Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m ?
→‎Administrators' newsletter – June 2024: rm duplicate admin newsletter
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__
|algo = old(3d)
{{Template:Active editnotice}}
|counter = 362
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 600K
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|counter = 218
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 0
|minthreadsleft = 0
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
|algo = old(48h)
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=48
|index=no
|numberstart=255
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
}}
}}
--><!--
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!--

----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------


-->
--><noinclude>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude>


==Open tasks==
== Request for the lifting of editing restrictions ==
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
{{Clear}}
{{Admin tasks}}
</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->


== Pages recently put under [[WP:ECP|extended-confirmed protection]] ==
{{archive top|status = none|result=There is '''no consensus to lift these sanctions at this time.'''<p> I am closing this discussion after it has been open for about a week. Only six editors, apart from Koavf, took part in the discussion. Three of them (Fetchcomms, Ncmvocalist, EdJohnston) state that they do not oppose lifting the restrictions (albeit with some reservations). Three (Swatjester, Jayron32, FayssalF) did not express a (clear) opinion for or against lifting the restrictions. In other words, few people have offered an opinion one way or the other, even though Ncmvocalist apparently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=100&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Ncmvocalist&namespace=3&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 asked] the participants to the original sanctions discussion to participate here.<p>By comparison, the restrictions were imposed by community consensus in a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=243110389#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals discussion] in which almost twenty editors supported these (or similar) restrictions, and there was no opposition against the general idea of Koavf being restricted in some way (indeed, he seems to have narrowly escaped a site ban at that time).<p> In view of this, I find that the present discussion does not indicate a community consensus to overturn the sanctions under appeal. It does indicate a certain indifference of the community to the whole matter, but positive consensus is required to overturn sanctions imposed by community decision. The restrictions, therefore, remain in force. Koavf remains free to appeal to the community again at a later time, or to the Arbitration Committee (which under these circumstances may well be inclined to review an appeal on the merits). <p><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 18:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)}}
{{collapse top|bg=#F0F2F5|Report}}
{{User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report}}
{{collapse bottom}}
==RfC closure review request at [[:Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14]]==
=== Closure review ===
{{Archive top|1='''There is consensus that there is no consensus.''' To put it in a slightly less ridiculous way, it is clear based on the discussion below and the original RFC that Consensus 14 does not accurately reflect the "current consensus" of Wikipedia editors. The RfC is partially overturned {{ndash}} there is still no consensus to mention "lab leak" theory, but there is no longer consensus to keep it out and Consensus 14 is no longer accurate. There is still ongoing discussion regarding the usefulness of "current consensus" pages at all, so I'm leaving that section open. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 02:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)}}
:{{RfC closure review links|COVID-19 pandemic|rfc_close_page=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14}} ([[User talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close|Discussion with closer]])


'''Closer''': {{userlinks|Chetsford}}
'''Moved from [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment]]''' I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FAmendment&action=historysubmit&diff=390971053&oldid=390724809 moved this discussion from the ArbCom] to this venue for community input.


'''Notified''': [[User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion]]
'''Initiated by ''' —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ '''at''' 04:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Koavf}}


'''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.
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
#Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
#Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
#Koavf is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.
*'''Suggestion''': Repeal all.


====Uninvolved (COVID19)====
; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
This close was within the threshold of reasonable. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Koavf}} (initiator)
* 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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:Other user templates:
::{{Usercheck-full|Koavf}}
::{{User toolbox|Koavf}}


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. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
* I do not believe that any other editors are directly affected by this proposal.
: For what it's worth, my reading of the discussion would be that it's attempting the former. —[[User:Sirdog|<span style="color:#056300">'''Sirdog'''</span> ]]([[User talk: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. —[[User:Sirdog|<span style="color:#056300">'''Sirdog'''</span> ]]([[User talk:Sirdog|talk]]) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
===Amendment 1===
*'''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". [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
* Initial RfA: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf]]; details of community sanction: [[User:Koavf/Community sanction]]
* Although I don't agree with the restriction, the close is with what could be considered reasonable given the discussion. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 09:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Overturn to no consensus to include or exclude''' Within the confines of the question of the RFC the close was with reason, but the the situation is bureaucratic. RFCs on whether a talk page consensus is still valid is a waste of time, work on something to include in the article and towards consensus for it. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 18:54, 23 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? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 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. [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 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. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 18:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
*That RfC is probably one of the shortest (and most concise) I've ever seen. And I would have reached a different conclusion after spending just 5 minutes reading all the comments. A double-vote was not correctly identified and discounted. Closer wrote much more than every participant in the discussion to justify their stance, giving an appearance of a supervote. That's a clear '''Overturn'''. I echo what has been said about shutting down the current RfCs based on previous RfC from 6 months ago. The whole virus is only 4 years old. That means (checking my math) it has been more than 1/8 of the virus' entire history since the newest RfC was created after the last one. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: green;"><sup>Talk page</sup></b>]] 13:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
*Weakly '''overturn''' I feel Compassionate727's argument somewhat compelling. While we normally require a clear consensus to establish a new consensus and it its absence stick with the status quo ante, in this case since we were simply removing a documented current consensus, the lack of consensus should be enough to remove it. I have felt this for a while but didn't say anything because I hadn't looked at the discussion. Having done so I see that was actually another recent RfC. In the scheme of things, 6 months since the previous somewhat better attended discussion is a relatively short length of time. It's well accepted that those wishing to make a change cannot just keep making new RfCs until they wear everyone down and get their result due to non-participation. If the previous RfC had found a consensus to keep 14, I would have supported keeping FAQ item 14 but since it also found no consensus, IMO it seems clear this should just be removed due to the lack of consensus for something said to be the current consensus. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 02:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
*:That said, I'm only coming to this weakly since I also agree with those who've said the whole thing is a silly exercise. Rather than continuing to have these fairly pointless RfCs, it would be better to just start an RfC on some proposed change to the article which would go against RfC 14. If this succeeds, 14 will be overturned implicitly. If not, then even if technically 14 may have no consensus, since there was no consensus to add anything, who cares? Talk pages aren't for chit-chat and until there is consensus to add something the fact that there may simply be no consensus to add something rather than consensus against something doesn't matter. And if editors are able to provide compelling reasons for some addition then some FAQ item which has been through 2 RfCs with no consensus is not going to stop it. That said, this is one area where I disagree with the closer. Unfortunately all this means it's probably a bad idea to start an RfC so soon. It starts to become disruptive when editors keep having RfCs for the reasons I've mentioned. So I'd suggest this unfortunate series of RfCs means it would be best to wait at least 6 months before anyone tries to come back to this. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 02:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
*::For clarity, when starting an RfC on some proposed change to the article in violation of 14, it would be advisable to acknowledge 14 and say this will also strike it down; or something like that. But the point is the focus of the RfC should be on some real change to the article rather than just changing what the current consensus says. IMO it's also fine to workshop an RfC on some proposed change in violation of 14 and would oppose any attempts to prevent that because of 14. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 02:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
*{{nacmt|of any particular importance}} I don't think I could adequately describe how much I am sick of this issue being raised (not sick with COVID though!) Remove it, leave it, whatever... as long as we don't have another one any time soon. On the latest discussion, I don't see any consensus either way. I will note that {{np2|Lights and freedom}} is apparently now CU blocked as of 26 days ago though, which would not be information that was available at the time of close. (I suppose I should also note I read WINC narrowly, which I see was mentioned in the previous RfC close, and thus do not find it compelling in the context which it is used) [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 13:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


==== Statement by Koavf ====
====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).<br/>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:
I am under a [[Wikipedia:Community sanction|community sanction]] [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions|editing restriction]] with three clauses. I am:
:*'''A belief that (a) ROUGHCONSENSUS is a synonym for Referendum, and, (b) consensus was achieved by process of majority vote.'''<br/>In [[User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close|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 {{xt|"count"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1221842950] of {{xt|"votes"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1221842950] (6-4 in favor of the RfC - though challenger claimed it was 7-1 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1221502592] somehow) favored the RfC proposal.<Br/>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 {{xt|"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.
#Limited to editing with a single account.
:*'''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.'''<Br/>The challenger writes that {{Xt|"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"}}<br/>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.)
#Prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
:*'''A belief that geopolitical factors must be taken into account in closing RfCs.'''<br>The challenger explained in the RfC, on my Talk page, and now here, that {{xt|"[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.
#Subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.
:*'''A belief that an (alleged) lack of social grace afforded to an editor is cause to overturn a close.'''<Br/>The challenger explains {{xt|"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.

: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. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 09:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
While I have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Koavf further blocks] (including two in the past two years), these criteria have only been [[User:Koavf/Community_sanction#Log of blocks and bans|invoked once and subsequently overturned through a good-faith appeal]]. Five prior cases involved 1RR/3RR violations, including ones that were related to Western Sahara only in the broadest possible sense (e.g [[List of states with limited recognition]].) It is possible that I have made some other small edits to articles related to this issue (I have made ''many'' edits since then), but I have not made any substantial edits to these topics, nor has any user complained that I have (including blocking admins.)
::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]].
As I stated in my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=389444067 request for rollback re-institution], I am a reliable editor who has not recently engaged in edit-warring and is constructive in his edits. I have used my roll-back ability (as well as Huggle and Twinkle) to fight vandalism, I have made several thousands constructive edits, I have had articles promoted to FA status through my own work and collaboration with others, and if you speak with users who have known me over the last five years, you will find that I have been an increasingly thoughtful and trusted member of the community. I have helped new users and made several proper posts to AN/I and AN/V to help the community avoid edit-warring and vandalism. I feel like I have reached a level of maturity such that this edit restriction is not necessary in practice or theory; in the three years that it has been in place, I have become a much more sober-headed and constructive editor who is trustworthy. I do have a long block history, but note that there are other editors who have longer ones but have been recognized as reliable and helpful editors who no longer have editing restrictions--including editors who began as vandals.
::*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. {{xt|"[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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=1212111774 here] in the article at the time of the RFC.
In regards to the three specific restrictions:
::*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.
#I have never edited with another account and I have posted all of my anonymous IP edits on my userpage. The only checkuser investigation on me was closed as inappropriate.
::*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.
#I have respected this content restriction and have avoided Western Sahara-related topics with the exception of reverting vandalism and the most tertiary topics (e.g. [[List of United Nations member states]], where I have not edited on the topic of Western Sahara in years.)
::Seems the closer failed to grasp the RFC and still hasnt bothered to review it. Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
#This restriction could still be placed on me at any time as appropriate, but--as noted above--it has only been invoked once and then rescinded.
:::{{xt|"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 {{xt|"count"}} [sic] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1221842950] of the {{xt|"vote"}} [sic] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1221842950] 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.<br/>{{xt|"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"''. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 22:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I look forward to these restrictions being lifted in part so that I can be recognized as a trusted editor and in part so I can begin to edit Western Sahara-related articles again (the quality of which has generally languished for several years, as I was the only active editor on this topic.) Both my ability to edit and the quality of the encyclopedia will be enhanced by the lifting of these restrictions.
::What exactly do you mean by ''reality''? Can you explain what you meant by that? [[User:FailedMusician|FailedMusician]] ([[User talk:FailedMusician|talk]]) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:::[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html We could start here, but this is only a beginning...] [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{Xt|"this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded"}} - I agree with this<br/>{{xt|"This is ''exactly'' the kind of reason we have and should use [[WP:IAR]]."}} - I disagree with this. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 17:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:PILLAR|five pillars]], specifically, NPOV (and with that RS) + no firm rules. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk:SmolBrane|talk]]) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was concurring with you :-) [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


====Discussion====
====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! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 05:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*I don't see any major issue with lifting these restrictions. Unless another user brings up significant concerns over this issue, I see no reason why the restrictions should continue. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*:{{Fixed}}, I think. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*I received a ping on this because I was involved in the arbcom case somehow (memory fails me how). I'm not in a position to offer any opinion either way, unfortunately, but I don't have any particular objections either way this may turn out. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[WP:DC|<small><sup>Son of the Defender</sup></small>]] 04:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*I will mirror what Swatjester just said. Kaovf has stayed off the radar for a long time, so I don't really have much of an opinion on his editing history over this time, which is probably a good thing. I can't come up with a reason not to rescind the restrictions, at least #1 and #2. I think #3 may be a good idea going forward, since its still a check on backsliding to former problems, but I'm not too attached. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 04:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


Ignoring the massive discussion, the facts are abundantly clear. I went [[WP:BEBOLD]] and invoked [[WP:IAR]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Current_consensus&diff=prev&oldid=1222902214]. [[WP:BRD]] if you feel I'm in error. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
====Sanctions Timeline====
Each of the numbered are blocks or enforcement of sanctions in relation to the user.
# October 2005 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# Feburary 2006 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# August 2006 - blocked for disruptive pointiness
#: unblocked as it was unintentional and he agreed to use AfD and other venues to bring attention to his concerns
# September 2006 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# September 2006 (6 days after the previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# October 2006 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# October 2006 (11 days after previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# October 2006 (3 days after previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# October 2006 (8 days after previous block) - blocked for using AWB too fast (he was making up to 10 edits within a minute; sometimes quite a bit less)
# October 2006 (5 days after previous block) - blocked for using AWB too fast
# November 2006 (9 days after previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# November 2006 - block extended to indef for exhausting Community's patience
#: Early 2007 - Koavf privately appealed to ArbCom
#: May/June 2007 - ArbCom lifted ban and imposed 1RR on him ([[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Koavf|details]]). Although concerns were expressed at that time that community members were not notified, those concerned also respected the outcome decided by those arbitrators in the interests of [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]]. Did the outcome work?
# June 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
# June 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
# July 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
#: unblocked to allow user to help correct problem and make show of AGF
# September 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
# April 2008 - blocked for violating 1RR
# May 2008 - blocked for violating 1RR
# September 2008 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring
#: Community ban discussion initiated due to 19th block; 12 users endorsed a site ban; 7 opposed.
#: Community sanction proposals put forward; unanimous Community support for sanctions.
# November 2009 - probation measure invoked to prevent disruption relating to categories
#:March 2010 - appealed successfully
# late April 2010 - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koavf/Archive019&diff=prev&oldid=359141907 blocked] for disruptive edit-warring ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Roxx_Regime_Demos&diff=358307382&oldid=358302813] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Roxx_Regime_Demos&diff=358965281&oldid=358609353] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Roxx_Regime_Demos&diff=359118351&oldid=359049052] adding the characterisation of 'demo' instead of 'compilation'). See his original unblock request, and the then amended unblock request with the administrators reasons for declining it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koavf/Archive019&diff=next&oldid=359425322] followed by his response which maintained he would revert upon the block expiring [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koavf/Archive019&diff=next&oldid=359433367]. Another editor told him not to do so [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koavf/Archive019&diff=next&oldid=359447859].
# October 2010: within the last few days, he has been using AWB in the same way he was warned not to in the past (making up to 12 edits using AWB within a minute; sometimes quite a bit less).
#:appealing the Community sanctions in total.


