Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Linas is still openly actively editing: plugging an essay I wrote |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 343: | Line 343: | ||
:Vif12vf is over 3RR on [[Movimiento al Socialismo (Argentina)]]. [[User:Jake Wartenberg|Jake Wartenberg]] ([[User talk:Jake Wartenberg|talk]]) 16:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
:Vif12vf is over 3RR on [[Movimiento al Socialismo (Argentina)]]. [[User:Jake Wartenberg|Jake Wartenberg]] ([[User talk:Jake Wartenberg|talk]]) 16:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
::@[[User:Jake Wartenberg|Jake Wartenberg]] Oops, thats my bad, lost count in the middle of everything else going on. [[User:Vif12vf|Vif12vf/Tiberius]] ([[User talk:Vif12vf|talk]]) 16:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
::@[[User:Jake Wartenberg|Jake Wartenberg]] Oops, thats my bad, lost count in the middle of everything else going on. [[User:Vif12vf|Vif12vf/Tiberius]] ([[User talk:Vif12vf|talk]]) 16:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Permission removal == |
|||
I'm currently a member of the following five groups: ''autoconfirmed users, extended confirmed users, pending changes reviewers, rollbackers and users.'' Last one's redundant, of course. Would I be able to get the first 4 removed, so that my account has no special permissions? Thank you in advance. (If autoconfirmed/extended confirmed can't be removed, just get rid of the rollback & pending changes designations.) [[User:Fimatic|-'''<span style="color:#7094FF">Fim</span><span style="color:#4775FF">atic</span>''']] <sup>([[User talk:Fimatic|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/Fimatic|contribs]])</sup> 06:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:54, 17 May 2024
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 67 | 0 | 67 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 1 user-reported username for administrator attention
- 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 30 sockpuppet investigations
- 10 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 1 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 9 requests for RD1 redaction
- 41 elapsed requested moves
- 3 Pages at move review
- 13 requested closures
- 88 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 9 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- WP:RSN (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)
Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Notified: [1]
Reasoning: The following is copied and modified from my post at Chetsford's talk page. I think that Chetsford's close was generally correct, but I think that this aspect is an incorrect assessment of consensus: A few editors suggested that, regardless of outcome, it should not be used for WP:BLPs. No direct reasoning was presented for that, however, some indirect reference to our policies could be divined within the greater context of the remarks of those editors and these suggestions were not really rebutted.
I searched the RfC and "BLP" was used six times in the discussion. Only two of those mentions are in relation to the reliability of the source, and as Chetsford noted, neither provided any direct reasoning
:
In addition, based on some of the past statements linked, a use for BLP or politicised situations within the fog or war would be very reckless at best.
Yeah, I have very little faith in their editorial review which go beyond WP:BIAS and regularly WP:Fringe. At best, they really shouldn’t be used for anything related to BLP, Russia and Israel, at worst (and IMO this part is most likely) a full depreciation may be in order.
The only indirect reference to policy
is to BIAS (as FRINGE is a guideline), and Chetsford discounted that argument in another part of the close. I can't really divine[]
what other policies these editors may or may not have been thinking about. I'm not sure what past statements
the first commenter is thinking about, and without more reasoning, I wouldn't say that this single argument is strong enough to establish a consensus that Mondoweiss should not be used for BLPs just because nobody happened to rebut it in a long discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Uninvolved
Endorse closeAmend While the specifics of BLPs weren't addressed in-depth, it's a reasonable addendum for clarity. They can be used but people should be careful with each individual article...not sure why that's not a blanket statement for every source on Wikipedia. For example, the NYT has published some egregious "journalism", but that doesn't mean it's always wrong on the basic facts. Every source should be evaluated for accuracy on its merits. If I say "Person AB said in an op-ed '<insert quote here'" and then cite it, there's very little reason to doubt that statement is true, but quoting it for purposes of establishing it as something that's true is inappropriate without additional verification. Buffs (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)- Amended: This sounds like a WPian hearing what they want to hear. There isn't a need to add additional steps beyond what we normally do if people are going to abuse that to exclude the contributions of others. I'd prefer to keep it as-is, but I certainly can see that point. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wow...the EXACT reason I said it SHOULD be included was used...#clairvoyance Buffs (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Amended: This sounds like a WPian hearing what they want to hear. There isn't a need to add additional steps beyond what we normally do if people are going to abuse that to exclude the contributions of others. I'd prefer to keep it as-is, but I certainly can see that point. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Amend Remove the BLP clarification: 1) Regardless of the sources' reliability, we always them with great caution for biographies of living people. 2) No valid reason was given for why Mondoweiss should be treated differently from the other RS. 3) Such an unneeded clarification can easily be misconstrued to mean that Mondoweiss shouldn't be used for BLP. Just this week, one of the RfC participants used the close statement to claim that
we should avoid using Mondoweiss for BLP.
Obviously, it ended up in RSN again. M.Bitton (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) - Amend to remove the statement about BLPs. If only two editors made an unsupported assertion and nobody else discussed it, then it isn't a valid part of the consensus. I'm all for interpreting arguments to try and pull a consensus out of the flames where it isn't obvious, but "divining within the greater context" in this manner is a left-field supervote and should be removed. The rest of the closure is reasonable. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Amend per M.Bitton and Wordsmith. We already treat BLP with caution, and this issue was not discussed enough to reach consensus. If needed, a new discussion on how to use MW with regard to BLP can be made. Meanwhile, I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6 to conclude that option 3 should be reached. Note that since option 2 is essentially the middle ground, option 1 and 3 have the same weight, but option 4 has twice the weight of option 1 when skewing option 2. This doesn’t seem very fair, and then rounding 2.6 to 3 because of this is increasing the unfairness, leading to essentially 13 editors overruling 21 editors. starship.paint (RUN) 03:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- A-men Buffs (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Two minor points of clarification: I have zero problem with amending per above and, while I can't -- objectively -- read the RfC that way, I would personally be glad to see this outcome.
That said, I am concerned that some editors are reading the aggressive and misinformed arguments of two relatively new editors on the "anti-" MW side who have attempted, very poorly, to summarize my close and assuming those summaries accurately represent the close. The only closing statements I wrote are this one and this explanatory comment, both of which are much more modest than the way in which two editors are summarizing them to make sweeping changes across multiple articles. To avoid the further spread of this misinformation, I would ask, as a personal favor, that editors attempting to describe my close (regardless of where you land on it) reflect only on the source material, and not the apocrypha it's spawned. To wit:
- "I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6" The "average" of 2.6 was never used for anything (and, yes, I realize the incidental appearance of this meaningless number in the close has been fixated upon by the aforementioned editors to make major changes to articles). As per the text of the close rationale, the number 2.6 was simply noted as "indicative but not definitive as per WP:NOTAVOTE" and then immediately discarded as "not clearly learning toward either option" before the narrative analysis began.
