more discussion on the talk page, and less in edit summaries, would likely solve the problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Small correction; I didn't say that Amanda was edit warring - while if they had reverted again I think they would have crossed the line, as it was I don't think that was one of the issues with their conduct there. BilledMammal (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You're comment "I’m just here because people are misusing RSP. I’m not interested in joining the discussion beyond objecting to that." might as well have read "I'm only here to join the edit war". CNC (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagreed with the specified reason for removal - you can't remove a source on the grounds of unreliability if you're not actually claiming that its reporting is incorrect. Editors later raised other reasons for removal, and I wasn't interested in getting more involved in the discussion.

This isn't an unreasonable position, per WP:SATISFY and WP:VOLUNTARY. Editors are allowed to address one issue without becoming permanently involved in a dispute. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Your argument has helped to confirm my suggestion as now you are trying to justify your reason for edit warring, rather than any acknowledgement that is was the wrong action: you made no attempt to avoid edit warring and your revert wasn't necessary. On 9 July, you joined the edit war with Amanda A. Brant, reverting at 15:18 [7], making your first comment on the topic 5 minutes later.[8] This is a clear case of "revert first, ask questions later". Then at 16:50 after stating "I’m just here because people are misusing RSP. I’m not interested in joining the discussion beyond objecting to that.[9], failed to revert your edit. I say "failed" because once you no longer claimed to have an issue with the removed content based on the argument presented by YFNS, you let your revert stand. It seems you've ignored the concerns Colin has raised in this topic. CNC (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Where's the problem? Someone removed an unreliable source from a page. Fairly reasonable thing to do. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:MREL is not WP:GUNREL, I'm shocked you haven't understood this yet. Likewise regarding edit warring and WP:BRD. It's unfortunately got to the point where an admin needs to explain to you the basics. CNC (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, MREL is not GUNREL. But if a source isn't appropriate (as in here), it shouldn't be used. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if the source isn't appropriate, editors shouldn't be edit warring over whether it should be used (in that place, in that way). The dispute involves the repeated removal and restoration of this sentence:

• "The organisation has said that lesbians are facing "extinction" because of the "disproportionate" focus on transgender identities in schools."

along with one out of the seven uses of this source in the LGB Alliance article:

• Tominey, Camilla (25 December 2020). "Lesbians facing 'extinction' as transgenderism becomes pervasive, campaigners warn". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 4 January 2021.

The first sentence of the source says:

• "Lesbian are facing “extinction” because of the “disproportionate” focus on transgenderism in schools, a controversial campaign group for gay rights has claimed."

which could perhaps be faulted on grounds of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, but I think it is inarguable that the cited source WP:Directly supports the statement which it was being cited for.

I think this ought to proceed as an ordinary content dispute over whether the organization in question actually did espouse this POV, and (if so) whether that fact is DUE for the lead or should only be placed lower in the article. I don't think this should be considered a dispute solely about whether a source that is still used six other times in the article is inappropriate for citing a seventh time.

Also, I don't think that we should be thinking about this in terms of "sides". An editor who seems to oppose everything this organization stands for has removed damaging information about that org from the lead. Their PR team is probably very happy with her right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not just about the fact that The Daily Telegraph is no longer considered "generally reliable" on transgender issues and gender-critical views, and was listed as yellow on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There is a nuanced discussion of whether it is appropriate in the specific context (which I addressed) and whether it is WP:DUE in the first paragraph (whether the source is good enough in the specific context is part of that discussion). As I explain on Talk:LGB Alliance, I have reverted exactly once, and only after offering a detailed rationale on the talk page that the other party did not respond to, after being given an opportunity to do so. That is not edit-warring. That is normal editing. Pretty much all the other participants in the discussion routinely do the same thing. I don't think the most recent edit by User:Barnards.tar.gz that basically reinstated my edit with some tweaks is edit-warring either. There now seems to be general agreement to remove the material in question. The only really unacceptable behavior in relation to this minor incident was the abuse of templates and personal attacks by one editor. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Depending on where one chooses to start counting, you have reverted either once or twice. The question here isn't really "Did User:_____, personally and individually, do anything that should be punished?" The question is more like "Do we have one of those situations in which editors [note the plural] keep flipping back and forth between the same two versions of the article?"