:I went ahead and reverted your [[WP:SUPERVOTE]] that goes against the RFC result, and the emerging consensus here. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
<s>Although</s> I was ready to accept his March 2010 appeal regarding the categories specific enforcement<s>, I'd certainly oppose lifting the probation altogether</s>. <s>I don't mind lifting the account restriction bit, but really, that's dependant on the Moroccan/Sahara topic ban, and I'm going to leave it to others who encountered issues on that particular topic to decide whether the scope of any such problems can be dealt with via probation.</s> [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 10:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Striking per my comments below - although I'd have favoured keeping probation (term 3) in place for 6 more months, I don't oppose the lifting of the sanctions. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 19:42, 17 October 2010 (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.
:'''With all due respect''' What would I have to do for you to be comfortable with lifting these sanctions? Should they be in place forever? For that matter, I honestly don't understand what the purpose is of the third clause, as this stipulation would be true regardless--if I was making a series of disruptive edits to (e.g.) Western Sahara-related articles, I could be topic banned from them again (more likely, I would have a more serious punishment, considering my block log.) Having this as an editing restriction seems redundant as any user making a series of disruptive edits to any set of articles or topics could be barred from editing those topics.
::All that said, I was bold. It was reverted (I hold no ill will against anyone for such an action). Time to discuss. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 18:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
:Regarding my AWB usage, I see nothing in the [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User manual|documentation]] about speed of use other than to be careful (correct me if I'm missing something here.) The initial reason for the request to make slower edits with AWB was users who check [[Special:RecentChanges]]. This was years ago, and if anyone is manually checking that today, it's impossible to keep up with the flood of new edits from all users and my contributions are a drop in a bucket. If someone is using [[WP:HUGGLE|Huggle]], then I am whitelisted anyway. In point of fact, I [[User_talk:Koavf/Archive021#Barnstar|got a barnstar]] from one user precisely because I was rapidly tagging these talk pages with AWB. I can't see how adding tags to category talk pages at the rate of (e.g.) 17 a minute is really a problem, but I'm willing to concede that it might be if you can explain to me how this is unhelpful.
:Finally, while your assessment of the final block is not inaccurate, it is (unintentionally) misleading, as you omit the fact that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Roxx_Regime_Demos&action=history I did not revert] as I planned after my block was lifted for precisely the reason that you cite. (And the edits I ''did'' make were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Roxx_Regime_Demos&action=historysubmit&diff=359663073&oldid=359662334 reverted as "vandalism"], even though that was a false charge.) We ended up discussing that issue on talk and found an acceptable version of the page. Again, this is the difference between my editing five years ago and today and I would like to think that it shows that I am a mature enough editor that I don't need any active restrictions or patrolling of my edits. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 21:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Justin, should you make disruptive edits again, then:
::::* if probation remains in force, an administrator will ban you from certain pages/topics and only block you for violations.
::::* if probation is lifted, an administrator will block you for the edit(s) and/or the Community will ban you from editing Wikipedia (due to the history/context/pattern here).
::::That is, in the case of the latter, you must remember: these 3 measures were imposed as a last chance good faith measure so if these are lifted, the Community is unlikely to contemplate coming back and going through a full discussion to reimpose more of the same if there are any relapses; it would come back to discuss it if a site ban is the only way to get through to you or the only way to deal with the disruption. On the other hand, obviously, if there are no issues, then that's the most ideal outcome for all.
::::Absent any concerns about 2, I was not going to stand in the way of 1 or 2 being lifted, but I was going to suggest that the third term operate for another 6 months in which you time you should edit without other issues (that is, without anymore blocks/bans due to disruptive behaviors). But if you accept the likelihood of what will happen in case things don't go to plan, then I'll strike my oppose and not stand in the way of the appeal (which means I would not actively oppose all 3 being lifted now). [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 08:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::'''Ah''' Now I understand your position. I am confident about lifting these sanctions because any "disruption" that I would make at this point would not be the type of inflammatory edit-warring or [[WP:POINT]]-style POV-pushing that I would have engaged in in the past. Anything that would constitute disruption on my part now would be bold editing that is misguided. If someone simply asks me to stop or explain myself, I will (and I have.) As far as six more months go, we would still be in the same boat then, right? The only difference is that I could say I waited six more months--that's fine, I suppose, but I'm not sure that it's really necessary nor that it will do anything in my favor in case there is some issue in the future. In sum, my problem in the past was edit-warring and I'm not going to deal with that now. If you prefer a six-month trial from this point forward or immediately lifting restrictions, either is fine with me. Thanks again. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 15:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


{{Archive bottom}}
::Yeah, the fact that he was blocked 4 years ago for using AWB too fast seems irrelevent here. Both AWB and the mediawiki software has changed so much in the past four years that the conditions which would have led to the AWB throttle have changed drasticly. I can't see where this behavior, of itself, is a problem. If THAT is the only actionable objection to his behavior in the past 6 months, then I don't see that as a problem. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 02:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:::What happens in the present cannot be viewed in a vacuum. They're informed by a context, either of a pattern of behavior or history - after the history we see here, I'd have expected the disruptive behavior to stop after these measures (short of a full site ban) were employed, and it should be clear; the 3 sanctions being appealed at this time were the alternative remedy to a full site ban that was to be imposed two years ago; it was a good faith last chance. That is, one should try to avoid engaging in the same disruptive behaviors; unless an unjustified block was made, or a sanction was imposed unjustifiably under the probation, there should not have been any other issues. Incidentally, misuse of rollback (if it occurs) is a lot easier to handle than the other problems encountered so far. In November 2009 (a little over a year after the probation was imposed), the sanction was invoked to prevent certain behavior that was disruptive. Incidentally, if we'd lifted the ban after a year, and he engaged in this behavior afterwards, he probably would have faced a harsher outcome than the sanction that was imposed on him. Still, by March 2010, we accepted his assurances and removed the additional restriction.
:::A month later, in April/May 2010, he was disruptively edit-warring and was blocked. The main issue I find is this block (which was imposed less than 6 months ago); I think that is a problem. If the block was unjustified, and either the blocking admin, the admin who declined the appeal, or even the community are ready to come to that view, or at least there was not a strong consensus in support of imposing a block (despite the context), that needs to be considered. If the mitigating factors are sufficient that another editor should also have been blocked, that may also be worth considering (but unless I have missed something, the issue (again) was Koavf disruptively edit-warring in April/May 2010). [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 08:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
::::I am grateful for the thoroughness of Ncmvocalist's analysis, but I'm not certain of his bottom line. I agree with Ncmvocalist that Koavf's block in April of 2010 (and the ensuing unblock dialog) are a concern because it suggests that the old problems from 2006 and 2007 have not entirely gone away. I myself would be OK with the lifting of all the restrictions, but suggest that Koavf voluntarily observe a 1RR regarding Western Sahara articles and be aware that any renewed problem in that area could lead to bad consequences. I didn't see any actual violation of the AWB terms of use but putting project tags in article talk space [[User talk:Koavf#WP:LITH|is not recommended by some projects]], and I recommend that he consider whether all his AWB changes are truly valuable. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::'''Sure''' I would be fine with being extra vigilant about my Western Sahara-related edits (as a strictly practical matter, I have to, or else face some certain disciplinary action.) As far as the tagging goes, I have checked these WikiProjects and they do not have any guidelines about not tagging non-article namespaces. In point of fact, the other person in the discussion that you cited acknowledged that there was no precedent guideline for this and changed his mind about the tagging based on this fact. The only other person who responded to me about this was from the Simpsons WikiProject, which also had no guideline about tagging and still doesn't, in spite of the fact that there banner [[Template:WikiProject_The_Simpsons/class|explicitly includes an NA parameter, as well as one for books]]. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 20:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::Justin, the wiki-past is gone. Now, could you tell admins on this board that you are serious enough about observing the 1RR rule and wp:consensus? So far you've just talked about how you have been respectful of sanctions and restrictions. I am asking you this is because all what has been talked about here is your editing style but it seems that the discussion has ignored your attitude toward [[WP:CONSENSUS]] on talk pages. Probably because you have not been explicitly sanctioned for it but the 'consensus' issue is still bothering me. It's a core policy of this business. Officially, it is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. If you still believe that one single user has the right to sabotage a consensus of 9 nine other users and still insist that he's within his rights then we'd surely have problems in the future. I'll appreciate if you could offer some assurance regarding this point. After that, there'd be no reason for me as a concerned user to object to your appeal.
::::::P.S. I'd have liked to be notified since I was the user who brought the complaint to AN/I which resulted in the community sanction in question. Justin, everytime you appeal for something you miss notifying concerned users. It's just a courtesy matter but it has to be mentioned since this is the third time it happens. Thanks. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up''® </sup></font>]]</small> 02:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::'''Consensus''' As a for instance, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A173.79.191.176&action=historysubmit&diff=391171154&oldid=391163483 the last disagreement I had with an editor], I counseled him to speak with the appropriate WikiProject(s) to reach consensus about contradicting a guideline. (The other half of the discussion is on my talk page.) Other recent examples of my editing raising a red flag and me respecting consensus include [[User_talk:Koavf/Archive021#Edits_to_November_18]] (where consensus was against me, and I ceased editing) and [[User_talk:Koavf/Archive020#Categorization]] (where consensus favored me, and I continued editing for several weeks.) Alternately, here is an example of me following consensus and asking a user to do the same with the resolve to respect that process: [[User_talk:Koavf/Archive020#Category:Jews_is_correct]]. And these are all examples of boldness on my part rather than POV-pushing or sheer recklessness. I haven't had anyone complaining about me flaunting consensus lately and I don't do it.
:::::::In terms of reverting, I don't have much of a recent history for it or the prospect of it due to the types of edits I have been making lately—that is to say, I have been doing a lot of maintenance, such as categorization, tagging, etc on pages that I do not watch rather than substantial edits to the text of articles. Off hand, I cannot remember any instances within the past six months where I've had a ''prospective'' edit-war, and I certainly haven't actually engaged in one. This prospective 1RR restriction would be self-imposed and (apparently) limited only to Western Sahara-related articles, so for this, I guess you have my word and your gut.
:::::::I really didn't know who to alert about this, since I don't have anyone on Wikipedia who would be directly affected by this—no one with whom I have had any Western Sahara-related edit-wars is still on here. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 03:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Fair enough, Justin. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up''® </sup></font>]]</small> 19:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
----
'''Moved from archive''' I have copied the above discussion from [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive218]] for a fuller discussion and deleted it from that same archive. I have done this per a discussion on [[WP:IRC|the main IRC channel]] by "killiondude", "SpitfireWP", and "Sky2042" (not necessarily their usernames on en.wp.) Please post any further comments below this horizontal break. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 00:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
----