- "to conclude that option 3 should be reached" The RfC close reached no such conclusion in any dimension of time or space; in this reality or any parallel reality that the mind of man can conceive or imagine. It stated that no "consensus as to its underlying reliability" emerged which, if anything at all, was a "2" close (but, actually, no consensus).
- To summarize, this was a "no consensus" close with a relatively modest (and not proscriptive) BLP corollary described by Buffs in this first (now stricken) comment. The fact my loquacious reasoning, intended to promote transparency, instead provided an opening to wedge in battleground behavior is beyond both my control and mandate (RfC closers are not RfC enforcers). Chetsford (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarity...I think... :-) Buffs (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Chetsford: - perhaps there has been a misunderstanding, you quoted from me, but I was not referring to your RfC close. I was referring to the below analysis by FortunateSons. I apologise for my vagueness having caused confusion. starship.paint (RUN) 08:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarity...I think... :-) Buffs (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Involved
- I've archived my discussion with Voorts here for ease of review (versus diffs). For what it's worth, considering the contentious topic area involved, I am in full agreement with Voorts that review of the close is appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Amend close to read "and that it should
either not be used at all — orused withgreatcaution for biographies of living people." I don't think that the relative silence on the issue should have been construed as agreement with the two editors raising that specific, there was a lot else going on in the discussion besides that, especially since one of those editors appears to have construed the close as a license to remove citations for BLPs. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC) - Amend close to 3 (Gunrel), optionally clarify the statement about BLP requirements per the qualifiers suggested by Chetsford
per the arguments made by @Chess and @BilledMammal, which were not sufficiently addressed; also using the votes as an indicator. Acknowledging that I advanced the BLP arguments poorly (and thanking @Chetsford for his generally accurate deciphering of what I meant), I would suggest the following, in the spirit of his comment made here, @Bobfrombrockley here and as a compromise: used with great caution for biographies of living (and recently deceased) people, and not to be used in cases of (a) for statements that, if proved false, would be legally defamatory; (b) for extraordinary claims (c) for analytical statements about the person; (d) for quotes and facts the accuracy of which is contested by RS or the subject him/herself. In addition and as a partial clarification, perhaps e) should be content marked as activism and similar would be appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)- You're going to need to bolster your opinion more than "we should do what I want", when support for #2 had ~6.5:1 support over yours. This is not the place to relitigate this RfC, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I‘m pretty sure you’re off on the math, as I voted 4 (which obviously endorses 3 over 2). That option obviously does not have consensus (and just for the sake of clarity, removal of problematic BLP uses is not backdoor deprecation, the overwhelming majority of MW uses are non-BLP or unproblematic). The straight vote count (as stated by Chetsford) has the average at 2.6, and of the counted votes, 14 votes included at least 3 (including 2 or 3), while 21 did not, of which an overwhelming amount were 3 or lower (please check my math).
- I was unaware that we are not supposed to reference specific points when requesting a reassessment of the outcome, and have struck that part, except in context of the phrasing to avoid (light) plagiarism. Thanks for making me aware, this is one of my first contributions to such a noticeboard :) FortunateSons (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- When giving a list of options (1. Action A 2. Action B 3. Action C 4. Action D and 5. Action E), saying "the average is 2.6 so we should choose option 3" is a horrible misunderstanding of statistics. You are heavily weighting all other actions other than #1 (Example, 20 people !vote 1, 2 people !vote 2, and 3 people !vote 5, the "average" is 2 despite an overwhelming preponderance of people !voting 1...in other words, a 5 is worth 5x a 1). Rounding up only further exacerbates the issue. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Second attempt at a more policy-compliant argument, please correct me if this one is also wrong:
- The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed, and similar arguments where not fully rebuffed in general; therefore, the section regarding BLP should remain as is, or be alternatively clarified while remaining in the spirit of discussion and close.
- Regarding the status of the entire source, I believe that the arguments made by those voting for „higher than 2“ should have led to a close of 3, and respectfully request that it is amended (as well). FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- "The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed" They were addressed. You just didn't agree. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- You're going to need to bolster your opinion more than "we should do what I want", when support for #2 had ~6.5:1 support over yours. This is not the place to relitigate this RfC, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Amend per The Wordsmith. My own views on the source aside, the issue of BLP use was barely discussed - there was no consensus on it one way or another, so to assert one in the closure seems odd. The Kip 19:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't object to the amendment that is being proposed here, because I think it goes without saying that any source where there are serious reliability concerns should be used with extreme caution in BLPs, especially where content is potentially defamatory. While no consensus was reached, given that 15 out of 36 !votes (I think) were for an option higher than 2 and only one editor considered option 1, this is obviously a source with serious reliability concerns. My only worry is that editors will take this amendment as permission not to use extreme caution with the source on BLPs or, worse, that this source has somehow been cleared for use in BLPs, so I hope that editors supporting this amendment will be vigilant in ensuring that we do not use this poor source inappropriately in BLPs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
- Could we get an admin to close and amend this. Consensus seems quite clear. Buffs (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I already listed this at WP:CR for maybe more than a week. starship.paint (RUN) 06:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I concur that consensus here is to amend the close. Chetsford (talk) 11:37, 12 May 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 Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14
- COVID-19 pandemic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)
Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Notified: User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion
Reasoning: The closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. #1 closer ignored roughconsenus pointing to "the discursive failures that occurred in this RfC." #2 the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred to Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Discussion in which I stated ""Controversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China.[34]" Note that no editor made an RS claim in the discussion on the oppose side, thus the closer seems to have improperly summarized the discussion and rather than summarizing instead pointing to his own view of lack of RS, MEDRS, and discursive failures (none of which were not discussed in the RFC). When I sought to discuss the close with the closer on their talk page, the closer instead failed to WP:AGF stating "I know it wouldn't be as personally satisfying" and going on to say "we may sometimes feel shorted if our comments aren't recognized." Note, I had not been asking the editor why my "comments aren't recognized", I instead asked the editor to justify their own novel claim that no RS were provided in the RFC. #3 eventually the closer goes on to contradict themselves apparently stating "As already noted in the close, the RfC should have been an easy consensus close to strike #14" as if some procedural failure in the RFC didnt gain such consensus, I suppose pointing the editors vague claim of "discursive failures," rather than the very succinct explanations of many of the editors that participated in the RFC. In summary, the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus, instead suggesting that the RFC be run again and explained "I've reviewed it and decline to reverse." The discussion with closer (and additional information) can be found User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close. I adding it here as something is amiss with the template link above, maybe due to the closer archiving their talk page recently. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Uninvolved (COVID19)