If you click through the relevant diffs ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]), then I'd say we have an edit war, even if no single individual has broken any bright-line rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

- Just to say that I did ask for neutral admin (or experienced user) to comment as a third opinion, not for existing participants to continue to argue whether they did or did not edit war, or for folk to offer their opinions about which warring edit was the right one. I think such a wise authoritative voice would still be very welcome, as editors are continuing to argue they were not edit warring because they were Right and everyone else was Wrong, on the article talk page. -- Colin°^Talk 21:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It does look like an edit war, at least the early stages of one. Unofficially, I'd encourage all parties to stop reverting and discuss on the talk page. That's exactly what happened, so I don't think it needs to go any further at this point. The rest seems like a content dispute which isn't really suitable for WP:AN. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• I would be more concerned about the reliability of anything written by Camilla Tominey (stick "Camilla Tominey trans" into Google and have a look at that - don't bother looking at the hagiography that is Camilla Tominey) rather than the fact she happened to write it in the Telegraph. And as far as I can see, regardless of its source, it certainly isn't WP:DUE in a lead paragraph. As a second point, articles such as LGB Alliance are covered by WP:GENSEX so I'd suggest that editors who are pushing their POV consistently across multiple noticeboards and articles have a think about where pushing too hard ad nauseam might lead. Black Kite (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Can we please not have comments on the content/sources. Go to the article talk page if you want to do that. The concern here is some editors are unaware (or unwilling to accept) what constitutes edit warring. The actual topic is irrelevant. -- Colin°^Talk 11:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, the issue here is the material, that was dubious from the start (dubious in the sense that its use in the first paragraph unduly promoted a biased narrative), and that has in fact been removed from the article by various editors. This harping on a supposed "edit war" after a couple of editors "reverted" exactly once each – in my case with a detailed justification and rationale that the other party had been given an opportunity to respond to, and in Barnards.tar.gz's case to attempt some sort of compromise, that now seems to be widely accepted by everyone – is not productive use of our time. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate the uninvolved parties offering opinions, so I don't want to rehash all this and I won't add any more than this, but as "the other party" I would like to offer context as I saw it.

  • The page in question is exceptionally hard to attain consensus on for any changes, due to the divisive nature of the subject
  • The content we're talking about has been in the lede unchanged for (I believe) couple of years
  • The change you wanted, you justified based on an updated note on The Telegraph on Perennial Sources that was barely 2 hours old at this point, after a lengthy and polarising RFC we were both involved in, on opposite sides
  • You used this very recent change not only to argue in talk for this removal, wrongly claiming that the Telegraph was WP:GUNREL and should not be used, but also elsewhere on that talk that it should not be usable WRT other disputed neutral wording in the lede
  • Your rationale, aside from being a misreading of the note, cast aspersions about essentially the entire UK media
  • When I pointed out you were overstating things, you replied with what was a restatement of the same claim. At this point, my impression was we were at loggerheads, so wait and see if someone else weighs in. I don't see the point in repeating myself ad nauseum.
  • When you then reverted my revert, it was 2:30am my time. I'm sorry but I don't keep tabs on this 24/7, nor do I see the desperate urgency to remove ancient content such that it cannot be discussed by more editors first.
  • When your change was reverted to restore the status quo ante, I was personally glad of an uninvolved intervention and considered it a call to actually discuss the change per BRD, which I felt your revert had not been in the spirit of. However, with the issue subsequently being raised here as an edit war, I now see things like WP:DONTREVERT say Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo so I guess my understanding of norms about this sort of thing are not correct. Every day is a school day, and I'll certainly bear this in mind in future.
  • FWIW, I have since chucked my 2p in on talk after the fact and endorsed the actual change as subsequently performed by Barnards, for the rationale that emerged on talk which I agree with, but I do understand the concerns about the process.