=== Are these "/current_consensus" pages even real? ===
So, what are we doing now? Move forward, wait for more discussions? -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="1px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold">''Wiki me up''® </font>]]</small> 12:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
{{hat top|result=Current Consensus pages appear to have wide support as a way of tracking past discussions and to avoid having editors endlessly discuss topics. Some suggested a way of changing consensus. The current consensus page primarily discussed (the one on [[Donald Trump]]) already seems to include a mechanism for changing consensus.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 10:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)}}
:'''More input''' I "recruited" two admins to take a look--[[User:Explicit|one of whom I have had good relations with]], [[User:Good Olfactory|the other of whom has had to rebuke me a little in the past]] (but we still get along just fine.) I hope that someone will close this matter after having decided that some consensus exists. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 15:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=intitle%3A%22Current+consensus%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns1=1 title search] says that there are, apparently, only thirteen of these pages on the whole site. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=intitle%3A%22Current+consensus%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns1=1 first] was at [[Talk:Donald Trump]], which seems to have been unilaterally [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Current_consensus&oldid=773575517 created] by one admin in 2017. What in tarnation ''are'' these? Are these binding over actual article consensus or actual talk page consensus? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 15:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
*:I don't know why this section has turned into a bunch of people making bolded support and oppose votes to... what? What are you supporting and opposing? I do have an opinion on what should be done with these, but I did not say it in this comment, and the opinion is not "these should all be deleted". <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 22:47, 27 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.<br />The statement in question is from a talk page consensus (this [[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 36#RfC on inclusion of lab-accident theory|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. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
== Proposed partial removal of restrictions on Δ/Betacommand ==
*::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). [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk: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. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 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. [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk: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. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 09:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
*:For pages that have had a lot of RFCs, they are basically a history of RFC results for that page. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=intitle%3A%22Current+consensus%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22intitle%22%3A%22%5C%22Current+consensus%5C%22%22%7D%7D&ns1=1 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. {{tq|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. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 11:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
*I think these lists are generally helpful on high traffic contentious topics, but they should be subject to time decay. They run afoul of brd and [[WP:5P3]] as time goes on. The failure modes seem unaddressed by editors here, like what happened on the covid article where the rfc was unenforced and a new stable state was established through brd. [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk:SmolBrane|talk]]) 03:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
*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"). [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 17:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
*:I agree too, it's instruction creep of the worst kind. This kind of thing should be in the WP namespace as a formal policy or guideline. It's no wonder people fall foul of these pseudo-regulations if they're spread all over the place in talk subpages. If an RfC finds consensus to make a guideline, make it a proper one. [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 08:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
*::Aren't these current consensus templates just a list of RFC results though? A list of RFC results doesn't ring any alarm bells for me. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 08:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::It depends what the RfC is for. If it's to establish a rule like "don't mention the theory that COVID-19 might have originated in a lab" then that's a guideline and should be published as such. [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 08:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::I guess it depends on scope. Guidelines like that go beyond a single article. Others might just be consensus for what one particular article should say, in which case it's fine that they stay on the talk page. But that sort of consensus only reflects that moment in time, so doesn't necessarily need to be kept for posterity. In short, we can't have it both ways. Either it's a "moment in time" decision or it's a lasting guideline. [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 08:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::And sometimes the so called "consensus" is just two people agreeing, yet it's treated like a commandment forever more (often by the same two people). The Trump list is like RSP: start clicking through the links and you'll find a bunch of the entries are BS. The lab leak one is another example where "documented consensus" -- aka the opinion of strong minded editors -- failed to keep up with RSes and actually impeded Wikipedia writing an accurate summary of current scholarship on the subject. Havana syndrome is another example. Pentagon UFOs also IIRC. Same with policy/guideline FAQs. Sometimes it's good to establish and document consensus, but also those tools or processes get abused by folks who want to use them to assert consensus rather than document it. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 13:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Exactly. This is why I think this kind of thing needs to either become actual guidelines, or not be kept at all. Discussions about genuine policies and guidelines tend to attract a fair bit more community scrutiny and stop rubbish like this getting through. [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 13:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::I think to some extent this happens because people want others to read the previous discussions and not cause massive time sinks. [[Talk:Twitter]] has an FAQ section where 8 move discussions are linked, for example. Obviously consensus can change but I don't think that mentioning previous consensus where there's been strong editor participation (not a two person decision like Levivich mentioned) is a bad idea in itself. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Oh absolutely. I occasionally do a bit of work on [[British Isles]] and related articles and the same conversation happening time and time again about the name of the island group (or even whether it ''is'' a group) is mind-numbingly dull. Probably the biggest problems in the COVID case are (1) the original consensus was a very local one and (2) some editors are treating it as set in stone when it absolutely isn't. [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 07:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::But it's a local consensus on a local issue. If editors were trying to say that based on this consensus you cannot add the lab leak to any article that would be a problem. Likewise if editors were saying this local consensus overrides some wider consensus. But this is simply documenting a historic consensus established on the talk page of the one and only page it applies to. And it's documenting it on that same talk page basically. (I mean yes it technically derives from a subpage but it's intended for the talk page.) And there's no wider consensus that comes into play. So the local consensus issue is a red-herring here IMO. (As I said above, I find it weird we have a current consensus which isn't a consensus so would support removing it for that reason, but that's unrelated to it being a local consensus.) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I'm unconvinced your claim about [[Havana syndrome]] is accurate. AFAICT, there has never been a current consensus documented on the talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Havana_syndrome&oldid=1214379068] [[Talk:Havana syndrome/Current consensus]]. I'm aware of how controversial it's been in recent times, but my impression and I had a quick look at [[Talk:Havana syndrome]] which seems to affirm my belief that the discussion has primarily about whether the recent reports are of sufficient quality to be mentioned in the article and where and how [[WP:MEDRS]] applies. In terms of discussions over consensus, I see repeated claims there is consensus to add stuff based on the recent reports (which clearly can only be referring to a recent consensus) as well as discussions about there being consensus for MEDRS etc and people imploring others to gain consensus before making changes to avoid blocks and page protection (i.e. not necessarily because there was existing consensus they needed to override but because as always when there is dispute there needs to be discussion rather than edit-warring). Oh and there are also mentions of alleged consensuses outside of wikipedia e.g. a scientific consensus or medical consensus. In other words, this is a fairly typical highly charged disputed involving stuff some editors feel is fringe and the sourcing making certain claims are insufficient, and where others disagree. It may very well be correct that the anti-fringe editors often have the "upper-hand", so to speak, for various reasons but this is not because of any specific claims about a documented consensus other than MEDRS itself (for which there clearly is consensus even if not in it's application to any specific case). [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 17:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
::I think they're fine to have FAQ-style lists of common things people bring up.
:::'''NOTE: The following is a fictitious example meant to illustrate a general point that applies to all Wikipedia content equally, and is not intended to be an analogy, endorsement or condemnation or any political subjects, activities, lifestyles or worldviews.'''
::[[Led Zeppelin IV]] actually wasn't released with an official title, so some people call it "Untitled (Led Zeppelin album)"; if we had some RfC about what to call it, but people keep showing up to ask about it eight times a week regardless, it makes sense to have a little talk page header saying "this title was decided on by XYZ discussion in 20XX". I think the main thing lacking justification is the idea that the talk-page summary header becomes a ''thing in itself'' -- e.g. that people argue that something should or shouldn't be done on the basis of what it says in the header, rather than the actual discussions themselves. Maybe a useful litmus test (a hypothetical statement concerning a thing that I do not claim to be the case) is to imagine that some random person makes a page at [[Talk:Moon/Current consensus]] that says "{{tq|The article '''MUST''' say that the Moon is made of cheese}}" -- what happens? I feel like what should happen is that nobody cares, and we all go about our business, and edits to the article are made based on what sources say, etc. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 02:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
{{cot|covid!}}
:::The problem there is that it discourages good editing practices such as [[WP:BRD]], [[WP:SOFIXIT]], and [[WP:NORULES]]. "The <s>science</s> discussion on this is settled" is the governing statement.
:::I find it completely ridiculous that we have a discussion result no one is willing to overturn due to bureaucracy despite
:::#a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin
:::#literally hundreds of reliable sources
:::#the actual article which has it there in spite of the consensus
:::#even if you don't agree with it, you have to admit that it is possible or at least a widespread theory and its exclusion from the COVID-19 article is a disservice to what [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] state.
:::Some Admin needs to step up and say "enough." Who is going to be brave enough to do what is right? [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 20:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
::::You sound pretty confident that the current consensus is wrong. If so, wouldn't it be easy to just RFC it again and get it changed? –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 01:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::An RFC shouldn't be necessary; it's unnecessary bureaucracy. The article already has the consensus to include it. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 23:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
::::{{replyto|Buffs}} <del>I don't really understand your point 1.</del> There's nothing in FAQ 14 which stops us mentioning what the general public believe is the most likely origin i.e. that it came from an animal of some sort through natural means. (In such much as the is a general consensus, probably over 50% of the world haven't really thought about it any any great deal.) FAQ 14 only stops us mentioning what a small minority of the public believe is most likely i.e. that it came from a lab. There may or may not be merit to mention what this small minority of the public believe but there's absolutely nothing stopping us mentioning the general consensus of the public of the most likely origin i.e. that it came from an animal through some natural means. <del>Since this confuses you,</del> we would consider re-wording it <del>although I'm not entirely sure how you could confuse</del> <ins>although to state the obvious</ins> "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article" <del>into somehow affecting</del><ins>does not stop</ins> us mentioning the most common belief by the general public i.e. that it came from an animal through some natural means. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 02:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) <ins>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 18:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)</ins>
:::::#Let's start with FAQ 14's verbiage: ''"'''Do not mention''' the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article."'' This means that, according to the "consensus" that was reached 4 years ago and bare months after the virus started, we cannot even mention the theory that COVID had a manmade origin. Even if you still wear a mask (despite ZERO supporting evidence that it does anything significant against the most current strains of the virus) and ample evidence that there are deleterious effects to social development, you have to admit that there are a ''lot'' of people who believe it. Including the following entities who admit it
:::::#*US Department of Energy: "[https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic]"
:::::#*FBI: "[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57268111 Covid-19 'most likely' originated in a 'Chinese government-controlled lab']"
:::::#*US National Intelligence: "[https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident]"
:::::#"''only stops us mentioning what a small minority of the public believe is most likely''" You might want to get out of your own circles a bit more. None of these are a "small minority. They are, at worst, a sizable minority and, at best, a solid majority:
:::::#*US public opinion: "[https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/45389-americans-believe-covid-origin-lab 66% of Americans — including 53% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans — say it is definitely or probably true that the COVID-19 virus originated from a lab in China...Nearly two years ago, a May 29 - June 1, 2021 poll found that nearly as many Americans — 59% — believed the lab-leak theory was definitely or probably true]"
:::::#*UK Scientific Opinion "[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/02/scientists-china-covid-origins-transparency-lacking/ ...more than a quarter think the pandemic leaked from a Chinese lab]"
:::::#"''Since this confuses you...''" There's no confusion. [[WP:ASPERSIONS|You're being condescending and casting aspersions]] I would expect an admonishment from an admin.
:::::[[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 23:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{replyto|Buffs}} so you're saying American represent the world now? And you're accusing me of being condescending. {{redacted}} I'm experienced enough to know many Americans are not like you, but it doesn't make you treating 95% of the world as if they don't matter any more acceptable. (Hint 25%+ of the UK means not even a majority of the UK thinks what you're claiming. A majority by any normal definition means 50%+1 person. The Chinese population represent over 17% of the world's population and while it's very difficult to know what they think there is a reasonable chance quite a high percentage of their population do not think it came from a Chinese lab. India's population also represents over 17% of the world. While there can be slightly better data on what they believe, for various reasons it's still going to be very limited. There are reasons to think they're more likely to believe it came from a Chinese lab, however what percentage of them think so is almost definitely not only unknown but unknowable. As I mentioned, there's actually good reason to think a large number of people have not really thought about it to any degrees. And indeed for various reasons some justified e.g. the behaviour from people like you who act like America represents the world, some unjustified, there's actually IMO a fair chance a greater percentage of the world's population thinks it came from a US lab and not a Chinese one which demonstrates who incredibly stupid this is in the first place. I mean it wouldn't surprise me if more people believe that HIV came from an American lab than think COVID-19 came from any lab.) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 10:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I redacted the personal attack. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 08:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you...the fact that it was up as long as it was demonstrates this page could certainly be more effectively monitored by the Admin corps. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I ''never'' said America represents the world. You are intentionally dismissing any opinion that differs from your own as a "small minority" opinion (regardless of the evidence, I might add) when, in fact, there is evidence that it is not such a small opinion. While it may or may not be a minority opinion when checking by country (in the US, it is a MAJORITY opinion), it is widely accepted as a possible vector origin.
:::::::There are parts of WP that still won't even admit that the FBI and DoE think it's the most likely vector going so far as to prevent any mention of it on WP.
:::::::I'm not suggesting there is conclusive evidence. Until China cooperates, that's going to be impossible. But it is still a significant and widespread theory. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 15:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{replyto|Buffs}} you've provided absolutely no evidence that it is not a small minority opinion. The only evidence you've provided is it's an opinion shared by maybe 3% of the world's population which by any definition is a small minority. I admit, I have no evidence it is a small minority opinion, but frankly that wasn't and isn't by main point. Just to re-iterate, I believe that it is a small minority opinion but I have no evidence so I will not repeat the claim. However I am entitled to have that belief just as you are entitled the belief the general consensus of the public is that it originated from the lab. My main point is that we should not be making such claims in discussions like this when we have no evidence, especially when you're not willing to be challenged on it. You claimed "{{tqi|a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin}}". But you have no evidence for this. The only evidence you have is that 3% of the world believes it which is clearly, very, very, very, very, very far from "a general consensus of the public. And when I first challenged you on this, instead of acknowledging, yeah I have no evidence, it's just a belief I hold, you instead implied that what people believe in the US somehow proves the claim is true when it is clearly does not in any way. And you're still making claims without evidence. You claimed " it is widely accepted as a possible vector origin" but again the only evidence you have is about 3% of the world, some in the US intelligence community, along with a few UK scientist. (There is really no way to know about the reliability of the Censuswide survey. Such surveys tend to be very problematic since there is no way to test any corrections for non responses etc.) To be clear, I am ''explicitly'' not saying it is ''not'' "widely accepted". I have an opinion on that but as I said earlier I have no good evidence, so it's best I do not share that opinion on whether it is. I am simply saying you have not provided any evidence. Note that whether or not the idea is "widely accepted", it may still belong in the article but that doesn't mean it's okay to make claims without evidence. Also, for clarity although I did say it earlier, I admit I let my self get-heated when I said that. I'm a lot less sure about the majority opinion being from a lab thing and so I never should have said that point blank even putting aside my lack of evidence. As I said, a good chunk of the world has probably never thought about this that well, so there's a far chance the majority opinion is "no idea" or "I don't understand the question". But ultimately I have no evidence so never should have said that since my point was to re-iterate, even if I did it in a poor way, that editors should not be making statements for which they do not have the supporting evidence. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Nil Einne, you have focused on a single portion of my statement (#1) while ignoring a majority of it (#2-#4) in which I also stated "even if you don't agree with it, you have to admit that it is possible or at least a widespread theory and its exclusion from the COVID-19 article is a disservice to what reliable sources state". My point was to show you that it is not a "small minority" and not insignificant, not conclusively prove what the world thinks. You have then taken surveys (which are generally indicative of larger populations and dismissed them because they ostensibly aren't representative of the world at large. That was never the point of the articles I cited (you're moving the goalposts from "this isn't even a small minority opinion" to "this isn't indicative of the world's opinion"). Lastly, you admit you have no polls to back it up, so popular opinion is out.
:::::::::So, let's stick with what every source I've been able to find seems to suggest: [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2305081 most scientists believe it has a zoological origin but admit a lab leak is also possible and the evidence is inconclusive to date]. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 20:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::<p>{{EC}} I'm focusing on a single portion of your statement because it's what I care about. I hate it when editors make conclusive statements for which I believe there is no evidence. I don't care that much about your other statements since while some of them are IMO also problematic they aren't nearly as problematic, hence why I have not addressed them and am not likely to. </p><p>And I never said or implied that a lab leak was impossible. And I feel I've already clarified enough to make it clear I never meant to say or imply that the lab leak theory is definitely not commonly accepted by the general public. That's all besides my point which is that you do not have sufficient evidence to make the claim "{{tqi|a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin}}". You've still not withdrawn the claim nor conceded you do not have sufficient evidence to make that claim. </p><p>I've also never shared a definitive opinion on whether it belongs mention of the lab leak theory belongs in the COVID-19 article because it's irrelevant to my point. (I did say I support removing the FAQ item, and say the opinion might belong even if it's only from a small minority.) </p><p>Note also that acknowledging something is possible is very different from thinking it's what happened. Even if 100% of the world believes it is possible, but they still think it is not what most likely happened, it would not be accurate to say the virus originated from a lab is a majority opinion or the "general consensus of the public". It would not even be accurate to say it's an opinion of a small minority. </p><p>In such a case, it's actually an opinion of zero people, with 100% of people thinking it's possible, but not where the virus likely came from. Or to put it in your earlier example, "a general consensus of the public that this is a possible point of origin" or better "unanimous consensus of the public that this is a possible point of origin". But in any case, I've never denied it could be a small minority opinion so I'm not sure why you mention this. </p><small><p>Also surveys are only useful when they have been done well. Surveys on the general public are okay, but often not brilliant when done for things besides voting When they're done for things which people actually vote on, the people who run the surveys have a way to check if their survey actually worked. When done for things people don't vote on, they're a lot more iffy since there is no way to check if the results are accurate. </p><p>Random sampling is a well recognised statistical method which works well, but most surveys are very far from random sampling given non responses and the way subjects are selected. (For example telephone polling is well recognised in many countries to miss a reasonable chunk of the population in a biased way.) And so a decent survey might need to try and correct for these divergence from random sampling. But this requires things like looking at the demographic data etc and trying to account for the people you've missed. </p><p>But while you can get a good idea about whether your corrections work when you can check them against vote, you don't have that for other things and cannot assume they will hold for other stuff especially when they are so divergent. Note that in cases when you want to assess a vote, you're also generally intentionally ignoring the people who don't vote and even if you report their results, you have no way to check them. </p><p>Surveys on specific subpopulations, especially small subpopulations like lecturers are generally even more unreliable (I believe the technical term is validity) given the earlier problems, especially the problem of checking the result. 200 lecturers might be fine if you actually had a proper random sample with responses from all, but it can easily fall apart in practice. </p><p>I have no idea about the quality of Censuswide so I've assumed they're actually trying to do a proper job since ultimately even if they are their results would still be flawed. But it's well recognised that some companies don't do so, with poor questions or worse biased sampling. </p><p>Note that although I've sometimes qualified my acceptance of the US population results, I have not questioned them in the same way precisely because these tend to be a fair amount more reliable although still often fairly imperfect for the reasons I outline. (Likewise when I incorrectly believed the UK one was for the whole UK population not just scientists/lecturers.) Still there are whole books written on this sort of thing [[Lies, damned lies, and statistics]] has a tiny list. </p><p>Finally, possibly this is better defined somewhere but I'm not going to look so I'll just note that lecturers in "all disciplines" is also not as useful as it seems. The source says scientists so I'm assuming they're restricting to science disciplines. But the opinion of a astronomer on the origins of the virus is frankly only slightly more significant than the opinion of the general public. You get the same same problem with evolution. Does an astronomer rejecting evolution actually tell us much about its acceptance among people who should understand it and have seen the evidence? Not really or at least not much more than a survey of checkout operators. </p><p>So yes there are multiple reasons I feel it's fair to be dismissive of that UK lecturer survey as not being a particularly useful data point for anything. </p></small><p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)</p
>
:::::::::::For clarity I stand by my statement that you have not provided sufficient evidence to disprove the notion that it's a small minority who believe it's the most likely origin since as I've said such a small percentage or the world's population definitely is a small minority. Again, I'm not saying it is a small minority just that I have no seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate it is not. And again, this IMO has very limited bearing on whether it belongs in the article. (If it was more than a small minority it's more likely to belong but it may belong even if it is a small minority and that's all besides my point.) Also editors might have differing opinions on what constitutes small minority. I don't think you can argue against 5% being a small minority. But from my PoV 15-20% is still a small minority. So it's fair to say even the entirety of the developed world [//unctad.org/data-visualization/now-8-billion-and-counting-where-worlds-population-has-grown-most-and-why] is a small minority. If others feel that 15-20% is not a small minority I see no problem with that, but my statements are going to be based on what I think is a small minority. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 22:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::P.S. Yes I'll acknowledge I was being needless provocative when I said "what a small minority of the public believe is most likely" and the stuff about the editor being confused etc and I should not have been. While I personally suspect my statement about small minority is true, especially since as I've said it's quite likely a large percentage of the world has never really thought about to a degree that they can be said to have clear thoughts on the matter, I have no evidence. However it was in response to the existing claim "{{tqi|a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin}}", which would imply a majority think so. When as we've seen the editor has no evidence for such a claim. I suspected, and have sadly been proven right, that this editor is largely approaching this from the PoV that if under 5% of the world's population i.e. the US population have a "general consensus" then it'd fair to ascribe to the world. I strongly object to such a PoV and will call it out whenever I see it since I find it incredibly offensive although will do my best to do so in a calmer fashion in future. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::'Needlessly provocative' is really underselling vitriolic abuse of another editor. You could at least have the decency to strike and apologise. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk:Riposte97|talk]]) 04:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I don't expect an apology for someone so overtly hostile to anyone they perceive as Americans. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't care whether anyone is an American and work with Americans every day in BLPN etc. I do care when someone implies that what Americans somehow represents the "general consensus of the public" [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 19:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::no matter how many times you assert it, I never said nor claimed nor implied that "Americans represent the general consensus of the public". [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 20:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yet you continue to stand by your statement "{{tqi|a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin}}" as a point of fact rather than just accept it is an opinion for which you have no real evidence, when the only evidence you have is that a majority of Americans may believe it. Just to emphasise you did not say '{{!tq|a general consensus of the American public that this is the most likely origin}}' which might be justified by your evidence. How else are your fellow editors supposed to reconcile these inconsistencies in what you've said? I.E. That "{{tqi|a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin}}" is a factual statement something you seem to continue to stick by even after I've challenged it multiple times in different ways, rather than just acknowledge as an opinion for which you have no real evidence (as I did for my claims). And the only real evidence I have for it is what most Americans believe. (Which as I've already explained is a very poor proxy for what the rest of the world believes especially in a case lile this.) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::From my PoV anyone is free to collapse these discussions if they feel it best at any time even if they start with my first reply and ignore Buffs original comment. But also, if Buffs ever withdraws or qualifies either with an edit or a reply their statement "{{tqi|a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin}}" to acknowledge they do not have sufficient evidence, I'm fine with people just deleting this whole diversion starting with my comment if others involved (especially Buffs) agree. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
{{cob}}
::As an example, I remember the discussion earlier this year about "[[Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 167#Consensus 37|Consensus 37]]" at the Trump article. [[Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 99#Proposal for resolution|This RFC from five years ago]] with an 8-3 vote is still the law of the article despite being ''obviously'' outdated because it's about "Content related to Trump's presidency" which ended three years ago. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 22:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed. Pretty much all of these should be shitcanned. Editors do not get to form a little clique and vote themselves a preferred consensus to be preserved in amber forever. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
:The one thing I will say is IMO it might be helpful if we establish somehow that when we have these current consensus FAQs, a no-consensus outcome in a well attended RfC would be enough to remove them. However also that most of the time, such RfCs are ill-advised since it would be better to propose some specific change that would be in violation of the current consensus. (An exception might be broader current consensuses like consensus 37 mentioned by Levivich above.) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 02:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
* I've found these sorts of consensus-collections and FAQs to be useful, and I greatly appreciate not having to dig through archives to find the relevant RfC. Levivich's point about obviously outdated items is a good one (though I don't think of item 37 being a good example), but it's more bathwater than baby. In general, older RfCs should be more easily overturned by non-RfC discussion; this is a position I hold generally, and it doesn't matter whether the RfC is buried in the archives or collected for convenience in a pinned section. I would prefer (a la Nil Einne) that new discussions/RfCs focus on proposed article changes than meta-discussion about the consensus item itself. If we do get more "should we keep item #86" RfCs, I agree with NE that a "no consensus" outcome should be enough to invalidate the item. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
*:Re: "''new discussions/RfCs focus on proposed article changes than meta-discussion about the consensus item itself''". The problem is that the conclusion of the RFC itself is the problem. We can't have a discussion about content when the RfC prevents such changes. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 13:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
*::Please provide evidence that the current consensus item prevented an actual attempted discussion at some change to the article. Anyone can say the FAQ did something without evidence. <del>I can say the FAQ prevented people who think Americans represent the world making harmful changes to the article based on such a PoV but I have no evidence so will not make such a claim.</del> [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 10:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) <ins>19:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)</ins>
*::Of course we could have a discussion about content, and the old RfC couldn't possibly prevent such a discussion. For example, the new RfC's question could have just been "Should the article mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory?" [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 03:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::The article had already mentioned the lab leak theory for six months. Based on which policy would an rfc be required? [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk:SmolBrane|talk]]) 03:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::If there wasn't any controversy over continued mention of the theory, no RfC would be needed. As I recall, continued inclusion was contentious, hence the need for an RfC. I don't believe there's a policy that requires it, but it's basic [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 03:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Inclusion was established via [[WP:EDITCON]], the policy by which most editing occurs. We need good reason to stray from that, and we cannot do so indefinitely. Why did 2200 watchers fail to enforce the rfc? Continued inclusion was not contentious (or please demonstrate where/how). As I stated in the latest rfc, the consensus list should have simply been corrected to reflect the mainspace; this is what I did with consensus 18. [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk:SmolBrane|talk]]) 03:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I was mistaken about inclusion being contentious pre-RfC, though it evidently became so once the RfC began. I agree that an appropriate first move would have been to just strike the consensus item. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 19:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
*I don't know how many topics have general consensuses, but I think said consensuses should be revisited regularly, say maybe 3 or 4 months? That would help keep things current, as it were. That would mean that the divbox containing the general consensus should also reflect when it was decided on, and possibly when it should be reevaluated. —[[User:Tenryuu|<span style="color:#556B2F">Tenryuu&nbsp;🐲</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&nbsp;) 04:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
*:The informal, unofficial, not-always-followed standard we have used at Trump is: If the situation addressed by the consensus has changed significantly, it's ok to revisit it. If an editor has significant new argument(s), it's ok to revisit it. Otherwise, it's a settled issue and time-limited editors have more useful ways to contribute than putting the same ingredients through the same machinery to see if we get a different product. What we ''don't'' do is revisit merely because the editor mix has changed, not merely because an editor drops by who disagrees with the consensus, and certainly not because some arbitrary number of months have passed. This has worked fairly well there, in my opinion, and we're considering revisiting our [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item 22 as we speak, per the "situation has changed" criterion. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 03:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
*By the way, while I'm sympathetic to the sentiment of avoiding bureaucracy, I'm not sure it's a good idea to essentially reward raising the same issue over and over again until the people opposing it give up, which is the only reason I see for these "current consensu"/FAQ sections to be used. Ultimately, I don't think there's a good way to write a general rule on this, so I would prefer to leave it to the judgement of the uninvolved closer, considering the history on a case by case basis. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 06:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
* Hesitant to criticize a method of making it easier to find past discussions and RfCs. [[Talk:Donald Trump]] has 169 talkpage archives. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 06:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
*:If we're just talking about previous discussions, I don't think anyone has a problem with it. The problem is that these discussions are treated as sacrosanct, i.e. "These are the rules for this page" when they are just a record of previous discussions. Such discussions should indeed be archived as they flow further into the past and more information becomes available. This instance is probably one of the most egregious. The RfC says we can't mention the COVID lab leak theory, but it's prominently in the article by extensive consensus. It is one of two leading theories as to the origin (there doesn't seem to be any significant debate on that). Wordsmith was absolutely correct on his assessment of both the RfC and the subsequent discussion. The fact that it took so much discussion for an easy, clear outcome is just one example of the bureaucratic hoops that are stifling Wikipedia.
*:These pages and ones like it sprung up in the "fact checking" era of Trump's presidency when self-appointed "fact checkers" went out of their way to block "misinformation". This was an extension of that era and continues to strangle meaningful discussion and reasoned debate in society. I'm not saying "publish everything they say as gospel truth!" but I am saying that it is better to reasonably reflect the public discourse than become an arm of "fact checking"; it invariably leads to censorship. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't think there's an issue with documenting prior discussions, listing prior discussions so that the same issue isn't raised over and over ''is'' useful. But RFCs about what consensuses they should contain is bureaucracy, it's an abnormal process that achieves nothing. There still no consensus to include anything.<br>If someone were to add wild lab leak conspiracy theory nonsense (note I've always been of the opinion it's a valid minority view, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lots of nonsense about the issue) there would still be valid reason to revert the addition, and consensus building would still need to happen.<br>For me the issue to be resolved is how to document such discussions without promoting situations such as this one. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 22:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
*::In this case, it seems like the bureaucracy was necessary. When the topic area was under General Sanctions, a page restriction was logged preventing editors from making substantial changes to the "Current consensus" page without a clear consensus. It might be worth discussing and possibly appealing the restriction either here or at [[WP:AE]] or [[WP:ARCA]] since the GS was converted into [[WP:CTOP]]. The other two examples I know of where a consensus was binding were also under Arbcom's authority, namely [[WP:RFC/J]] and [[WP:GMORFC]]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 23:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::True but the consensus (not the consensus page) could have been changed by normal consensus building. Any consensus to include content would have been a 'clear consensus' and so would allow updating of the 'current consensus' page. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::I would support removing that GS remedy for similar reasons to why I supported removing FAQ item 14. But otherwise I agree with ActivelyDisinterested. From what I see, the GS did not stop editors proposing changes such as adding the lab leak to the article, on the article talk page. If editors can demonstrate that editors were stopping concrete proposals for change to the article based on the current consensus page overriding/preventing any new discussion, then that is indeed a serious concern and IMO a reason to remove or at least clarify what these pages mean. If editors are simply insisting that these are harmful because they do not always accurately represent the current consensus, I'm less certain that matters much. So I see no reason to have an RfC just to establish what a consensus is absent a concrete proposal for change to the article. Although to be clear, I still support removing items when they clearly have no consensus rather than requiring there to be a consensus to remove them. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 10:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{replyto|ActivelyDisinterested}} for clarity, are you aware that our article has had a limited mention of the lab leak since July 2023 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic&diff=prev&oldid=1167660399] and still with some rewording [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic&diff=1213135370&oldid=1213133718]. It seems the recent RfC was started in part because of the weird oddity that the FAQ said not to mention something we already did. I still don't think it was the best solution, as I outlined below, but this realisation helps me better understand why editors took the route they did. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I'm less favourable to that idea as a way of changing the consensus. Was there a consensus to include that, or was it in the article but unnoticed by any who might object? It's a big article, and that's five words of text.<br>Does it overrule a consensus against a larger addition? I don't know that there's a simple answer to that. The addition was added before the RFC prior to this RFC, so again what the consensus was on its inclusion was unclear.<br>I still believe working towards something to include and consensus through normal practice is fundamentally a better idea. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support abolishing these''' - Only [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=intitle%3A%22Current+consensus%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns1=1 12] of these currently exist, of which [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:January_2018_United_States_federal_government_shutdown/Current_consensus 5] are currently at MfD for being empty. That leaves only 7 in the entire encyclopedia, and most hot-button issues don't have them, as pointed out by JPxG. We clearly do just fine without these.
:The main issue with them is that they are simply false - they purport to show a "current consensus" by citing discussions that are often multiple years old. This is deeply misleading, lends excessive authority to old discussions, and leads to odd consequences like an RfC and then an AN appeal to overturn stuff that is obviously outdated. For example, at [[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus]], 10 out of the 11 entries are over '''three years''' old, and the 11th is only 3 months younger. [[Talk:COVID-19/Current consensus]] entries are all over 4 years old, it isn't even transcluded anymore at [[Talk:COVID-19]], and items 1 and 3 don't hold true anymore (1 even has the now-infamous claim that COVID-19 is "not considered airborne"). And number 2 is silly, no one is going to add the "current events" template there in 2024.
:An FAQ template directing people to previous RfCs is fine and can be useful, but presenting RfCs and other discussions all together regardless of age as "current consensus" is incorrect, causes problems, and is unnecessary. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 23:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not sure here is the best place to discuss abolishing these because the users of them have not been invited to the discussion. We should consider closing this AN without action and moving to mfd. I suspect many more folks will have keep opinions after notices are left at the corresponding article talk pages. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 01:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Object''' to removal. No editor has articulated any actual problem with these. <del>One editor has gone so far as to imply that because a majority of Americans agree with something that means a majority of the world does, which is clear and utter nonsense and also nothing to do with whether we should remove these.</del> I agree with ActivelyDisinterested that it's fairly dumb that editors are having RfCs to remove items from the current consensus pages, but the solution would seem to be to remind editors not to do that. As I've already said, if necessary we can clarify somewhere that lack of consensus in a well attended discussion is enough to remove something from a current consensus FAQ, but that's probably about all we need to do. I don't think the small number of these is indicative they're not needed. If anything what it suggests is that they're rarely needed and are unlikely to be a problem since they're only used in exceptional cases. Of course, any individual current consensus could be deleted if it's felt it's no longer needed so I see no harm in an editor nominating a current consensus page for deletion. By the same token, an editor is technically free to nominate them all in one go, and if consensus develops in such a discussion we should never have these then so be it. But I definitely do not think this is the way, especially when editors participating have made such extremely offensive comments to many, many, many of us who whether we're Americans or not, do not think that Americans represent the world. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 10:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) <ins>19:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)</ins>
*:For further clarity, the most likely problem with these would be that they are preventing discussion on making changes to the article which have a chance of gaining consensus. This would most likely be in the form of discussions proposing some change to the article which were closed because they were against the current consensus. (As opposed to other reasons e.g. there was a recent discussion, there was no real concrete proposal for a change or attempts to formulate an RfC or something else concrete instead just chit chat about how evil the article is or whatever.) Perhaps some editors may claim that such FAQ items mean editors are not going to bother to propose changes which might be able to gain consensus. But on the flipside, I'd argue that such FAQ items are stopping pointless discussions which have no hope of consensus or are more chitchat that serious proposals for change. Since we cannot know what editors would have done absent such FAQ items, it's very hard to actual claim they're harmful because of that IMO. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 10:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
*::Somehow even though I had skimmed both RfCs (i.e. including the most recent where this is a big deal), I missed until now that our article has actually mentioned the lab leak theory since July 2023 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic&diff=prev&oldid=1167660399] and still does with some rewording [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic&diff=1213135370&oldid=1213133718]. This leads me to 2 thoughts. One is the obvious one that it really shouldn't have taken so much work to remove the FAQ item and can better understand the frustrations of those trying to remove it. There was apparent at least silent consensus to mention it so there was absolutely no reason for item 14 to be there for so long. I think it's fair to look into what went wrong here. It seems one of the problems is that it was added without discussion and possibly not many noticed. So we got into the weird situation where we had an older consensus and there were disputes over whether the long term undisputed change meant there was a new consensus. IMO the earlier discussion and removal of the GS item would be helpful steps to resolve this weird contradiction. As I said before, perhaps we need to be clearer that the lack of consensus is by itself enough to remove a FAQ item. However to my mind, if anything this whole thing demonstrates that these FAQs aren't really doing much harm to articles. Apparently the existence of that FAQ item didn't stop us mentioning the lab leak for 9+ months. And even after the no consensus RfC on the FAQ we got into the weird situation where FAQ item 14 stayed but the mention also stayed. So it's not like the preservation of the FAQ item was actually used as justification to remove any mention. Perhaps this AN stopped that, I don't know. But frankly, even if someone had tried to remove the mention, I'm not sure if this is a problem with the FAQs per se. While I don't think the FAQ item should have stayed, the better RfC would have concentrated on what we said in the article (and perhaps mentioning this would overturn 14). If there was consensus for mentioning the lab leak, then great keep it. If there was consensus against, then great remove it. If there was no consensus then we get to the tricky situation we always get to when it comes to no consensus outcomes. [[WP:NOCONSENSUS]] would suggest going with the [[WP:STATUSQUO]] before the RfC which in this case would have been with mention. But others might argue even if it has been so long the change had simply been missed and the RfC should take precedence as demonstration of the most current consensus/actual status quo. I'm sure most of us with experience know there's no simple resolution to these disputes when there is no consensus. And indeed as in any case where there is no consensus, it's quite likely a bunch of editors would be unhappy with the outcome. But I'm just unconvinced the FAQ would have made the problem worse it seems to arise from the existence of the earlier RfC and the change made soon after without ?much discussion. Note also as I've said editors feeling it's too soon for a new discussion is a very normal thing and largely unrelated to FAQ items [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: [[Talk:Donald Trump]], [[Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory]]. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 10:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
*'''I got summoned by a notice on the Donald Trump talk page'''. Clearing up JPxG’s misunderstandings in the post that started this discussion:<br/>
:#the "current consensus" was not {{tq|unilaterally created by one admin in 2017}}. It got its start [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&diff=754518928&oldid=754504027 as a consensuses banner] at the top of the talk page in December 2016, then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&diff=755201603&oldid=755198550 converted to the "sticky" thread in the body of the Talk page] in August 2017. In between, the admin appears to have protected it so that only template editors could edit it. That doesn’t seem to be in effect any longer, because I’ve edited it, and I’ve never made a request for template editor (don’t know what that is).
:#{{tq|What in tarnation ''are'' these? Are these binding over actual article consensus or actual talk page consensus?}} Please take a look at the individual consensus items. Each one contains at least one link or more to the discussion(s) and RfCs on the Talk page that led to the consensus.
:The consensus isn’t written in stone. Items have been superseded by new items or amended, as indicated by several linked discussions.
:Anyone can start a discussion or an RfC on the Talk page but be prepared to back up your proposal with reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If it goes against current consensus, the onus is on you to get consensus for a new one. And if you’re wondering why editors in 2016/2017 (before my time) started the list and why current editors still support it, just start reading the 168 archives. [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x |<span style="color: #3200CC;">'''Space4T'''ime3Continuum2x</span>]][[User_talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x |🖖]] 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Summoned from the Trump talk page.''' Very tired of these discussions that don't bother to post notices. If, for example, editors agreed to abolish the consensus list, and no one had posted a notice on the Trump page, I'd be pretty freaking pissed.
:The consensus list is a collection of RfC and discussion results. That's all it is. It's basically a psuedo-FAQ/timestamp: it reflects a moment in time in which editors came to a consensus. People agreed that X was how it should be done in the past, so no one is allowed to change it to Y without first establishing a new consensus. Very reasonable, in my opinion. And—the key to its enduring success—it's ''not binding''. Consensus items can, and ''have'', been superseded. Old items are looked at and changed. Editors just need to gather a consensus to do so.
:The Trump page is not a normal page. Hell, it isn't even a normal ''large'' page. Without defined consensuses to fall back on... oh my God. The timesinks. The waste of editor time. The rehashing of old, useless topics. The endless bickering. There's a reason why [[Muhammed]] has [[Talk:Muhammad/FAQ|a FAQ]], and it's very similar to why the consensus list exists.
:I can confidently state that, IMO, the consensus list is one of the greatest innovations to come out of Wikipedia in the last ten years, and I think that every CTOP article of a similar size should adopt it.
:Also, I don't think any consensuses that are currently in effect on the Trump talk page consist of {{tq|two people agreeing}}. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm too lazy to check. At the very least, since I started editing the article, it's been the exact opposite: multilayered discussions that lead to RfCs are pretty standard (see [[Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 166]] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_159#January_6_deaths this]), as are 'smaller' discussions that don't quite reach RfC level.
:I'm a fan of the consensus list. A massive fan. [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 22:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
::If it's an informal FAQ, then call it an informal FAQ -- I don't think anybody objects to keeping ''that'' at the top of the page -- the only thing I object to is people on a talk page inventing a policy where all content is subject to an additional made-up process that they're in charge of. The process of adding or removing things from the current-consensus list should be downstream of what happens article and the talk page. That is: "the consensus page says we must XYZ" should NEVER override a consensus on the actual talk page/article that "we shouldn't XYZ". This is all I say. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 01:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
:::The consensus page is updated constantly. There is no real danger that the consensus page will fail to reflect a consensus on the talk page. If such a scenario does happen, it would be fixed pretty quickly in 99% of cases. [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 01:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
::::What does this have to do with what I said? There is obviously nothing wrong with having a pinned section at the top of a talk page that simply links to (or includes) the outcomes of content RfCs -- I agree with this and have said so repeatedly. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 02:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|1=That is: "the consensus page says we must XYZ" should NEVER override a consensus on the actual talk page/article that "we shouldn't XYZ"}}<br>Sure. But an informal discussion should not overrule an RFC. If the consensus page is a record of multiple RFCs/large discussions, a small discussion would also not overrule those. It has no power beyond the discussions it lists. —&nbsp;[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 17:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
*In the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_169&oldid=1225117034 here] on the Trump talk page, not going along with consensus item #25 was called a violation, as if it were policy. As it turned out, consensus item #25 mischaracterized the result of discussions that it was based on and should not have applied to the edit in question. The edit was prevented from going into the article because consensus item #25 had to be changed first. Some attempt was made at a change but it did not go anywhere. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 01:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|called a violation, as if it were policy}} - [[WP:CONSENSUS]] is policy. Congratulations, you've astutely identified an imperfection in the system (a very rare one in my experience, and I've been around the Trump list since its inception in ~2016). Hardly an argument for scrapping the system. Bottom line there is that the issue was discussed at great length, including the argument you make above, and you lost. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 01:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
*Agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x and Cessaune, in particular with Cessaune as to notification. That was ''completely'' out of line&mdash;again&mdash;and it's getting to the point where it should earn sanctions.{{pb}}What is the point of local consensuses that nobody can remember in the long term? Do consensuses have an expiration date? Do they stop counting and require "refresh" when most of the contributing editors have moved on? Where is that in the policy, and how would it make sense anyway? Even when we can remember them, what's so awful about making it easy to find the related discussions?{{pb}}I have no "proof", but I believe many editors are willing to spend more of their time helping establish a consensus when they know the product of their effort won't disappear into the archives and be forgotten by next year. That's good for the project.{{pb}}Any "set in stone" arguments are ''completely baseless'', at least at [[Talk:Donald Trump]] (no experience with the lists elsewhere). Twenty percent of the items in that list [[WP:CCC|have been superseded]], a healthy percentage. If items are more set in stone elsewhere, then fix that without throwing the baby out with the bath water. If editors don't understand/respect [[WP:CCC]], that problem is not caused by the consensus list. We really need to stop blaming systems and start blaming editors who misuse or abuse them.{{pb}}Otherwise I don't care to read all of this massive wall of text. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 06:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
*:Donald Trump is one of the weird ones..... there's consensus that the article can be very large for going accessibility concerns? This is just odd. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
*::Sorry, no idea what you're saying there&mdash;or how it pertains to a discussion about the merits of consensus lists. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 00:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::Can't mention the article is too long is a weird thing for a consensus. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 00:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::I'm left to guess that you disagree with [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] 64. Too bad; it's a consensus. And that has nothing to do with the consensus list; the consensus would exist with or without the list. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 01:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
*:::::That's exactly the problem..... Thank you for expressing my point..... that the page is so inviting and seems so collaborative. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 01:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::That's a page issue, not a consensus list issue, which is the point Mandruss is making. [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 02:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
*::::::{{tq|the page is so inviting and seems so collaborative.}} Unidentified sarcasm impedes communication, if that's what that was. I never use it and I encourage all editors to avoid it. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 05:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
*:FWIW, see the Brilliant Idea barnstar that I received in January 2017 from {{u|MelanieN}}, then a respected admin (no longer an admin but I assume still respected): "For coming up with the idea of a List of Consensuses, and maintaining it as a very helpful addition to [[Talk:Donald Trump]]." It's on my user page. (Melanie mistakenly gave me all the credit, which should have been shared with {{u|JFG}}.) It's far from the only positive feedback from experienced editors, just the easiest to find. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 03:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
*The idea of having links to previous relevant discussions is useful. For example, if someone reverts an edit they should give the reason in a statement in the edit summary and add, "See consensus item #xx ." In that way, if an editor wants to appeal the revert on the talk page, the previous discussions can be used as a starting point for the new discussion instead of having to repeat them. The editor then has the opportunity to show that the previous discussions did not apply and that the reversion of their edit is incorrect. An editor who is just trying to make an edit to the article should not be required to campaign to change a statement of a consensus item that may mischaracterize previous discussions. The editor should only be required to show that their edit improves the article.{{pb}}I think we want to avoid the situation where an editor justifies a revert by treating a consensus item like a law: "I'll concede that #25 did not anticipate this situation. Nevertheless, its letter precludes this addition (the source in question is not dead) and would require amendment."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_169&oldid=1225117034] [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 05:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
*:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1225844142] Thank (the deity of your choice) for talk space diffs; they save us from having to repeat ourselves. It's not going to be useful to debate a "problem" that almost never occurs. Those rare cases can and should be handled in local discussion, as that one was. [[WP:CREEP]] applies even where there is no actual guideline. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 06:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