This close was within the threshold of reasonable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't recall ever editing that article so I think I'm uninvolved. Will strike if mistaken. The closure looks entirely reasonable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
What does it even mean to "strike down" a consensus? In this case, that consensus is a documented statement that the lab leak theory shouldn't be mentioned. Does "striking it down" mean removing the consensus statement because it's used to preempt discussion/proposals? Or does it mean finding consensus to talk about the lab leak in the article? If the former, given the way documented past consensus serves to limit present discussion (for good reason, in many cases), I'd think we'd need affirmative consensus to retain it, and not just default to it with no consensus. If the latter, it's worded oddly and it's hard to see that RfC as yielding a clear result. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, my reading of the discussion would be that it's attempting the former. —Sirdog (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd say any other editor in good standing reviewing that discussion could reasonably find the same result. I am unconvinced by the challenger that the close is fundamentally flawed. —Sirdog (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn This seems to be a clear supervote and WAY outside what reliable sources state. At this point, any restriction on this viable theory is political in nature and feels very much like the last vestiges of clinging to "no, I can't possibly be wrong". Buffs (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Although I don't agree with the restriction, the close is with what could be considered reasonable given the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's the whole discussion? I was expecting it to be longer when I clicked through. At this point, the close note plus this AN thread combined seem like they are far longer than the actual RfC. The whole thing seems really weird to me, frankly -- why do we have a box proclaiming itself to be "current consensus" if all the stuff in it is four years old? jp×g🗯️ 14:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would probably have closed it differently. The reference to WP:NOTCENSORED is quite a compelling policy-based argument that wasn't rebutted for example. It's also worth remembering NOTAVOTE is an essay, not a guideline or policy, although the ROUGHCONSENSUS guideline does say "Consensus is not determined by counting heads". However the fact I would have come to a different conclusion isn't sufficient reason to overturn the close; for that we'd need to demonstrate the conclusion the closer came to is unreasonable, and I don't think it is. WaggersTALK 14:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, this is byzantine. Overturn. If there is no consensus about whether a consensus exists, then no consensus exists, and the statement saying a consensus exists should be removed as wrong. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Involved (COVID19)
- Comment by Closer: While I personally would like to have seen the RfC close in favor of the RfC proposal , I ultimately closed it as "no consensus" (not as "a consensus against" as, I believe, the challenger thinks occurred).
As I read it, the challenge seems to spin on four assertions advanced by the challenger which I summarize here to the best of my understanding:
- A belief that (a) ROUGHCONSENSUS is a synonym for Referendum, and, (b) consensus was achieved by process of majority vote.
In their request for review on my Talk page, the challenger invoked WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to repeatedly demand the RfC be treated as a referendum or plebiscite and reversed on the apparent basis that the "count" [2] of "votes" [3] (6-4 in favor of the RfC - though challenger claimed it was 7-1 [4] somehow) favored the RfC proposal.
I repeatedly counseled challenger that this was WP:NOTAVOTE, pointing to our WP:CONSENSUS policy which explicitly describes that a simple majority does not represent the "sense of the community" described by ROUGHCONENSUS in the absence of strength of policy-based argument. The challenger appeared non-plussed by this. Here, challenger goes on to again advance the false premise that "the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus", based on their insistent belief that consensus was achieved by a simple majority headcount. - A belief that it's the closer's duty to engage in textual analysis of sources presented across the project and the zeitgeist, rather than arguments made in the RfC.
The challenger writes that "the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred"
This, again, appears to be a severe misunderstanding of the close by the challenger. RS was mentioned merely as part of the closer's formulary recitation of facts and summary of arguments made which is a customary and perfunctory part of the close. Nothing involving "RS" was part of the close rationale. (Nor is it the responsibility of the closer to evaluate the alleged "hundreds" of RS. Closes occur based on strength of policy-based argument, not the closer's independent and original evaluation of source material.) - A belief that geopolitical factors must be taken into account in closing RfCs.
The challenger explained in the RfC, on my Talk page, and now here, that "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." as an example of an unrebutted argument, apparently in the belief that the lack of rebuttal to this assertion tips the scale in favor of the RfC. But the RfC is the place to argue the application of WP policy. The state of Sino-American relations is completely irrelevant to the application of WP policy. - A belief that an (alleged) lack of social grace afforded to an editor is cause to overturn a close.
The challenger explains "the closer instead failed to WP:AGF" in his discussion with the challenger, nested as part of their appeal to overturn. Accepting, for sake of argument, that I did fail to AGF in a discussion on my Talk page with the challenger, failure to AGF in a Talk page discussion is not a rational cause to overturn a close. Closes are overturned due to some failure of the close itself, not as a sanction against the closer when we believe we were not treated with the deference we feel we deserve.
- A belief that (a) ROUGHCONSENSUS is a synonym for Referendum, and, (b) consensus was achieved by process of majority vote.
- As I repeatedly said, this should have been an easy RfC to pass. Policy (and, frankly, reality) favored it. But those policies were never argued by the participants. For the closer to invoke his independent awareness of policy would be a WP:SUPERVOTE and, moreover, completely unfair as it would deny the opposing side the opportunity to rebut. I suggested to the challenger that if they were to rerun the RfC and remedy the significant defects in their first attempt it would almost certainly pass. They appear to be disinterested in doing that. Chetsford (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- This response by the closer is further astray:
- First the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus, see WP:NHC.
- Second the closer talks about a nonsensical duty to provide textual analysis of sources. This is laughable. The closer failed to notice there was an RS mentioned in the RFC (and ignored the sub-article as well) and stated these omissions in the close. The closer argued that a lack of RS in the RFC was a justification for the close, and failed to understand that #34 was an RS.
- Third, in responding to this review the closer is confused of even the subject of the RFC. "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." is the exact text in the article at the time of the RFC that is being discussed in this RFC. I was discussing the text of the article, and even put it in quotes. I am confused if the closer even read the RFC at this point. I have never made an argument that any geopolitical blah blah must be taken in to account. Where is this coming from? You will find this exact text quoted verbatim here in the article at the time of the RFC.