  At this point I think, despite how it was arrived at, there is actual unanimity about the content, which on that page is a cause for either celebration or to check its not April 1st. Void if removed (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Scott's use of revision deletion

Scott (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hello. Following discussion on Scott's talk page, I am asking for review of Scott's revision deletions. Despite another administrator and I attempting to explain that RD3 should not be used for all vandalism, Scott has misrepresented previous consensus (the discussion specifically stated that "it was also generally agreed that most vandalism was out of scope for RevDel"), changed the text of policy to suit their interpretation of it, and responded to the other administrator's concerns with "my God, stop being so melodramatic ... This is absolutely pathetic".

Much of Scott's revision deletions have been of run-of-the-mill instances of vandalism from years ago, such as 'When people eat Pringles, it is very yummy according to the people who eat/ate it', 'WORST WEB PAGE ON THE WEB "LULZ!"', and keysmashing. As revision deletion should not be used for such "basic" instances of vandalism, they should be undone. I would also point out that the tone of responses have been deeply disappointing. Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Accusing me of "spamming the logs" by deleting (hiding) 3 revisions is melodramatic and doing so as a transparent attempt to get me in trouble (based on an idiosyncratic personal interpretation of long-established policy) is pathetic.

I already responded to your concern on my user talk page where you raised it, to remind you that "purely disruptive material" is the definition of WP:RD3 as established community practice, and the last RfC on the topic (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Clarification of RD3 in 2011) failed to establish otherwise.

You accuse me of "changing the text of policy to suit my interpretation" when in fact, I simply corrected a contradictory statement in the preamble (which you highlighted) which had been sitting there invalidating every RevDel criterion except RD2 since 2009. Obviously, nobody interpreted it literally enough to prevent them from using any of the other criteria, but it does seem to have been sufficiently confusing to cause you to think that it should.

As I said to you before, if you disagree with the definition of RD3 then the appropriate place to gain consensus for a change is WT:Revision deletion.  — Scott • talk 21:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Do not endorse. Those are definitely not suitable uses for revision deletion. There's a reason why "vandalism" isn't one of the examples provided for RD3: includes harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus-proliferating pages, and links to any of these or to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no valid purpose. More concerning, though, is Scott's attitude towards this. When someone asks on your talk page why you decided to take admin actions, calling their concern "absolutely pathetic" is not acceptable. —Ingenuity (t • c) 21:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how the diffs provided above are not describable as "purely disruptive material"?

Also I'll thank you not to misrepresent my words - aggressively accusing me of "spamming the logs" is what's pathetic, rather than civilly opening a talk page conversation over the interpretation of RevDel criteria. I choose not to be bullied, thanks.  — Scott • talk 22:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The only person who was aggressive in that conversation was you. And you think that this is bullying? Wow. —Ingenuity (t • c) 22:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What kind of topsy-turvy world is it where someone comes into your talk page yelling about at you that you're "spamming" and standing up for yourself in the face of that makes you aggressive?

Anyway, I guess you're choosing not to answer my question.  — Scott • talk 22:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Until you changed it earlier today, the revdel policy also stated that "material must be grossly offensive". Maybe RD3 should now be renamed to "purely and grossly disruptive material". —Ingenuity (t • c) 22:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The "misuse" section of the preamble, not the criteria themselves which define the use of revision deletion, said that for revision deletion to be used, the "material must be grossly offensive". As I have pointed out multiple times now, that invalidates every single criterion except RD2. Somehow nobody noticed that since 2009 the revision deletion policy has been contradicting itself.  — Scott • talk 22:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

From a review of his last 10 revdel's, Scott seems to understand RD2, but doesn't seem to understand RD3. We have never revdel'd run of the mill vandalism, and we certainly don't revdel 20 year old run of the mill vandalism. Contrary to Scott's claim, doing so is not long-established standard practice. I also agree with Ingenuity above that Scott's snarky attitude in response to a very reasonable request is unjustified. If he's just having a shitty day, then it's not a big deal; I've acted like a jerk when I'm having a bad day too. But it should stop, as should the RD3 revdels. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Floq. If you're going to make a sweeping statement like "we have never... and we certainly don't..." then perhaps you could contribute some evidence towards that, perhaps in the form of a written policy which explicitly supports your interpretation, or a discussion which established consensus?