* From my experience editing the [[Donald Trump]] article, he is ''so'' controversial that it is very beneficial to have an institutional memory of consensus. This is not set in stone, a new RfC can overwrite any old consensus. If you remove this and Trump gets elected again... good luck to all the editors of the page. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 14:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
{{archive top|status=none|result='''The restrictions remain unchanged.'''<p> I am closing this discussion after it has been open for about a week. Community consensus is opposed to modifying the restrictions that apply to Δ. I also see no consensus to even relax them as outlined by Rd232. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 19:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)}}
{{user|Δ}} (previously [[User:Betacommand]]) is currently under a series of community-imposed restrictions (listed below, see also original list [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Community-imposed restrictions|here]] and discussion that led to them [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand|here]]):
* Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand [Δ] must propose the task on [[WP:VPR]] and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand [Δ] must wait for a consensus supporting the request ''before'' he may begin.
* Betacommand [Δ] must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.
* Betacommand [Δ] must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.
* Betacommand [Δ] is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an ''uninvolved'' administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard ''prior'' to blocking. Blocks should be logged [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Log of blocks.2C bans.2C and restrictions|here]].
I am proposing that the first two of these restrictions be rescinded, and the third be amended to read "Δ must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time ''while editing under his primary account''." The reasons for this are several. Firstly, Δ is most valuable to the project for his work on bots and automated scripts. He has done outstanding work in these fields in the past, and remains one of the more experienced bot operators Wikipedia has. While it is in part the operation of these automated tools that led to these restrictions, this brings me to my second point. Δ has demonstrated that he is able to maintain and operate a bot within the expectations of our community. As a result of a community discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=375375818#Relaxing_or_rescinding_of_community-imposed_restrictions_on_User:Betacommand_.2F_.CE.94 here] and a subsequent Arbitration Committee motion [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive215#Arbitration_motion_regarding_User:Δ|here]], he manages [[User:Δbot]], which does a good job of clerking the (frankly overcomplicated) pages at [[WP:SPI]]. Thirdly, these changes to Δ's restriction continue to restrict him from operating scripts from his main account, which in large part was what led to difficulties previously. Δ would still be required to obtain approval from the [[WP:BAG|Bot Approvals Group]] (and/or ArbCom, as appropriate by their previous motions) before operating any other accounts or adding any more tasks to his existing bot.