- Forth the AGF issues are simply me pointing out that the closer has chosen solely himself to paint this in some sort of personal issue, and continues to not understand the content that was being discussed (see #3). Note I have always been civil to this closer as well as everyone in the RFC, this argument is baseless, a strawman, and an odd response.
- Fifth, RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy nor RFC policy, it is the closer that applies the policy to the arguments offered by the participants. In this RFC we are simply discussing if the RS support the text in bold (that the closer seems to be confused is my words), if due weight should be given to wikilink (a link that is prohibited under consensus #14), and if the consensus #14 on the article was appropriate given the text in bold and the current state of RS.
- Seems the closer failed to grasp the RFC and still hasnt bothered to review it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- "the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus" I'll just note again, here, that this is a furiously repeated statement based on a false premise. As I have explained many times, there was no consensus to ignore. That's why the RfC closed as "no consensus" (versus "consensus for" or "consensus against"). I appreciate your view that your "count" [sic] [5] of the "vote" [sic] [6] led you to believe the 6 of 10 editors in favor of your RfC constituted a consensus, however, as detailed in our policy WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not determined by plebiscite and your RfC was not a referendum. I sincerely regret if you were under a different impression.
"RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy" Sure, you aren't "required" to present policy-based argument, but by your decision not to do so, you ended up with the result you got here. Please see WP:NHC: "... after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue ... [if] discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". Chetsford (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)- Which editors made arguments that you felt met this criteria "after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" and why? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- "the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus" I'll just note again, here, that this is a furiously repeated statement based on a false premise. As I have explained many times, there was no consensus to ignore. That's why the RfC closed as "no consensus" (versus "consensus for" or "consensus against"). I appreciate your view that your "count" [sic] [5] of the "vote" [sic] [6] led you to believe the 6 of 10 editors in favor of your RfC constituted a consensus, however, as detailed in our policy WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not determined by plebiscite and your RfC was not a referendum. I sincerely regret if you were under a different impression.
- What exactly do you mean by reality? Can you explain what you meant by that? FailedMusician (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- We could start here, but this is only a beginning... Buffs (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I mean it's very clear the actual state-of-the-world does not support a proscription such as #14 and this RfC should have resulted in a consensus to strike it, in my opinion (indeed, #14 should never have been put in place to begin with). And had I been a participant in the discussion, I would have sided with the strike camp. But I wasn't a participant, I was the closer, and for me to close this as "a consensus to strike" when only a bare majority of participants - advancing virtually no cogent policy arguments - supported that would constitute a SUPERVOTE and be out of compliance with our WP:CONSENSUS policy. Suppressing my innate knowledge of the external world beyond WP and deciding on no set of facts beyond what was contained in the RfC, it was clear there was no consensus (as undesirable of an outcome as that is). Chetsford (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do not concur with your assessment. Majority opinion, professional opinions, WP consensus within the article, general consensus on the RfC, and a host of other options all show clearly that this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded. This is exactly the kind of reason we have and should use WP:IAR. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- "this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded" - I agree with this
"This is exactly the kind of reason we have and should use WP:IAR." - I disagree with this. Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- "this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded" - I agree with this
- I do not concur with your assessment. Majority opinion, professional opinions, WP consensus within the article, general consensus on the RfC, and a host of other options all show clearly that this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded. This is exactly the kind of reason we have and should use WP:IAR. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- This response by the closer is further astray:
- Comment by SmolBrane: In the close, you(Chetsford) stated that “First, several editors in the oppose camp note that consensus can't occur implicitly in this case (the opposite of what we usually observe in WP:EDITCON), since #14 established a clear consensus and the mere presence of content against consensus that may have gone unnoticed doesn't overturn it.”
- The presence of content against the formal RfC consensus for six months on a high traffic article (8k views per day!) SHOULD overturn the two year old RfC. That's the whole point of implicit consensus—not to mention that this was the long-standing stable state of the article. TarnishedPath made the same error “Arguing that the content has been in the article for a while is putting the cart before the horse.” Why would we undo a six-month old undisputed edit here? We should not presume that the bold edit went 'unnoticed'--this is not a valid exception w/r/t WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Implicit consensus has a great deal of weight on a contentious article with 2,200 watchers. The RfC establishing consensus #14 from May 2020 is very old in COVID-terms, and this RfC only had three keep !votes, which means only three individuals wanted to revise the article to a retroactive state—a situation that should require more opposers to stray from the current stable and long-standing state.
- Aquillion made a similar error “Sometimes things fall through the cracks even on high-traffic articles”. Bold edits are not “falling through the cracks”, This is again a lack of understanding of policy, and the collaborative nature of the project. Those !votes(Aquillion and TarnishedPath) likely should have been discarded.
- Both Crossroads and IOHANNVSVERVS made strong arguments in favor of striking, based on new sourcing and WP:NOTCENSORED respectively. Ortizesp and Lights and Freedom also made strong cases in relation to coverage by sources.
- The closer evidently erred “since no actual examples of RS were presented by those making this argument”. As Jtbobwaysf points out, there were three inline citations supporting the sentence about the lab leak. The closer did not correctly assess the policy-based arguments made by the supporters, nor the RSes involved. The current stable state of the article should have had more deference by the closer in light of the comments that were provided. The closer also commented about WP:MEDRS which was mentioned in the May 2020 RfC, not this one, so that stipulation was inappropriate. SmolBrane (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- The "stable state" argument is laughable and HORRIBLE circular logic. The article is stable, therefore we shouldn't change our restrictions. But the reason it cannot be updated is BECAUSE of the restrictions. No restrictions like these should be enacted and held in place when they are demonstrably not in alignment with our five pillars, specifically, NPOV (and with that RS) + no firm rules. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with your last sentence and I think you misunderstand my position; the lab leak theory was mentioned and linked to for six months prior to this RfC, despite the consensus 14 not being formally overturned. SmolBrane (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was concurring with you :-) Buffs (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with your last sentence and I think you misunderstand my position; the lab leak theory was mentioned and linked to for six months prior to this RfC, despite the consensus 14 not being formally overturned. SmolBrane (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- The "stable state" argument is laughable and HORRIBLE circular logic. The article is stable, therefore we shouldn't change our restrictions. But the reason it cannot be updated is BECAUSE of the restrictions. No restrictions like these should be enacted and held in place when they are demonstrably not in alignment with our five pillars, specifically, NPOV (and with that RS) + no firm rules. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
- Please note that the template link (above) "Discussion with closer" is linking to the user's mainspace talk page however the user recently archived their talk page, could another editor please assist to link to the correct archive link which is User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Fixed, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Ignoring the massive discussion, the facts are abundantly clear. I went WP:BEBOLD and invoked WP:IAR: [7]. WP:BRD if you feel I'm in error. Buffs (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I went ahead and reverted your WP:SUPERVOTE that goes against the RFC result, and the emerging consensus here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I wasn't the closer, so it wasn't a WP:SUPERVOTE. As for the rest, I do not see the same consensus. People here appear to be much more concerned about debating process rather than doing the correct thing by deprecating a "rule" that is clearly not being followed and a clear consensus on both Wikipedia and IRL. The idea that we should stick to restrictions imposed a few months after COVID hit vs what we know now four years later is absurd. WP:IAR could easily fix this and so could anyone with half a brain that isn't fixated on procedural hurdles.