Regarding snark, if someone comes onto my user talk page with a shitty attitude then what do you expect? Come on now.  — Scott • talk 22:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Per above. RD3 is not for regular vandalism. These deletions should be reversed. – bradv 22:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Scott, I think you're the admin with the idiosyncratic view of what RevDel covers. Run-of-the-mill vandalism is reverted, not revdeleted. I don't believe the community has or ever would explicitly agree for it to be used this way, especially on lame throw away edits from years ago.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. If you look at the RfC I linked to above, it was noted in the closing summary that "The overriding agreement appears that admin discretion still has strong support in these cases. But it was also generally agreed that most vandalism was out of scope for RevDel." [Emphasis in original.] Most vandalism certainly is out of scope, and I've used my discretion to hide a minority of purely disruptive rubbish that has no place on public view. This is in keeping with both the written policy and consensus as previously established.  — Scott • talk 22:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how the deletions highlighted by Sdrqaz cross the line between basic vandalism and "purely disruptive rubbish". It's just childish scrawling in comparison to the grossly inappropriate edits REVDEL is meant to cover. I think you have it wrong in this specific instance.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that basic vandalism isn't purely disruptive? Then what is it? Genuine question.  — Scott • talk 22:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If the community had as broad an interpretation as you as to what is purely disruptive, the policy would simply state that any vandalism is fair game for revision deletion. I repeat what I said above, the community would never approve such a liberal use of the tool. You appear to have dug in here; I'm not sure if there is any point in debating further. You are using an admin tool in a way that is not approved by the community and, based on your replies here, don't appear open to considering you may be incorrectly applying RD3. I really hope I'm wrong. You don't have to agree, but please consider that you might have it wrong.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm open to considering it - that's exactly why we have collective discussions to elaborate upon and refine policies. You say "the community would never approve" - to add to what I've just said below to Floquenbeam, policy is set by what the community did approve. This seems like the perfect opportunity for another RfC on the topic to get the current consensus formalized, and ideally reflected in a well-written and unambiguous criterion to be understood and followed by all.  — Scott • talk 23:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Discretion is for borderline cases, it is not limitless. Just because you're an admin does not mean that you can do whatever you want because you have "discretion". Every admin who comments here is going to say they don't routinely revdel this stuff. That needs to mean something to you. If people revdel'd only stuff 10 times as bad as that, our revdel logs would still increase by several orders of magnitude. There are easily 100 more vandal edits on that page just as bad, and that's only one page. Among other reasons, we limit the use of revdel because non-admins can't tell what's going on, and that's a bad thing. We should only do it when removing the material being revdel'd is a bigger benefit than the cost of hiding revisions. More importantly, "Scott vs. All You Insane People" is not an appropriate approach. Consider the possibility that you drastically mistook the tone of the original message. I can assure you, for what it's worth, that you are the one who appears unreasonably aggressive there, not Sdrqaz. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Try reading what I wrote again. Sdrqaz's message to me was absolutely fine. I was talking about Thryduulf.