* I think the best way to think about these are "These are the RfCs we've already had and this is what the outcome was." I don't think it's any different than starting a new section in the Talk: and being told "This is the consensus according to this RfC. Start a new one if you want to change it." Only difference is I can go and look at the RfC without searching and decide if it's stale enough that I think it warrants discussion. It may be worth documenting on a WP: page or Template to help with anyone who tries to treat it different from a normal consensus, but that is ultimately an editor problem &ndash; no different from editors who are delete happy or already bitey. - [[User:AquilaFasciata | AquilaFasciata]] ([[User talk:AquilaFasciata |talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/AquilaFasciata |contribs]]) 16:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I have asked Δ to come and explain what he would like to do on the project if these restrictions were lifted, although he has stated that he will have intermittent internet access for the next few days, so please be patient if you have questions for him. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 03:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*I can't imagine Trump coverage stuff, but I will put in for maintaining FAC's of prior consensus: some time ago, there were many years of much back and forth, arbcom cases, hugh and cry, endless discussions, angry words, and on and on and on, about a certain religious figure's article but then broad consensus was assessed and years and years later, it's still basically settled with a reference to the FAC of prior consensus. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 16:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
* I was going to reply to a comment here and the stopped myself as it was about content, as is half of this discussion. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 01:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
* I think they can be a useful tool to summarise current consensus in regards to the article content as long as they don't go beyond that. As long as they don't stray into other areas than the content of the article itself, they can save editors time that they otherwise would have spent trawling through archives whenever a discussion arises. The Donald Trump one goes beyond the article and discusses all sorts of administrative stuff that has nothing to do with the content of the article. I find that the discussion of the administrative stuff in the Donald Trump one makes it a lot longer than necessary and it has become unwieldly. The COVID-19 pandemic one as compared to the Trump one I find useful, although it could be improved by removing entries which are superseded or obsolete. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 04:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm confused? So are you challenging the validity of the non-content discussions/RfCs that make up the consensus list? [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 05:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm not challenging the validity. I'm questioning the usefulness of including those items in a current consensus page when they start to make it unwieldly. For me the usefulness as a tool for current consensus page is being able to quickly access information. That usefulness starts to be eroded when the current consensus page includes listings for discussions which are either obsolete, superseded or about things which have nothing to do with content and the page takes up over a screen thus requiring scrolling. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 05:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
*:::"Scrolling" might be a little tedious. But it does not even begin to compare to the tediousness of finding old discussions that may or may not exist. Most articles don't have over 160 archived pages. It would be nigh impossible to find ''anything'', unless you personally took part in a specific discussion. Worst case scenario: we can collapse the list. [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 14:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{tq|Worst case scenario: we can collapse the list}}. Or alternatively such lists could exclude obsolete and superseded entries for a starter. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 14:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Sure, I guess. Though I don't feel that the list as it is is as unwieldy as you make it out to be. [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 19:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose getting rid of consensus pages''' - I was involved in creating some of the COVID ones iirc, and would support keeping them. We intentionally created it as a list of RFCs, and we put the dates of each RFC so that people would know how long ago and how frequently the topic had been brought up. It's just a record of the situation, a shortcut to say "see we talked about this already". It does not in any way preclude creating another RFC to overturn the consensus, or to change the page. It does not add any layer of bureaucracy, it just records the bureaucracy we've always had. And helps the tedious repeated citation of the same thing over and over again to new anon IP users who come in to vandalize or POV-push pages. Getting rid of these (at least in the COVID space) will only serve to push out experienced users and invite more POV-pushing. {{pb}}When ideas change, evidence changes, the process is the same regardless of whether these consensus pages exist. You just create a new RFC, and then change the page when the RFC results in favor of the change. That would not be different if we abolished consensus pages. —&nbsp;[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 17:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''View consensus pages highly skeptically, abolish, or set a framework for removal of a consensus''' In the covid close review discussion (directly above) a consensus was used in a buracratic manner to fly in the face of [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. Once the so-called consensus was put in place, it took two RFCs to remove it, noting both RFCs were pretty clearly in favor of removal and/or raised serious questions about the consensus. The closer of the review was comedic in their close stating there was 'no consensus for the consensus' yet this consensus (aka defacto article level policy) was still being pushed by editors supporting a particular content position and I suspect would even have moved any editor over to ANI for violating the 'consensus' (aka censorship rule). Thus the consensus pages are [[WP:SQS]] on steroids. 'If you violate our rules (eg [[WP:CIRCUS]]) and dare to [[WP:IAR]] we will get you a tban, so go back to your other articles and keep your mouth shut' is the result of these so called consensus rules (at least in some cases)... I do see it is useful that consensus exists (that is how humans form [[WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS]]) but the way these consensus pages were used (at least in this covid case) where abusive and contrary to [[WP:5P]]. I suspect these tools are used more often on highly political articles, which I normally try to steer clear of. If we want to keep them, lets at least have a clear policy where consensus must continue to clearly support & demonstrate the so-called "consensus pages" when challenged (in a reasonable timeframe interval and manner such as an RFC), as the discussion above about covid demonstrated that the RFC closing editors believed incorrectly that we needed a tidal-wave of change of opinion to overturn the consensus, rather than more common sense that 'hey it looks like the consensus no longer exists, so we should probably remove it from the consensus page' I am glad the above closure discussion opened this wider discussion as I think it is important that we seek to limit censorship on this platform, the absurdity of this "consensus" was made clear on the covid article in that it banned a wikilink to another wikipedia article, LOL! Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 08:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
{{hat bottom}}