- All that said, I was bold. It was reverted (I hold no ill will against anyone for such an action). Time to discuss. Buffs (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Are these "/current_consensus" pages even real?
- The more I think about this whole "official talk page current consensus box" thing, the weirder it gets. Since when do we have a policy or procedure for keeping a set of officially-determined statements about article consensus... on the talk page of an article... separate from actual consensus on the article? And then we have to have separate discussions to change the "official consensus" thing on the talk page, versus just the article? I don't see anything about it in any of our policies or guidelines; I am looking through some talk pages, each of which I know to be a zoo, and seeing if they have anything like this. So far it's a "no" for Talk:Israel–Hamas war, Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign), Talk:Race and intelligence. A title search says that there are, apparently, only thirteen of these pages on the whole site. The first was at Talk:Donald Trump, which seems to have been unilaterally created by one admin in 2017. What in tarnation are these? Are these binding over actual article consensus or actual talk page consensus? jp×g🗯️ 15:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- They appear to be a mutation of the FAQ header sections that articles like Gamergate and R&I do have. However those are used to explain commonly asked questions and are more informative.
The statement in question is from a talk page consensus (this May 2020 RFC). But how it's stated has led to an RFC on whether to remove a statement from a talk page, which is just bureaucracy. An RFC on text to be included would have been a better solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)- A good question for this closure is why the bureaucracy was weighted more heavily than the editing. Deferring to editing consensus would be preferable given that an RfC for mainspace content never occurred(to your point). SmolBrane (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Probably because that's how the RFC question was raised. If someone edited content in, was reverted and following discusion the content was kept then the statement would de facto be struck down. This seems a more sensible approach than an RFC about removing the statement from the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- This RfC was not about removing the talk page statement, it was whether or not the statement was "still valid". Perhaps this is central to the issue. SmolBrane (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- But that is still an RFC about a talk page statement, my point was the framing of the consensus blocks is the cause of such odd discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- This RfC was not about removing the talk page statement, it was whether or not the statement was "still valid". Perhaps this is central to the issue. SmolBrane (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Probably because that's how the RFC question was raised. If someone edited content in, was reverted and following discusion the content was kept then the statement would de facto be struck down. This seems a more sensible approach than an RFC about removing the statement from the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- A good question for this closure is why the bureaucracy was weighted more heavily than the editing. Deferring to editing consensus would be preferable given that an RfC for mainspace content never occurred(to your point). SmolBrane (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- For pages that have had a lot of RFCs, they are basically a history of RFC results for that page. Here's some other ones. I see nothing wrong with documenting RFC results and consensuses this way. It makes it more organized. The proper way to change an item that has been RFC'd before is to RFC it again.
And then we have to have separate discussions to change the "official consensus" thing on the talk page, versus just the article?
Normally I think one would change both the current consensus and the article content at the same time (to reflect the result of a new RFC). The two seem clearly linked to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- They appear to be a mutation of the FAQ header sections that articles like Gamergate and R&I do have. However those are used to explain commonly asked questions and are more informative.
- I have to side with JPxG on this. This is layered bureaucracy designed to get a consensus and then have it apply in perpetuity. The fact that it was applied first with Trump and now with COVID should be an indicator that there are other factors at play (a.k.a. "Fact checking"). Buffs (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
RfC closure by inexperienced editor
Normally I would not do this, but I have concerns over the closure of Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)#RfC: Past or present tense for the bridge by Charcoal feather (talk · contribs), not the least that one of their closure statements is factually wrong, namely that they falsely claimed that a majority of participants agreed the bridge meaningfully exists, when in fact opinions were split 50-50. I request someone much more experienced with closing close discussions like this to take a second look.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't particularly understand what makes this case so unique that it requires you to ignore Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures and open this without speaking to the closer first. Nil Einne (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I did not see that page linked from WP:RFC. Thanks, this can wait until they respond here or on their talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Re:
Opinions were split 50-50
I counted 9 – 13 excluding the last participant who I editconflicted with. Charcoal feather (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)- While Charcoal feather is a relatively inexperienced editor, it is always a good idea to approach an editor on their user talk page before coming to a file a noticeboard complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- You did not count correctly, especially as some of the editors in favor in the original discussion did not explicitly comment.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Re:
- I did not see that page linked from WP:RFC. Thanks, this can wait until they respond here or on their talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this is a weird closure that should be left to a more experienced editor. It should therefore be overturned. (Disclaimer: I'm involved in the discussion.) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Reopen, Uninvolved editor: Charcoal feather's closure looks premature - the fact they edit conflicted proves that they did not wait for the discussion to run its full course. There were still new comments coming in that could have influenced the decision.The fact that they're an "inexperienced" editor (I wouldn't class 700 edits as inexperienced but ok) doesn't really matter much to be honest,but the closure should have only been done after few or no new meaningful comments were coming in (especially for such a divided discussion).—Matrix(!) {user - talk? -uselesscontributions} 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)- Matrix: Eh, the RFC template had expired, the last comment was made a week ago and the discussion was listed at WP:CR. I wouldn't call it premature. Charcoal feather (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Facepalm I read all the comments in the discussion with the month "April" as "May"... reevaluating my position with the new information, the closure actually looks fine, I see a rough consensus (13 to 10) for present tense and I doubt the consensus would have changed much more with extra time. I don't see anything that contravenes WP:RFCCLOSE. Endorse, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Matrix: Eh, the RFC template had expired, the last comment was made a week ago and the discussion was listed at WP:CR. I wouldn't call it premature. Charcoal feather (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- 13/10 is more in the "no consensus" range. Absent a detailed closing statement/rationale for weighing some comments differently than others, the closure seems bad. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- IMO the closure looks OK. At most one might argue that it borders on "no consensus". But if contested, this is not the right venue. North8000 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Actually this is technically the right venue per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE (see section "Challenging other closures"), but OP should have probably talked to Charcoal feather beforehand. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 16:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Actually this is technically the right venue per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE (see section "Challenging other closures"), but OP should have probably talked to Charcoal feather beforehand. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