Anyway, regarding your comments - you've just illustrated how our admin corps aren't doing enough to suppress vandalism. I doubt that you could quantify "the cost" as it's entirely nebulous. Your argument also doesn't hold up - regular admins can't see what the higher level ones with oversight have hidden, and that's not a "bad thing" even though it's far less accountable.  — Scott • talk 22:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, I thought Sdrqaz started the thread on your talk page, his was just the last comment there. It is starting to make more sense why you assumed Thrydulf's initial comment was an attack, you had a recent run-in elsewhere. Anyway, you started out saying Thyrdulf was out of touch with long established procedures. Now the whole admin corps is out of touch with long established procedures? That's kind of impossible by definition. I will never understand why people can't just say "OK, my thoughts on this are apparently different than the consensus, so I'll suck it up and change what I do." Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What can I say here? There are apparently loads and loads of people who seem determined to interpret one of our policies in their own way rather than following it to the letter as written, and their response to that is to do everything except take to the policy venues to clarify what exactly an ambiguous policy really means and establish a firm consensus. You say "long established procedures" and "the consensus", but so far nobody has managed to produce a single written record of these that trumps WP:RD3, which itself would be different as a result of such a consensus, by definition. 🤷🏼‍♂️  — Scott • talk 23:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we're probably done here, we're just going around in circles. Ingenuity answered your question. There is more to RD3 than the initial wording; the followup clarification counts too. Ponyo answered your question. And you don't need policy to determine "long established procedure", instead you look at what all the other admins have been doing long term. By definition. A bunch of non-Thryduulf admins have told you that no one interprets this the way you do. I don't think anyone is asking for grovelling, but if you continue to misuse RD3, someone is probably going to take you to ArbCom for misuse of the tool. You don't have to agree, but you should be aware. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I am aware, and I'm waiting for the one single person who actually cares about procedure enough to fix this weak criterion by kicking off the process which establishes consensus to narrow the wording. Until then, everything is just "well I think it means".  — Scott • talk 23:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If you decide to do this, please let me know. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 28 recently and was struck by both Scott's tone (e.g., In summary, get stuffed.) and the fact that the deletion was unanimously overturned. I'm concerned that this is more than just a one-time issue. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, when Thryduulf chose to call me a liar in public with absolutely zero consequences. I guess having been on ArbCom gives you a free pass exempting you from WP:AGF right? I can think of a whole bunch of people here who'd have responded with something far more fruity than "get stuffed".  — Scott • talk 22:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that not a single other person has taken issue with my describing intentionally leaving incorrect deletion summaries as "lying" should cause you to reflect that it actually is? Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that I see it, I take issue with it. For what it's worth. But Let's stay on track here. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If it isn't lying, what is it? Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh stop it. "Lying" has connotations that do not apply to every instance of "intentionally leaving incorrect deletion summaries" (note that I have no idea if even that is true, but assuming it is for the sake of argument), and you know it. You've been around long enough to know that calling someone a liar basically shuts down future legit discussion. Case in point: if anyone else had left an identically worded initial message on Scott's page, Scott possibly would have interpreted it differently, and maybe we wouldn't even be here. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.  — Scott • talk 23:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That's your response? Just doubling down? Absolutely incredible. Well, at least everyone can see your true colours.  — Scott • talk 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• I do hope that we're not going to spend volunteer time on undeleting blatant vandalism for procedural reasons.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that would be silly. I'd be satisfied if the unnecessary RD3 revdel's just stop. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I certainly wouldn't want to mandate that (or even recommend that), but if someone chooses to spend their time reversing out-of-process deletions I'm not going to spend my time complaining about it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm glad it's not just me who feels that these RD3 deletions were incorrect, in isolation not badly enough to merit more than a note that they have misinterpreted the deletion policy. However the tone of their responses here, on their talk page and in the recent DRV are grossly inappropriate. If they don't start listening then we'll have no choice but to go to arbcom and that would be a real shame as most of their admin work is correct and good, but the communication is that big a deal. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• This sort of revdel, if it were to become commonplace, would be highly disruptive to those of us who create edit filters, and for that matter, to the thousands and thousands of people who patrol recent changes. We need to see the big picture. We need to see patterns of vandalism. What's common enough to warrant a filter? What are the "tells" of that sneaky LTA? If everything disappears behind a struck-out diff, then we're just left reacting to what's in front of our nose. Now revdel is, sometimes, a necessary evil. The libeled BLP subject doesn't care about any of this, nor should they. But if you can't answer the question "what harm will come if J Random User views this diff?" the diff probably should remain visible. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for making a contribution to this debate based upon actual, quantifiable reasons. Although the instances of RD3 under discussion here were in application to 20-year-old vandalism, I'll commit to cease using it in such a fashion specifically on the basis of your demonstrated need, rather than that of the kind of unprovable assertions about the "true meaning" of a policy we've been seeing until now.

  As a side note, your comment completely demonstrates that the permissions you have are insufficient for the job. Filter managers should be able to see deleted revisions. Yes, I know the WMF's position on who gets that permission and I don't agree with it.  — Scott • talk 23:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Do not endorse. 61 edit summaries in a row of all caps FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU.... maxing out the edit summary length is purely disruptive. Changing a redirect to HAGGER???? is normal vandalism. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)