===Block request===
:I really would ''like'' to be able to say I support this, but I have reservations. On the one hand, Beta (or Delta now. Whatever greek letter he wants) has skills which are very useful to the project. On the other hand, Beta has two very serious problems related to the running of his bots which led to the above restrictions. The first is that he has, at times, made poor decisions regarding the running of his bots for sometimes nefarious purposes (such as making thousands of dummy edits to make a page undeletable under technical limits of the Media Wiki software). He also has shown, in the past, problems with personal interactions which are not helpful in a bot operator. Basically, he doesn't interact well when asked to explain his actions, his attitude seems to be "I know better, so leave me alone". This sort of inapproachability is part of the reason for the civility parole. I have concerns about expanding his bot-running privileges given these past problems. I would like to hear from him directly, and especially would like to hear about what he has learned from his troubles and how he intends to operate differently. I am open to being convinced here, I am just not there yet. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 04:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
{{hat top|result=Consensus is that nobody really cares, it's way too late to block someone over this (7 days later?), and the whole tangent is a distraction from the original topic anyway. Maybe the two editors can just go their separate ways for a week and cool off. Who knows?--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 09:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)}}
::Ive spent a long time reviewing my past actions, Ive also spent a considerable amount of time reflecting and analyzing both my actions and the communities (actions and re-actions) and have learned quite a lot. I've since adjusted my approach, and I have changed quite a bit personally. If you would like we could take this to a private conversation off wiki. (I do not want my personal details public). I could write several essays about what I have learned, and about how I fucked up and what I could, (and should have) done differently but my skill with a pen just is not there to give it proper justice, so I would rather just go back to doing what I do best, gnoming. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 13:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
[[User:Nil Einne]] has been overtly hostile, insulting, and noncollegial/over-the-top/passive aggressive in his/her replies/advocacy:
:Support: These restricitons cause nothing but problems [[User:Access Denied|<font color="red">Access Denied</font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Access Denied|<font color="black">[FATAL ERROR]</font>]]</sup> 04:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1225728743 FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING AMERICAN CENTRIC POV. People like you are what make a large chunk of the world very strongly dislike Americans. I'm experienced enough to know many Americans are not like you, but it doesn't make you treating 95% of the world as if they don't matter any more acceptable.]
::Um, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20101009235959&limit=224&target=%CE%94 this] was never asked for at VPR, and 50-60 edits in 10 minutes from 20:28-20:37. Relevant thread: [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive643#Unauthorized bot: Δ again]]. I was fairly forgiving because I didn't know his restriction, but I'm not happy to hear about it now. I'm going with no; if you can't edit according to the already agreed sanctions, you shouldn't have your previous ones lifted, because we can't trust you. Period. [[User:Magog the Ogre|Magog the Ogre]] ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre|talk]]) 04:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1225053761 There may or may not be merit to mention what this small minority of the public believe but there's absolutely nothing stopping us mentioning the general consensus of the public of the most likely origin i.e. that it came from an animal through some natural means. '''Since this confuses you, we would consider re-wording it...]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=1225729063 One editor has gone so far as to imply that because a majority of Americans agree with something that means a majority of the world does, which is clear and utter nonsense and also nothing to do with whether we should remove these.]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=1225729831 I can say the FAQ prevented people who think Americans represent the world making harmful changes to the article based on such a PoV but I have no evidence so will not make such a claim.]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=1225730988 further explanation of how incredibly stupid the claims are]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=1225733286 I'll acknowledge I was being needless provocative...] but no apology or striking of comments


[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANil_Einne&diff=1226278596&oldid=1221945056 Notification as required]
*I agree with Jayron's initial sentence. How many times has Δ/Betacommand been given an inch, only to take a mile? There have been too many secondsecondsecond chances here. He can continue editing under these restrictions (though as Magog points out, he actually hasn't), or he can go elsewhere. →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#082567;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#082567;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;04:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)</small>
*Generally per Jayron32. I'm OK with "triangle" and have asked him to help collate information in the past (when he was just Betacommand), he is really quite skilled in that area or at least has a decent framework to execute tasks on. I've seen no positive indication that he will interact better with the general community though, Hersfold, can you point to a successful execution of a [[WP:VPR]] request for leave to make a series of edits? Did that ever happen once? [[User:Franamax|Franamax]] ([[User talk:Franamax|talk]]) 05:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*As with others, I have reservations. These restrictions were put in place to protect the community, and certainly not without reason. He drained far, far too much from this project in the past because he had useful skills, and I have no desire to go down that route again. As of yet, I've not seen compelling reason to lift these restrictions, and in fact has broken one of said restrictions just recently. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 05:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*Based upon the available evidence, Betacommand/Δ seems no more trustworthy now than he was when the restrictions were enacted, so I oppose. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 05:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per problematic history of unauthorized bot activity, incivility, and negligent operation of automated and semi-automated tasks. [[User:Peter Karlsen|Peter Karlsen]] ([[User talk:Peter Karlsen|talk]]) 07:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I've detected absolutley no change in attitude that would justify this as yet. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 08:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


No one should have to put up with this. Requesting administrative action/oversight/other as appropriate. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
'''Point of order &mdash; further information about this request, need a statement from Delta; please'''. I'm a bit confused about how this request came to be here. I don't see any discussion between Delta/Beta and Hersfold on their user talk pages about this request, though I gather that there was some communication between them in other fora. It's rather unusual for an unblocked, unbanned editor ''not'' to make requests for changes to paroles and sanctions on their own behalf. It also seems less than helpful &ndash; and kind of disrespectful to the community, Hersfold &ndash; for such a third-party request to be made while Delta is going to have limited connectivity. (Why couldn't this have waited a week?) At this point, there's no visible participation at all by Delta in this process; we don't have any information about what ''he'' wants, or why ''he'' believes that this request should be granted. I'm disappointed in Hersfold for bringing this forward under such inopportune circumstances, in Delta for going along with it (presuming he agreed) and with the editors above for being willing to jump to judgement without input from Delta.


:Oh dear lord. Just what we needed, making this even ''more'' drama-filled. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 18:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Hersfold, you should withdraw this request until such time as Delta is able to participate fully in it. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 13:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:You came to AN and made some bullshit claim about "a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin" of COVID-19 is from a Chinese lab. When I challenged you on this, the only evidence you were able to provide is that a majority of the American general public may believe that COVID-19 came from a Chinese lab<del>, and the the majority of the general public the UK (an English speaking country which strong political and social ties to the US), do ''not'' think so</del><ins>edit:</ins> and about 50 UK lecturers think so<ins>(end edit)</ins> . In other words, you made a claim about the general consensus of the public based only on what Americans believe. I stand by my statement that it's an incredibly harmful worldview to think what Americans may think somehow represents the "general consensus of the public" or is somehow the only thing that matters and no one should ever be making such statements on Wikipedia. Yes I acknowledge I should not have made claims about what the general public believes which I will I have no evidence since it did not help the discussion even if I was just doing the same thing as you, but since I have now made it clear that I have no evidence I don't see much point striking such statements. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 18:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:I discussed and requested Hersfold to do this for several reasons, He was a mentor of mine for a year, He has always been better at drafting request that me (I make the same points but just not as well worded), I have been doing quite a lot of gnoming lately and I have noticed several areas where I help improve the encyclopedia in some of these cases automated processes would drastically improve the process, and I have also seen quite a few [[WP:BOTREQ|Bot requests]] go stale due to a lack of qualified willing bot operators, while I sit around twiddling my thumbs. As for my connection issues, I let Hersfold know that I would have intermittent connection for a short time, (knowing he would post the request soon). That ended last night, however when he posted I was already offline for the day. As I stated above I just want to go back to doing what I do best, gnoming. I have a project Im working on right now that appears to me a fairly large task (15k+ items) that Ive been slowly working on for the last few months manually. I know my actions of the past have caused drama and that is something I don't like, and I am trying to avoid as often as I can. As I have stated I want to go back to my roots (running non-controversial, useful bots) and avoid the drama that led to my burnout (dramafest). [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 13:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::I would have thought it's more likely for specific exceptions to be agreed for specified tasks than a blanket lifting of restrictions, if you can show that the tasks have community support and how the restrictions limit your ability to do them. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 14:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::However I have struck the needlessly provocative parts of my original statement. I didn't see much point since you had already replied to it, but since it matters to you, I've done so. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 18:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Agreed. We did that for the SPI bot, and I see no reason why we can't also consider another exception for your "fairly large task". Define this task for us and we can consider it. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 17:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I've also struck the "one editor" and "I can say" bits and acknowledge it was harmful to the discussion to make those statement there. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 19:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry I missed until now that the UK thing was for scientists (actually lecturers) not the general public. This does not change my view though, it's an irrelevant data point because such surveys are notoriously unreliable for testing anything useful since there is no way to test for non responses etc. (And that's assuming company involved actually did a decent job of trying to randomly sample.) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 19:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Indeed. "I want to perform an unspecified task comprising 15,000+ items, so please turn me loose!" (scare quotes) is hardly the best approach. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::This thread is about behavior alone. I'll address the rest of this above other than to say you only seem contrite when pushed. I will let others assess whether this is sufficient. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 19:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Please don't misrepresent this, I am not asking to "be let loose", rather just the freedom to file [[WP:BRFA|request for approvals]] for tasks that cross my path. Each task will then be assessed by the community, and [[WP:BAG|BAG]] to determine the feasibility of each task. I am not asking for blanket approval on any bot activity, rather the ability to seek approval through the normal methods. As for my current project, a full listing of affected pages can be found [[tools:~betacommand/mostredlink2.txt|here]] which is just over 15,100 pages. It is a listing of all articles which include deleted/non-existent files. I've been going though that list slowly for the last 6 months doing the cleanup myself. Ive got several other ideas on the drawing board but no clue if they will ever leave that. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 19:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Yes but as always on AN, it's about the behaviour of everyone involved in the dispute. You have and continued to make claims without evidence on AN, and when editors challenge you on this, instead of acknowledging your lack of evidence, you just double down or provide evidence which does not support the claim made in any meaningful way. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 19:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::The restrictions in question were enacted with very good reason. Please explain what has changed to warrant their removal. How will you behave differently than you did before? If someone objects to an ongoing task, how will you respond? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 19:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::The demands for information you are making are unobtainable and unreasonable. There are no polls to back your opinions which you admit. The polls I have back my opinions, but they don't exist outside the US (as far as I can find). You have zero evidence to the contrary. I am not going to debate this here any further. If you want to argue with someone about those points, please do so above. This is about your profane and inexcusable remarks. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 05:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You might want to take a look at my response to Jayron32. As for objections, that is a loaded question, it really depends on what the objection is, almost no two objections are the same and thus cannot be responded to in the same manor. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*Assuming this is uncharacteristic behavior, I don't see a need to sanction NE for this, as long as it doesn't continue. But I'll note that NE is clearly annoyed, and has edited this thread '''a lot''' in the last hour, and might want to take the advice at the top of their talk page for a day or two. (not necessarily WP as a whole, but this topic.) --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 19:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I'm sorry, Beta, but vague statements about having seen the error or your ways don't cut it anymore. Not after all of the chances that you've been given. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
::Whether characteristic or not, {{tq|FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING AMERICAN CENTRIC POV}} ({{oldid2|1225728743}}) should have been met with a significant response. That is not appropriate from any editor on Wikipedia, at any point, regardless of their level of annoyance or history on the project and letting it slide from a user with extra rights (rollback, pending changes reviewer) particularly is not setting a good example. [[User:Adam Black|<span style="color:red">Adam</span> <span style="color:blue">Black</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Adam Black|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Adam_Black|<span style="color:orange">contribs</span>]]</sup> 20:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
{{od|7}}You could perhaps take the time to discuss the objections (without causing trouble in the process) and coming to an agreement with the editor. Then you could ask for input from a third party ([[WP:3O]]) if you and the other editor cannot come to an agreement. That's just one possible route to take, though, and I'm sure that each objection will have a different best practice for dealing with it, however, most of the time, what I recommend here (civil discussion) would be involved somehow. [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]])</sup> 21:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Agreed! [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk:SmolBrane|talk]]) 20:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:Thats just one of a dozen different approaches that could be taken depending on the user, their objection, and why they are objecting. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 21:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::And could just as effectively have been addressed in a separate level-2 thread, more appropriately at [[WP:ANI]]. There was little to no need to attach it here. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 20:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed. My point was, in essence, that of the many different paths you could take in dealing with an objection, civil discussion must be involved. I raise this point because of some editors' concerns seen above about civility, and not necessarily because of my own opinion (I haven't looked deeply into the recent or far history of this, and so I do not have an opinion to share on this request attm.) [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]])</sup> 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::Actually, for you Beta, that's the <u>only</u> approach to take. The big question is, if someone objects, will you stop your bot? [[User:Franamax|Franamax]] ([[User talk:Franamax|talk]]) 23:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::::There should be plenty of eyes here. Why are we adding layers of bureaucracy? [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 15:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I disagree that it doesn't matter if it is characteristic behavior. It makes a tremendous difference whether something is a one-off or habitual. In general, I feel WP comes down too hard on one-off incivility due to frustration, and not hard enough on habitual incivility. For the former, a short warning suffices, for the latter, a more significant response is needed. I'm also puzzled why you think it's reasonable to assume I suggested no sanctions because of NE's "extra rights" <small>(rollback?!)</small>. I don't think it was unreasonable for Buffs to object, I don't think Buffs should have to put up with that, and I don't feel strongly whether attaching it to this thread was good or bad. I just think sanctions are not necessary. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:::With any issue there are always multiple resolution solutions, however like Ks0stm stated remaining calm and civil is key. I actually used to have a feature enabled in my code that shut the bot off when it received the orange bar of death, I ended up shutting that off due to abuse. But with the ideas and tasks that I have planned, re-enabling it shouldn't be that much of an issue. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 23:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::::I did not mean to imply that I thought you suggested no sanctions because of their extra rights. Rather, it was meant to say that I think any editor who has been granted extra rights should be held to even higher scrutiny. I was not suggesting any impropriety on your part. [[User:Adam Black|<span style="color:red">Adam</span> <span style="color:blue">Black</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Adam Black|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Adam_Black|<span style="color:orange">contribs</span>]]</sup> 21:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::For me to even consider supporting the proposed modifications to your restrictions, you would need to agree to stop your bot immediately upon receiving a complaint from a user in good standing, not restart it until the issue has been resolved or a community discussion has resulted in consensus that it is not grounds to halt the task, and revert any changes that the community deems harmful (irrespective of whether they were approved in advance). —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::I agree with trying to clean up the page and correcting errant editors. FYI, there's still the following comment on the page, "Sorry, we're currently oversubscribed with people being assholes to everyone they encounter right off the bat. We cannot accept any more applications for that position for several months. Until then, please fuck off."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1226321543#user_harrassment] [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 22:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:I think that David Levy's suggestion is a good one; there needs to be assurances that, when reasonable objections arise to a bots activity, the bot is stopped until such time as the objections are dealt with. Given Beta/Delta's past, we need to take the default action to be to stop the bot activity if there is ANY doubt about what the bot is doing. Unlike David Levy, I am very willing to be convinced that Betacommand's restrictions can be relaxed in limited cases. To be fair, other than the recent glitch noted above, he's kept his nose clean since his return, insofar as I haven't seen his name on the dramaboards at all. At some point, given a long period of good behavior, we need to consider '''slowly''' relaxing restrictions, regardless of our personal problems with Beta. I would be the first to admit that, especially in the past, I did not like him. I will not mince words on that issue. Still, my own personal tastes need to be put aside, and we need to consider what can be good for the Wiki. It would be good to see some trial relaxations. One posibility I could propose would be that all bot requests at [[WP:BAG]] would need a notice posted to [[WP:AN]], so that the wider community could review his requests; more eyes would be a good thing. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 00:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
::I actually am quite willing to be convinced, but I haven't been yet; Beta's statements have been far too vague. Given his propensity to exploit technicalities (both real and imagined), it's important to eliminate any ambiguity. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 01:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:::As am I, which is why I would rather we moved to discussing the specifics of what BC/Beta/Delta hopes to accomplish. Discussing lifting the sanctions in vague terms accomplishes very little. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 06:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