This user is known for creating badly spelled "warning templates" and editing articles related to Windows. In addition, they keep evading their block by making sockpuppets; feels like there's a new one every business day. Does this warrant a ban and/or an LTA case? thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agree that they should be banned per WP:3X. Not sure what the requirements for a LTA case are but that should definitely be a thing to consider. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- What would the benefit of either of those things be? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ban is probably warranted per WP:3X, but there would probably need to be lots and lots of sockpuppets with systematic abuse going on for a while to warrant an LTA case (think something like this or this). Not saying it's impossible, but only make an LTA case as a last resort. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 15:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Request for unblock
Hi, I am user:Lazy-restless ban ID: #17, I want to be unblocked and agree to follow what authority commands me to do. What should I do to be unblocked, please help me. See my contribution, previously I did a lot of good edits and created a number of good articles and templates. I want to contribute more. I believe that I can do a lot of good positive conteibution to wikipedia. 202.134.10.131 (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, don't use any IPs or users as sockpuppets (as you have done here) to edit on the English Wikipedia for 6 months, then you can follow WP:SO to potentially get unblocked. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 17:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
@Aliwxz has been consistently making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as he did at Sistan and Baluchestan province (disruptive) and he also blank out and removed portions of zabol contents. He has been treading very close to a full block, i think administrators should look into his behavior and put a stop to it. Balash-Vologases (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I find it mildly humorous that you lifted the language
been treading very close to a full block
from the discussion of your own partial block. Also, you have failed to notify the user in question as required in the large red box at the top of this page. Also, two edits you don't agree with, one three days ago and the other a month ago, doesn't seem like it it needs administrative intervention. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)- If you check talk page, he has been warned about his edits but he has been removing contents that related to baloch in almost all his edits. Balash-Vologases (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi all. I would appreciate it if an admin could close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States. It is a sprawling, five-week discussion which has recently been mentioned in a local newspaper, and I think it could benefit from an admin closure (which ideally would make sense to the news organization) before legions of meatpuppets show up. (The semi-time-sensetitive nature is why I am coming directly here rather than WP:CR.) Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Second opinion appreciated
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
...on User talk:GoneWithThePuffery, where I just dropped a "final warning" for harassment. Puffery has a habit of making things personal already, as their edit history shows, and when they got falsely accused of socking (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoneWithThePuffery) and Talk:Snell's law, they kind of exploded. I don't know about "unbelievable muppet" and "piss off very quickly"--muppet isn't much of an insult, and "fuck off" isn't blockable so "piss off" wouldn't be either, but please see what I just reverted on Talk:Snell's law: that's just over the top. The editor is likely right about content (I agree with them so they must be right), and they're highly educated and smart, but their attitude is not yet right for a collaborative project. All that to say, eh, I hope my "final warning" isn't too much. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Piss off very quickly
is what I say to my dogs when they make me take them out in the middle of the night. Warning is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)- Eh don't they have dog doors where you live? Porter just went outside by himself--but then he's a Good Boy. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Dog doors, winters, and bears don't mix. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Point taken. Woof! Drmies (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Dog doors, winters, and bears don't mix. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Eh don't they have dog doors where you live? Porter just went outside by himself--but then he's a Good Boy. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have been in communication with that user on my user talk page. In my most recent comment, I gave them some blunt advice: if they aren't on their best behaviour toward other editors, they might find themselves blocked. I also put a similar reminder to all editors to focus on content and not contributors. And I hope the dogs are okay and the bears stay away, but as far as that talk page goes, the proverbial horse is long gone.(And I "wintered over" near Chicago with a dachshund. I had to shovel snow for dogs to go outside to take care of business, and the house didn't have a doggie door, so I had to go out with them too.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Drmies, @C.Fred, @ScottishFinnishRadish, I see here a pattern that I saw so many times earlier on Wikipedia: other users misbehaving and then complaining after they receive a retort. The matter is very simple: I made some perfectly sensible edits on the page of Snell's law and after that an edit war broke out where I had no part in at all. When I went to the page after a week or so, I saw that all my edits had been reverted. On the talk page I asked why, and immediately I was accused of "evading a block" (I wasn't even blocked...), "sock puppetry" and "not contributing to Wikipedia". When one of the users unjustly accused me of sock puppetry on my talk page, I told him to "piss off". And now I'm getting the warning? This is the world upside down!
- @Drmies, it's really absurd what you are doing here. You know perfectly well what happened and which users are to blame for this situation. You talk about harassment. Seriously, what are you talking about? This guy came to my talk page, to accuse me of something I didn't do, and now I'm harassing someone? You must be joking. There are now two users specifically on the page of Snell's law, who are consistently engaged in uncivil behavior and are avoiding any form of discussion. But that's apparently no problem? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussion cut off by involved admin User:Just Step Sideways
| Heat>light — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk • contribs) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
 Discussion was only open for two days and it involved a DYK BLP complaint and AndyTheGrump's uncivil remarks referring to DYK editors as idiots. There were two simultaneous unrelated threads about ATG's incivility at ANI but discussion in this thread was not concluded. In fact just hours ago the thread was active. I think the JSS close was involved because of their critical offline commentary and appearance of a friendship with ATG on an offline site that refers to DYK as a clusterfuck.
I think there is more than just the appearance of a conflict and cutting off an active discussion is not a good idea. I believe that the thread should be allowed to continue and the JSS close should be backed out. Lightburst (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Once again, two more editors' real names are posted on that site for no reason other than they disagreed with the regulars of that site. JSS since you had so much to say on that site about this ANI thread before you closed it, are you now going to say something to your friends there about it this time, or will you stay quiet like you did the previous times? Is this the fifth time I've complained to you about the exact same thing, or the tenth or twentieth? Each time it's a different editor being harassed, I've lost count now. To all of you who tolerate this, who chit chat regularly with the people that harass editors you disagree with by posting their RL info publicly online, are you going to wait until one of those freaks shows up at one of our doorsteps before you realize what fire you're playing with over there? Levivich (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Requesting to Protect page Wikipedia Page - Kailash Hospital
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently someone with the user name @2409:40d0:37:1091:244c:44ff:fe74:7d64 edited out wikipedia page - Kailash Hospital by changing founder name from Dr. Mahesh Sharma to Gujjar. So I request you to kindly apply semi protection on this wikipage so that new user can't edit or vandalism this page. Shubh84 (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Shubh84 Page protection is requested at WP:RFPP. One edit is not necessarily enough to warrant protection, there must be a demonstratable, ongoing problem with vandalism or disruption to warrant protection, especially if less broad measures like warnings and blocks of users themselves are ineffective. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- user: 2409:40d0:37:1091:244c:44ff:fe74:7d64, did changed founder name in infobox in Kailash Hospital's Wikipedia page, also remove name from content body of the article. This user also make another changes in their founder's wikipedia page as well Dr. Mahesh Shama infobox, by adding abusive word "randi" or "rand" in spouse name & in children name. If you search these words meaning in country like India you will find out how much abusive these words.