:Struggling to see what this (or the WOT that triggered it) has to do with the topic at hand (consensus lists). Never mind the usual problems created by off-topic diversions&mdash;do you think other editors care about your little spat in the preceding section?&mdash;you do realize you're keeping a gigantic multi-section discussion on the page longer than might otherwise be necessary? Please learn when to go to a user talk page. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 20:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::My first major task, which I have manually been working on is removal of deleted/missing images, as I stated above, my goal is to file a BRFA for missing/deleted image removal using AWB. (I cant seem to figure out a good regex myself for removal). I was hoping for general relaxing of the restrictions so that I could avoid a majority of the knee jerk reactions that people have when me and bots are brought up. I actually think Jayron32's proposal above makes good sense. One of the main reasons Ive avoided VPR is just like this discussion, there are a flood of users who regardless of what I may say or do, just think that I should be banned from bots forever, regardless of how the circumstances may change. For the most part its just not worth the drama fight necessary to get small scale projects done. (Ive privately poked a few bot ops with ideas in the past). If anyone would like clarity on anything specifically let me know or just ask for it. Also if anyone wants to see how I respond to objections draft a situation up and an objection and it can be "role played" though. Short of someone objecting its the best case example that I can come up with. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 20:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
::Conventional progression was waived when "''FUCK YOU''" were declared. [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk:SmolBrane|talk]]) 22:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Obviously, if someone wants to see how you respond to objections, they can check e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%CE%94&diff=next&oldid=385362131 this discussion] on your talk page from just one month ago, where you reacted to being called "Betacommand" with '''"Since you cannot show me the basic respect to use the right username I think this conversation is over with."''' (emphasis mine). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 07:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
:I'll make two additional comments for now. One is that I agree experienced editors should be held to a higher standard than new editors. I wouldn't bring rights much in to it except for admins, except when those rights are related to the offence. Two is that while I should have expressed myself far better, from my PoV when an editor says "{{tqi|a general consensus of the public that}}" and another editor in an indirect way asks them for the evidence for this; and the primary evidence they provide is what the majority of Americans believe with the only other population based evidence UK lecturers (albeit incorrectly thought to be UK population) which isn't a majority anyway; I find it hard to understand what this editor is trying to say other than evidence of what the majority is Americans believe is enough to demonstrate what's a "general consensus of the public". I find this extremely offensive for reasons which I've outlined even if poorly. Americans represent less then 5% of the world's population so they cannot be in any way taken as a proxy for the "general consensus of the public". If this isn't what the editor was trying to say, then I apologise. But despite multiple attempts to get the editor to explain, they still haven't done so in a way that I can understand. If any other editors were able to understand what this editor was trying to tell me, then it would help me if they are able to explain it to me either here or on my talk page. I will refrain from editing the above subthread any further except for strikes if I realise from this I've misunderstood something. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 23:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::: It would help people to extend good will to Delta if he had a link on his Talk page to his archives. The current revision of his talk page no longer contains that thread, which from the page history was archived [[User talk:Δ/20100901|here]]. (Further, the name of that archive page leads one to suspect there are even more talk archives in Delta's userspace, which would require anyone wanting to evaluate his behavior since his name change to do some determined fishing in order to find them.) -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 18:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
::Additional rights, of any description, are given to ''trusted'' members of the community. That is why I brought them up. I appreciate everything you've said but you have thus far given no reasonable explanation for the language you used. Expletives have their place in some articles and discussions, Wikipedia isn't censored after all, but {{tq|FUCK YOU}} etc. isn't a justified reaction by any stretch of the imagination. Although as [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] pointed out above you aren't the only one to use utterly unacceptable language on this noticeboard in recent days, the other being an administrator. Perhaps [[WP:CIVIL]] needs a rewrite - it seems only some editors are expected to abide by it while others can say what they like with impunity. [[User:Adam Black|<span style="color:red">Adam</span> <span style="color:blue">Black</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Adam Black|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Adam_Black|<span style="color:orange">contribs</span>]]</sup> 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
:::[[WP:BRIE]] is relevant here, but it seems to be regularly unenforced. It would be unfortunate if this led to double standards on enforcement. One wonders if editors can freely lob f-bombs at one another here, now. [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk:SmolBrane|talk]]) 03:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Apparently we've devolved that far as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1226321543#user_harrassment Floq did just that] with no sanction either. Apparently being civil has WAY lower standards than I thought; I must have misread it. Perhaps someone can correct me on what I'm missing:
:::::[[WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL|Identifying incivility]] " The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:
:::::*Direct rudeness
:::::**'''[[Wikipedia:Don't be rude|rudeness]], insults, name-calling, gross [[profanity]]''' or indecent suggestions
:::::**[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]], including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and '''derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities'''
:::::**'''belittling a fellow editor''', including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. '''"that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen"''', "snipped crap")
:::::*Other uncivil behaviours
:::::**'''quoting another editor [[Quoting out of context|out of context]]''' to give the impression they meant something they did not.
::::Seems pretty clear-cut to me, but what do I know? [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 15:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
::Ironically, responding to something you don't understand with "fuck you" is very common in America. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 01:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
:I think there is some basis for us to put up with stuff like "this is a stupid argument", because well, sometimes people make arguments that are stupid. But something like "{{tq|FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING AMERICAN CENTRIC POV. People like you are what make a large chunk of the world very strongly dislike Americans}}" is worthless, unnecessary and mean: if this isn't worth a block, nothing is. If I weren't [[WP:INVOLVED]] and I saw this I would do it myself. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 01:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' and troutslap anyone who proposes such a thing in the future. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Nearly a week...nothing? [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 05:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
*We do have a policy that also is against the American centric POV, forgot the wikilink but have seen it in the past. Maybe someone could wikilink that policy here. I do no support the profanity however. Next, I dont much travel the politics articles (just too much negativity), so take my comments with a grain of salt. Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 09:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
*:The <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Globalize|Globalize]]}} template links to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]]. I'm not sure whether there's a specific policy page. [[User:Adam Black|<span style="color:red">Adam</span> <span style="color:blue">Black</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Adam Black|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Adam_Black|<span style="color:orange">contribs</span>]]</sup> 09:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
{{hat bottom}}


== Misuse of wiki warning notice by a new editor or sp!? ==
In sum, if Delta follows the terms of Restriction 1 and proposes his specific task at VPR, he can as part of that proposal explain why restrictions 2 and 3 would be a particular limitation for that task, and ask for them to be relaxed ''for that specific task''. A general lifting does not seem on the cards, at least at this point. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 10:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
{{atop|status=closed|result=[[User:Mabyn Pajari]] has been blocked by Spicy. See [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=162443398 the log].<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SafariScribe|SafariScribe]] ([[User talk:SafariScribe#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|contribs]]) 00:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>[[Special:Diff/1226991127|<diff>]]</sup>}}


[[User:Mabyn Pajari]] interestingly created account today and started a campaign against all ip edits without merit and sending warning notice wholesale and not responding any of ip messeges. Admin should stop him for Wiki and group works! Thanks - [[Special:Contributions/2A02:3035:609:765E:D99E:62B8:2894:5C1C|2A02:3035:609:765E:D99E:62B8:2894:5C1C]] ([[User talk:2A02:3035:609:765E:D99E:62B8:2894:5C1C|talk]]) 13:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', is not able to handle objections in a reasonable way (see e.g. the link I gave above). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 07:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for many of the reasons above. Don't think lifting them would be a good idea. -[[User:Djsasso|DJSasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
:got blocked as a Hamish Ross sock. [[User:Victor Schmidt|Victor Schmidt]] ([[User talk:Victor Schmidt|talk]]) 14:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I admit that I may not know all the history and I understand the misgivings that many of the above editors have but I am going to be bold and be the first support that I can see and be willing to see this user get another chance at redeeming their honor and this is a worthwhile task that he wants to perform to do that. Remember, This is only to rescind the first 2 of the 4 restrictions. Although I am not sure myself how to stop a bot from making more than 4 edits a minute. The bot and its operator are still restricted to no more than 4 edits a minute and they are still being watched. Otherwise my advice is that someone else on this page needs to step forward and volunteer to perform the task that he is recommending. --[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' - per Rd232, and that the user has a very hard time following community norms and restrictions placed by the community. I have no issue with task specific relaxation of specific sanctions, but only through a proper bot review process. --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] ([[User talk:Rocksanddirt|talk]]) 21:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{archive bottom}}


== Thoughts on ARBPIA objectivity ==
== Request uninvolved merge-discussion close ==
{{archive top|result=This seems to be a pretty clear request for arbitration enforcement against the same editor named in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#JDiala]]. Rajoub570's concerns are best addressed in that thread, where they have already added their comments after having been notified about the parallel discussion. With that resolved, I don't see a need for this parallel discussion and would direct editors with input on JDiala's editing to proceed to the thread open at AE. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 15:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)}}
Hello, the [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict|Israeli-Palestinian conflict]], what is known here as [[Wikipedia:ARBPIA|ARBPIA]], is a very sensitive issue in the world.


My personal opinion, as one whose conflict also concerns his personal life (I am Palestinian :)) One should deal with the issue carefully and not light the fire for nothing. I would like to raise the issue of one editor - @[[User:JDiala|JDiala]]'s behavior that, as I see it, not only has a troubling effect on the neutrality of Wikipedia, but also harms the chance of a peaceful and quiet life in our area.
Two merge discussions at [[Talk:Longevity myths#Merge discussion]] and [[Talk:Longevity myths#Merge counterproposal]] appear to be over. As per [[WP:MM]], would someone please determine whether they should be closed and archived, or relisted somewhere to restart discussion? There are also larger issues involved, and, after performing this minor request, it would be useful to consider contributing at [[WP:FTN#Longevity-cruft]] or elsewhere, or to request additional links. [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 21:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached'''</span> in the ''next'' 48-hour bot-enforced limit.<br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 20:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)</small><!-- modified from Template:Relist -->


Here are some examples:
== Mass redirect deletion request ==


# In the past, they featured quotes from Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar (who, no matter how we define him, is probably one of those responsible, along with Netanyahu and the extreme right from Israel, for the ongoing current conflict) on their talk page [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JDiala&oldid=1207410520 link]]. They also made clear the quotes were in praise of Sinwar [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJDiala&diff=1199038800&oldid=1197157650 link]]. They were removed only after a lengthy discussion on this page.
Can a kind (and deletion hungry :) ) admin please delete some 30-odd implausible redirects listed at [[Talk:List of settlements in Bosnia and Herzegovina#Mis-merged villages]]? Thanks. [[User:No such user|No such user]] ([[User talk:No such user|talk]]) 09:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
# They currently have a quote on their talk page [<nowiki/>[[User:JDiala|link]]] that can be understood as a justification for the murder of Jews by Palestinians. I think that any quote that starts with "X do not go out to murder Y because they are Y" should not be acceptable on Wikipedia. This is totally unnecessary.
:Some are still liked in to articles. I see no pressing reason to delete these. They are harmless at worst.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 09:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
# A few days ago, they closed an RFC that they themselves opened on the "Israel" page, which raises a question of integrity [discussion on this is still on going above, [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Talk:Israel#RfC: Apartheid in Lead|link]]].
# Recently, they stated that Israel is a rough state of the same level of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan on Israel's talk page [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsrael&diff=1226887018&oldid=1226886913 link]]. In the same message they wrote that "For Israel, war crimes are a ''sine qua non'', a core aspect of its existence", and stated that, unlike Israel, "Other states like China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies, with large economies, deep histories, and immense global influence beyond their militarism, and this richness is reflected by [[WP:RS]].", a weird comment.


It looks like I am not the first to raise concerns on this. I looked up his talk page and saw that editors have been asking them to moderate their language many times in the past decade. [<nowiki/>[[User talk:JDiala#perverse, POV Zionist narrative?|link]] - December 2014], [<nowiki/>[[User talk:JDiala#Agreeing to Disagree|link]] - May 2015], [<nowiki/>[[User talk:JDiala#"Zionist state" on the talk page for 2023 Israel-Hamas war|link]] - January 2024], [<nowiki/>[[User talk:JDiala#"Zionist narrative"|link]] - February 2024].
::Um, none should be linked to -- which exactly? Those entities simply do not exist. Besides, every redirect is harmless, but we do have [[WP:RFD]] and CSD R3. [[User:No such user|No such user]] ([[User talk:No such user|talk]]) 10:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
::: I spot-checked a few using [[Special:WhatLinksHere]]: for example, [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Zavalje i Zlopoljac|Zavalje i Zlopoljac]] ([[Bihać#Settlements]]) and [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Vršani i Zagoni|Vršani i Zagoni]] ([[Bijeljina#Settlements]]) are linked from their municipalities. Oddly, [[Bijeljina#Municipal subdivisions]] has [[Vršani]] and [[Zagoni]] separated, but Zagoni redirects to [[Zagoni (Bratunac)]]. [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 04:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


The editor was even banned for a week last December for violating the 1RR rule. [<nowiki/>[[User talk:JDiala#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion|link]]]
== New AfD tool ==


As a Palestinian, whose life is affected daily by the conflict, with my criticisms of Israel, I find this behavior problematic for Wikipedia. I think we should try our best to promote neutral coverage of the conflict. I think it is necessary to ask JDiala not to deal at all with a topic that is obvious to everyone that arouses their anger. Their edits hurt the project, and ultimately the Palestinians as well.
I have had an AfD parser available for a while, but due to some toolserver configuration changes it has broke, Since I am unable to fix the issue that caused the break I re-wrote my parser so that scans all active AfDs. A full listing of all parsed AfDs can be found at [[tools:~betacommand/reports/afd]], However in the process of re-writing the tool I have also implemented a summary tool, its [[WP:RFASUM]] but for AfDs which can be found at [[tools:~betacommand/AFD.html]] if you have any questions,feature requests, or bugs please let me know. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:PS please note that you can sort that table by any column. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
::I have already been finding this the best way to scan quickly the thousand or so open AfDs. Thanks! '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 06:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


Please don't add fuel to the fire.
== Bot running wild? ==


[[User:Rajoub570|Rajoub570]] ([[User talk:Rajoub570|talk]]) 14:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
{{Resolved|Sfan00 IMG is not a bot. Use his talk page first before filing premature AN reports. -'''[[User:Fastily|<span style='font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; color:#4B0082'><big>F</big><small>ASTILY</small></span>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Fastily|<font color="#4B0082">(T<small>ALK</small>)</font>]]</small></sup> 02:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)}}
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' <!-- from Template:discussion top-->


:Please note the current AE thread (opened by me). [[User:FortunateSons|FortunateSons]] ([[User talk:FortunateSons|talk]]) 14:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Thought I'd drop by during the course of my attempts to take a break and I found a bot notice on my talk page from [[User:Sfan00 IMG]] regarding a fair use image I uploaded more than four years ago from Trainweb.org. The user/bot's history page is a long line of these notices issued on what appear to be perfectly fair photos. I took the time to remove the deletion notice; the photo is justified under this site's own rules and I have done work with that the webmaster of that particular Trainweb portal before. Basically, it's a snapshot of an old railroad crossing signal. If I lived near San Jose, California, I'd gladly take a snapshot of the thing myself. It is the last one of this particular type of signal in use in California. --[[User:PMDrive1061|PMDrive1061]] ([[User talk:PMDrive1061|talk]]) 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:What are your thoughts on the role of honesty in ARBPIA? Is it important? [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:Sfan ''is'' correct, all trainweb images must meet our [[WP:NFCC|non-free content policies]], The image(s) in question do not have a non-free rationale, Nor does [[:File:Griswold bayshore12.jpg]] meet the criteria because it can be replaced with a free license version of the file. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 15:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
::Is there context I missed? [[User:FortunateSons|FortunateSons]] ([[User talk:FortunateSons|talk]]) 15:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:::No, you haven't missed any context or anything related to the AE report FortunateSons as far as I'm aware (although you might want to check some of the diffs in your AE report. I think some may not take people to the section you intended e.g. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive361]. The AE report is a reasonable report with legitimate concerns as far as I can tell. My question was for Rajoub570 specifically. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== New user is making bizarre, inappropriate edits, not interested in discussion ==
OK. Working on that right now. He's online and explained the situation. I thought it might have been posted by a bot. [[User:PMDrive1061|PMDrive1061]] ([[User talk:PMDrive1061|talk]]) 15:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