- Is that be the evidence for protection?? For atleast to protect their founder's page Dr. Mahesh Sharma Shubh84 (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, that might be evidence to block the IP, but not protecting the article from editing, which could affect legitimate editors. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- So what should i need to do from here? Shubh84 (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the IP returns, warn the IP on their user talk page and request discussion; if they persist, report them to WP:UAA. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! help appreciated! Shubh84 (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Correction - please report persistant vandalism to WP:AIV not WP:UAA WaggersTALK 12:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, wrong wikilink. Shubh84 331dot (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Correction - please report persistant vandalism to WP:AIV not WP:UAA WaggersTALK 12:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! help appreciated! Shubh84 (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the IP returns, warn the IP on their user talk page and request discussion; if they persist, report them to WP:UAA. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- So what should i need to do from here? Shubh84 (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, that might be evidence to block the IP, but not protecting the article from editing, which could affect legitimate editors. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pages aren't normally protected because of a single instance of vandalism; it only happens when there's long-term disruption. Also page protection requests should go to WP:RPP (though, again, it'd get declined for this reason). — Czello (music) 10:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the history of the page the result would be:
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the history of the page the result would be:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Contents of Shooting of Robert Fico improperly transferred without discussion to Attempted assassination of Robert Fico
During the development of Shooting of Robert Fico, @Lukt64 emptied its contents and pasted it into their redirect Attempted assassination of Robert Fico which is now the focus of editing. It appears to be undiscussed whereas the user claims it was discussed. @Zzuuzz is the editor that has been reverting my edits to restore the original title and its history.
Far as I know, a copy+paste move isn't part of proper editing (then again I did it), so I'm requesting it to be transferred over to the old title without another admin running into conflict with me while the article is still in early development stage. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 20:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Explain where I said it was discussed. Lukt64 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Lukt64 Kindly show me the discussion, I am guessing it is Talk:Attempted assassination of Robert Fico#Moved page to here? If you mean that, absoloutely not a discussion at all. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to have the time today, or possibly tomorrow, to deal with this, so I defer everything to other admins :) I've already placed an attribution template on Talk:Attempted assassination of Robert Fico if you want some details. I see some scope for a round-robin and histmerge, before another move, if that's what's deemed appropriate. Or some variation... And someone needs to keep telling people to stop copypasting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I understand the clean up now is probably going to be messy considering the copy + pasted article has over 160 revisions already. Kindly requesting further admin inputs Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging some recently active admins if I can get them on board, apologies and thank you in advance for putting up with this if you will. I'm not optimistic about what can be done, but better to ask the experienced @Bearcat @Cbl62 @PFHLai @SuperMarioMan @Wbm1058 @Liz
- PS: I have this discussion subscribed, no need to ping Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wbm1058, thank you for performing the merge. I just recently learned such functions exist on Wiki today lol Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. The earlier, parallel history is now in the page history of the 2024 Fico assessination attempt redirect. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wbm1058, thank you for performing the merge. I just recently learned such functions exist on Wiki today lol Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I understand the clean up now is probably going to be messy considering the copy + pasted article has over 160 revisions already. Kindly requesting further admin inputs Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Linas is still openly actively editing
If I see correctly, the last discussion about this situation was archived without close and without action at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive326#Block_review_:_Linas in 2020. The user is indefinitely blocked and still openly actively editing as 67.198.37.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), proudly displaying their editing history on their talk page (diff).
I initially placed a long-duration block evasion block, but looking at the previous discussion (and I might have overlooked newer ones) and the interactions on their user talk page, I'm left without a strong desire for blocking, and mostly baffled.
The easiest way out of the situation would be unblocking the account in case there's consensus for doing so, I guess.
This is so weird. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support unblocking "If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it." The IP has contributed positively for 9 years now. Call me crazy, but maybe it's time to stop pretending that the person behind it is up to no good. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unblock It's pretty obvious that the IP is in good standing. Feels pretty weird to throw something from 9 years ago to shut off a constructive editor from editing. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unblock This is a silly situation, either they should be unblocked or the IP should be blocked for much longer period. Established editors evading a block or scrutiny by not logging in is a major reason editing as an IP can be so difficult. Having scrubbed back through their talk page edits the issue of personal attacks and harassment doesn't appear to have been an issue recently, and if they return to their old ways the account and the IP can be appropriately blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unblock either they will continue to do good work, or the pre-existing sanctions will allow any admin to make quick work of them. FortunateSons (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- An IAR unblock would have near-zero cost, and a decent upside. The old, rouge Floquenbeam would have just unblocked, but the more cowardly new Floquenbeam will just comment instead, and leave it for someone else. If they've been blocked for 12 years, another 12 hours won't hurt. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely unblock; that 2020 (3rd-party) appeal reached a pretty clear consensus, and it's a shame it never got acted upon. I don't even think it's a matter of rope anymore; the original block was rather spurious, to say the least. ——Serial Number 54129 15:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock - during the previous third-party appeal that was imposed on them without their consent (User talk:67.198.37.16#Ask forgiveness), they claimed that bureaucrats told them to edit anonymously while their account was blocked (!), while simultaneously claiming that the account wasn't theirs, and when that was not gaining traction (because they obviously are evading a block) they switched to saying that the block had expired (it had not) and repeatedly insulted the admin that tried to explain what "indefinite" means. After they were shown that the account was definitely still blocked and also shown the policies against block evasion and personal attacks, they changed their strategy to simply say loudly that they were breaking no rules, and accused everyone who did not agree of lying and being "in cahoots" with one another for sinister motives, including at least one editor who had been supporting them, just because they were admins and because "bureaucrats are the layer above WP admins" (they're not). This was all in response to someone having posted a link to the AN unblock discussion which up to that point had been rather strongly supporting unblocking them. This user has an extreme persecution complex which is not compatible with editing a collaborative project where fellow editors will challenge your work from time to time. This block-evading IP should be blocked, and should continue to be blocked each time they come back, until they make a proper unblock request acknowledging their poor behaviour.
- For the record I am in favour of an IAR interpretation of unblocking editors in mistaken cases of inadvertent block evasion, or where a blocked user has managed a history of productive contributions in spite of a block for a one-time incident and where the behaviour has not continued. This is not one of those situations. A user whose response to being told they're breaking the rules is to state that the rules don't exist should not be editing here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- unblock WP:ROPE, and as it may violate the sock clause of the Standard Offer, wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Just Step Sideways: Anything to add to your comments in 2020? Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Unblock As far as I can tell the only current active complaint is that Linas won't recant. I understand the desire to make sure editors actually understand the rules before lifting a block, but I don't think that's the issue here. This just looks like insistence on a performative self-abasement. That's just icky. --Trovatore (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I have unblocked Linas based on the discussion above. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Since opinion here wasn't unanimous, I think this discussion should have been open for at least 24 hours before action was taken. Yes, I'm kind of a closet bureaucrat (small "b"). Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- (Driveby comment) I wrote an essay on situations like these a while ago, User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
User Vif12vf disruptive edits
Could someone please have a look at the nonsensical reversions of user Vif12vf? For example, he keeps on adding content about Nuevo Movimiento al Socialismo on the page of Movimiento al Socialismo (Argentina), even though these are different parties. The Spanish Wikipedia makes this very clear (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuevo_Movimiento_al_Socialismo). Further, he continues with removing content in the lead of the page of the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina), even though the sources are given in the text, its four national deputies are well known, and the infobox states that the party has four national deputies as well. And so on and so forth.
This behaviour is precisely the reason why the atmosphere on Wikipedia becomes toxic. 2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- For context, the IP above makes additions without making it clear where their information comes from. They also removed some information containing a reference at Workers' Left Front as part of this process. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- NMAS is not MAS. The PTSU is not a founding member of the Workers' Left Front (thus the reference was misinterpreted and didn't belong in the article). In addition, the articles request the user to "expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article".2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Expansions with content from other-language versions of wikipedia still has to be accompanied with the actual sources used, and wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- But ... the sentence the IP is removing is completely unsourced? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- You need a source that states that NMAS is not MAS? Ridiculous.2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam If you are referring to the notion from MAS, then this is the case with most of that stub, which generally speaking hardly appears to be notable enough to have an article in the first place! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the spanish article, while containing a fair bit more content, also appear to be poorly sourced. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the fact that you edit-warred to keep an unsourced sentence in the article, while demanding that the IP editor provide a source to remove it. Not really how it works. Also, your first revert you treated like the IP was vandalising, when they clearly provided a reason. You've had a previous 3 month block for edit warring a few years ago, and sweveral edit warring blocks in the past. Were I you, I would take accusations of edit warring seriously, and back away from the edge, before you find yourself banned, or with a 1RR limitation, or something. The talk page is open, as is AFD. What is not open is to disregard a good faith editor because they are editing with an IP, and edit warring. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- IP editor, you were edit warring too. Please use the talk page section I graciously created for the two of you. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I see that you added a dubious tag. That's good enough for me. But there is still incorrect infomation in the Workers' Left Front page, reverted back in by Vif12vf. The PSTU is not a founding member. In addition, he removed the names of the national deputies of the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina) from the lead of its article.2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- At this point, I would suggest adding a {{dubious}} tag there, too, and open a section of that talk page. It takes about 1 minute. 2 if you're plodding like me. When there is no obvious-to-everyone right or wrong version, we usually default to the status quo ante until it's discussed. The discussion doesn't need to be long and protracted, we just need to see if there's a consensus for one or the other. Or, optimally, one of you actually changes the other's mind. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Can I add back the names of the national deputies removed by Vif12vf on the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina)-page? I have sources.2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
This would place you over 3RR on that article.Why not start a section on the talk page? Jake Wartenberg (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)- My advice would be to just let it go for a day. Technically you'd be at 3 reverts on that page too. Don't risk an edit warring block just when things seem to be cooling down. Also, a final note, the use of "vandalism" to describe edits that you disagree with, but were intended to be good edits, is really a red flag to many people. Don't risk derailing a discussion by calling someone who annoys you a vandal. It backfires every time. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Understand. I thought that Vif12vf had misunderstood or something, but then he began to spam my IP-page with warnings and began demanding sources for the removal of one unsourced sentence (as you also have noted above). That doesn't makes sense at all. Maybe this doesn't constitute vandalism but it's disingenuous and disruptive. Anyway, I won't add back the names. I leave that task to someone else.2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Can I add back the names of the national deputies removed by Vif12vf on the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina)-page? I have sources.2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- At this point, I would suggest adding a {{dubious}} tag there, too, and open a section of that talk page. It takes about 1 minute. 2 if you're plodding like me. When there is no obvious-to-everyone right or wrong version, we usually default to the status quo ante until it's discussed. The discussion doesn't need to be long and protracted, we just need to see if there's a consensus for one or the other. Or, optimally, one of you actually changes the other's mind. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I see that you added a dubious tag. That's good enough for me. But there is still incorrect infomation in the Workers' Left Front page, reverted back in by Vif12vf. The PSTU is not a founding member. In addition, he removed the names of the national deputies of the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina) from the lead of its article.2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam If you are referring to the notion from MAS, then this is the case with most of that stub, which generally speaking hardly appears to be notable enough to have an article in the first place! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Expansions with content from other-language versions of wikipedia still has to be accompanied with the actual sources used, and wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- NMAS is not MAS. The PTSU is not a founding member of the Workers' Left Front (thus the reference was misinterpreted and didn't belong in the article). In addition, the articles request the user to "expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article".2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Vif12vf is over 3RR on Movimiento al Socialismo (Argentina). Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Jake Wartenberg Oops, thats my bad, lost count in the middle of everything else going on. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Permission removal
I'm currently a member of the following five groups: autoconfirmed users, extended confirmed users, pending changes reviewers, rollbackers and users. Last one's redundant, of course. Would I be able to get the first 4 removed, so that my account has no special permissions? Thank you in advance. (If autoconfirmed/extended confirmed can't be removed, just get rid of the rollback & pending changes designations.) -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 06:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)