I'm getting some strong [[WP:NOTHERE]] vibes from {{user3|Colorationarian}}; edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Adventures_of_the_American_Rabbit&diff=prev&oldid=1227102146 this] (added again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Adventures_of_the_American_Rabbit&diff=prev&oldid=1227114210 here]) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monster_(R.E.M._album)&diff=prev&oldid=1227103310 this] make me wonder what his motivations are and edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Has_District&diff=prev&oldid=1227083578 this] are just clearly inappropriate. In spite of the fact that his talk page solicits users to tell him what he did wrong, he seems [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colorationarian&diff=prev&oldid=1227107634 not at all] interested in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colorationarian&diff=prev&oldid=1227110990 explaining his arcane reasoning]. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 20:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, <u>[[User:Sfan00 IMG]] is not a bot account!!!</u> –[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 19:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:I gave up that fight a long time ago, regardless of what you may say, people call you a bot and there is nothing you can do to convince them otherwise. I tell people that we have user talk pages for a reason, yet no one seems to use them, rather they jump to AN or ANI (or some other drama board) before trying to make a reasoned logical discussion. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 19:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
::Ah, but I did use his/her talkpage, only to hear crickets. [[User:Shubinator|Shubinator]] ([[User talk:Shubinator|talk]]) 01:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div>


:While I see your point, I think the indef block that has just been issued by {{yo|Bbb23}} is a bit heavy-handed. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 20:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability]] ==
::I'm not fully comfortable with the speed by which we have gone from a template warning to AN thread (10 minutes!) and then to block, particularly when the editor in question has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AColorationarian&diff=1227103694&oldid=1227083590 attempted to understand why they were receiving warnings]. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 20:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:::"Tell me what I did wrong" was posted ''before'' several concerns on his talk page that he ignored. It's actually not obvious that he has any interest in learning. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 20:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::Indefinite isn't infinite. If the user can explain on his talk that he understands why he was blocked and how to be productive in the future, then I personally support unblocking. As an aside, can someone please undo his edits to [[Monster (R.E.M. album)]]? Thanks. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 20:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::Their second edit was making a coded reference to chrischan and sonichu and the disruption around those topics, with them seemingly aware that those topics are "taboo" and not mentioned by name on wikipedia and with them also aware of the previous disruption in this topic area and its history of attracting trolls. How on earth would someone who has genuinely been here for an hour know about the history of disruption in this topic? How would they know that they are topics not to be mentioned by name? How would they know about the messy conflict between trolls, people adding poorly sourced rubbish and editors trying to enforce [[WP:BLP]]? I very strongly doubt that this is a genuine new user. [[Special:Contributions/86.23.109.101|86.23.109.101]] ([[User talk:86.23.109.101|talk]]) 22:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I have to admit I have no idea what any of that means myself. I'm certainly not defending those edits, we shouldn't be amking weird references to internal issues in articles themselves, but there are perfectly legitimate reasons a seemingly new user may be aware of such things. I'm just not seeing a justification for issuing an indef block fifteen minutes after they were informed that there ws a discussion here. I would expect to see ''severe'' disruption to justify something like that. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 23:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I would have agreed with you, until 86.23 connected the dots for me. This is a troll. We need to remove trolls from WP as soon as we can; if for no other reason than WP doesn’t know how to handle trolls. This isn’t biting a newbie. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 01:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] Chrischan is the online name for the person who created sonichu, a web comic about a character which is a hybrid of sonic the hedgehog and Pikachu.
::::The somethingawful forums noticed this webcomic in 2007ish, which started a harassment campaign against it's creator. This spread to Encyclopedia Dramatica, before a standalone site, [[Kiwi Farms]] (formerly known as the CWCki Forums), was created.
::::There have been a number of attempts to create a Chrischan article on wikipedia over the years, and they've pretty much all ended the same way. The articles get flooded with trolls using the site to further the harassment campaign, a lot of good faith but clueless editors add a load of very poorly sourced content to the article, and a load of editors waste a load of time trying to enforce [[WP:BLP]].
::::The eventual consensus reached is that Chrischan isn't notable by wikipedia standards, most of the coverage of them (with the exception of one criminal case) is in very low quality sources and it's generally not a good idea to have an article on a low profile person who is best known for being the victim of online harassment (i.e. [[WP:AVOIDVICTIM]]). See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#Chris_Chan] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive335#Creating_the_%22Chris_Chan%22_article] for some relativley recent threads about this.
::::All the titles where an article about them could be written have all been admin level create protected, and [[Special:AbuseFilter/1159]] is used to track people adding content into other articles.
::::Given the background here I do not believe that somebody who in their second edit essentially said "I want to mention a certain person here, but that's not allowed on wikipedia because it attracts the trolls" is a genuine, good faith newcomer. [[Special:Contributions/86.23.109.101|86.23.109.101]] ([[User talk:86.23.109.101|talk]]) 09:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


== RPP backlog ==
Discussion on [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability]] is breaking down very quickly. Discussion was intense yet collegial over the past few weeks, but today has turned into a series of edit wars and personal attacks. I request not that some action be taken here, but that a senior editor or administrator please try to calm down that situation. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 19:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


There are 20 pending requests for page protection, including an ARBPIA edit war at [[Maldives]]. (It concerns a recently added statement about the government's response to the [[Israel–Hamas War]].) –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 20:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
== Image restore ==


:I added one more article on the same issue: [[Israel–Maldives relations]]. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 20:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
A request for an admin to undelete [[:File:National Organization for Marriage.gif]] as it was deleted for being orphaned when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Organization_for_Marriage&diff=382241496&oldid=381381388 a user who meant to remove the Unbalanced tag also inadvertently removed the article's infobox containing the image] in September and no one caught this mistake until I just did now. Thanks. [[user:ase|<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;overflow:hidden;"><span style="position:absolute;bottom:1px;width:100%;height:8px;background:#eee"> </span><span style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> allstar✰echo </span></span>]] 19:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:Hi Allstarecho, I've restored the image. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 20:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
::Thank you Phil. [[user:ase|<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;overflow:hidden;"><span style="position:absolute;bottom:1px;width:100%;height:8px;background:#eee"> </span><span style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> allstar✰echo </span></span>]] 20:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:::That's {{tl|pd-textlogo}} anyway. Someone change the tag, find an SVG version, and transfer to Commons. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Is it pd-textlogo, though? I think it's a debatable case, but I think interlocking rings ''may'' be unoriginal enough. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 14:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


== String of odd comments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandni Mistry]] ==
== Margareth Tomanek W55 Record ==


I'm not sure what's going on at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandni Mistry]], but I think it could use the eyes of an admin. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 23:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I just created the page: [[Margareth Tomanek W55 Record]]. It should have been named [[Template:Margareth Tomanek W55 Record]] to avoid unnecessary challenges for deletion. I don't know how the word got left off this version of a bunch of templates but I need admin. assistance to rename the article. [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]])
:Done. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 18:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
:Weird...ten unsigned votes by new accounts, all of which appear to be AI-written... [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 23:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::I think this article's retention is just in the interest of AI entities [[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]] ([[User talk:Zanahary|talk]]) 00:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:Aha, Spicy just cleaned out a sock drawer! [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 23:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


== Requested edit ==
== So I messed up. ==


See my [[User talk:78.26#Request for a previously deleted article|talk page]]. I wanted to restore some un-encyclopedic content to a user sandbox, but it is currently a redirect, so now said un-encyclopedic content is viewable as history in the redirect. Is this a problem? How would someone re-delete history without deleting the redirect? How do you restore a page to a user sandbox directly, should there be an active redirect page? I should know this after all these years, but it's amazing the number of knowledge gaps one can uncover... Thanks! [[User:78.26|<span style="border:1px solid black;color:red; padding:1px;background:1h5h1h; color: #008B8B;"><b>78.26</b></span>]] <sub>([[User talk:78.26|spin me]] / [[Special:Contributions/78.26|revolutions]])</sub> 01:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
'''Please create''' [[Talk:.ไทย]] and add {{tl|WikiProject Internet}} and {{tl|WikiProject Thailand}}. Thanks. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 05:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
:Done. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 05:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


:I'm not an administrator here, but I use MediaWiki deployments regularly in my work so have experience with many of the administrator tools you'll have. Someone else may have a better solution for you specific to Wikipedia, but I think the best option is just to move the current redirect page to the user's sandbox without leaving a redirect, and then creating a new redirect to the target article at the original page. It may be possible to restore revisions for a re-created page that currently exists directly to a user sandbox, but it's something I've never had to do and you've got me curious so thanks! You've given me a project to experiment with on my test wiki over the next few days. [[User:Adam Black|<span style="color:red">Adam</span> <span style="color:blue">Black</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Adam Black|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Adam_Black|<span style="color:orange">contribs</span>]]</sup> 01:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
== Requesting rfc closure ==
:If I understand what you're trying to do correctly, it's almost like a reverse histmerge. There's a way to do it right, but it's incredibly annoying. You can find it at [[WP:HMUNDO]]. Realistically, if it doesn't matter where the page history ends up then what {{u|Adam Black}} suggested is the easiest way. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 01:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:In reverse order: If you want to move deleted page history that currently has content at its title, you have to move the current version out of the way, restore and move the deleted revisions, then move the current content back. You can't redelete the history without at least temporarily deleting the redirect - deletion is always of all revisions - but what you can do is delete the current version, restore the revisions you want to move to the sandbox, move those, then restore the revisions corresponding to the redirect (as documented at [[WP:HISTSPLIT]]). As to whether it's a problem, generally not, so long as it stays stuck behind the redirect; it could be problematic if there's copyvio or libel or such (in which case you shouldn't have offered to restore to a sandbox either, of course), or if it was deleted at afd (I haven't checked) and there are attempts to revert to the deleted version without improvement.{{pb}}Another option would have been to just email the latest revision to the user, like, y'know, they asked for; if the history was important, you can get a full xml dump through [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=deletedrevisions&titles=User:Cryptic/sandbox3&drvprop=ids%7Ctimestamp%7Cflags%7Ccomment%7Cuser%7Ccontent&drvslots=*&drvlimit=500 the api, like so]. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 02:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::Oh, boy, trying to follow the process described above has my mind tied up in knots. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:::This is exactly the kind of type 2 fun [[User:Scott/Notes/How not to manage article history|which I enjoy doing]]. If anyone ever needs some history untangled, hit me up. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /><span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /><span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /><span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 12:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I'll remember that if I ever need a histmerge/split. Merging has gotten easier in the last 20+ years, but splitting seems like it hasn't at all. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


== WP:PERM ==
Hi, I'm requesting that an uninvolved admin close the Rfc at [[WT:UP]] regerding userspace drafts and FAKEARTICLES, thanks, [[User:Access Denied|<font color="red">Access Denied</font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Access Denied|<font color="black">[FATAL ERROR]</font>]]</sup> 05:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


I feel like we need more active admins at [[WP:PERM]]. There are [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer|requests that have been sitting there since early May]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer|requests that are just... open?]]. Could someone please look into this? Thanks. <span style="font-family:monospace;">'''<nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>[[User:CanonNi]]<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 11:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2]] ==


:Yes, it's quite often backlogged. [[WP:PERM/NPR]] especially has been difficult to keep on top of lately because there are surges of applications when there are NPP backlog drives (and there have been four in the last year alone) or mass messages sent inviting people. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 14:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
::It's also a very time consuming process that's easy to get burnt out from. I haven't dealt with nearly as many requests as you have and yet I find it difficult to consistently address requests the way I might deal with other tasks. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 15:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
== Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing ==


The Arbitration Committee has resolved by [[Special:Permalink/1227273317#Motion: TenPoundHammer suspended topic ban for blank-and-redirecting (BLARing)|motion]] that:
*{{user|Stevertigo}} is banned from Wikipedia for one year. If Stevertigo wishes to return to editing Wikipedia, he must first work with the Arbitration Committee to an establish a set of probation criteria. He may do this no earlier than six months after the closure of the case, and no more than every six months thereafter.
{{ivmbox|1={{userlinks|TenPoundHammer}} is indefinitely topic banned from [[WP:BLAR|removing all content in an article and replacing it with a redirect]] (commonly known as a blank-and-redirect, or BLAR). This topic ban will be suspended for a period of 12 months. This topic ban may be unsuspended and imposed onto TenPoundHammer if disruption by BLARing restarts, as determined by any of: (1) a consensus of administrators on [[WP:AE]], (2) at least two arbitrators indicating "support" to unsuspend at [[WP:ARCA]], with no opposition from other arbitrators indicated up to 48 hours after the second support, or (3) a majority of active arbitrators at [[WP:ARCA]] if there is opposition as indicated in condition 2. After 12 months, if it has not been imposed, the topic ban will be automatically lifted.}}
*Stevertigo is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article. Should he fail to do so, any editor may remove the material without prejudice. Should he cite a source that is subsequently determined not to support the material added, he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction.
For the Arbitration Committee, <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 19:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 19:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->


== Murder of Susana Morales ==
''On behalf of the Arbitration Committee'',<p>'''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 20:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


I'm looking for an independent review of my actions and those of {{u|Fram}}, in relation to [[Murder of Susana Morales]] (later moved to [[Draft:Murder of Susana Morales]] and subsequently deleted). The article was created yesterday, and subsequently tagged as [[WP:G10]] (attack page) by Fram. I looked at the article, and in my opinion it did not meet the strict requirements of G10, namely that it was not "intended purely to harass or intimidate a person", nor unsourced. Fram re-tagged it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Draft%3AMurder+of+Susana+Morales&timestamp=20240604125859&diff=prev], which was reverted again by {{u|Bbb23}}. Fram left a query on my talk page asking why I asked declined the speedy, and I gave my reasons. At this point I had become busy with work, so did not have time to investigate further. Fram refused to accept my answers, and kept badgering me, finally calling my actions "shit" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Voice_of_Clam&diff=prev&oldid=1227268067], when I pointed out that he could have removed the offending material from the article rather than retagging it.
:'''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2|Discuss this]]'''


This morning, in response to a query on his own talk page, he accused me of [[gaslighting]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fram&diff=prev&oldid=1227356673]. I have asked him to redact that comment, which I consider to be a personal attack, but so far he has refused to do so.
== Requests for permissions ==


See also discussions at [[User talk:Deepfriedokra#BLP draft]], [[User talk:Bbb23#Now what?]] and [[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Murder of Susana Morales]].
{{resolved|Cleared out. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)}}
There are currently requests over a week out at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed]]. Could someone take a look there? [[User:Netalarm|<font color="#00AA11">'''Netalarm'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Netalarm|<font color="#FF9933">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 02:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:Done. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


I would like an uninvolved admin or admins to consider the following two points:
== [[User:Off2riorob]] ==


# Whether my initial decision to decline the speedy can be considered reasonable?
{{cot|User has agreed to step away from CC for a few months. I'm hoping that can avoid yet another CC thread. Maybe some others need to voluntarily leave this issue alone for a while. Most of us uninvolved folk are now totally sick of it.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 13:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)}}
# Fram's subsequent behaviour and comments about my actions.


Thanks. <span class="nowrap"> — [[User:Voice of Clam|Voice of Clam]] ([[User talk:Voice of Clam|talk)]]</span> 15:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
A few hours ago I blocked [[::User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]]&nbsp;{{toolbar|separator=dot|[[::User talk:Off2riorob|talk]] | [[::Special:Contributions/Off2riorob|contribs]] }} for 24 hours in response to a 3RR violation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Connolley&action=history]. Upon further investigation, I found a lengthy series of problematic edits (see below), previous blocks, and at least one attempt at editing restrictions. He was previously placed on a 5 week 1RR sanction, which he stated he might continue of his own volition [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=316987011]. The blocks since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Off2riorob], including the present block, seem to indicate a continued problem.


:I'll repeat what I said on my talk page.
*In light of these, I wonder if there is community support for a permanent 1RR restriction for Off2riorob.
:The article was ~700 words, ~550 words are about the suspect. ~365 words are under the heading '''Perpetrator''' with a criminal infobox listing the suspect as having committed the crimes. It wasn't {{tq|a few instances where [you] forgot to specify that it was alleged}}, it was almost every single case. Again, read [[WP:BLP]], which states {{tq|Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.}} We don't move it to draft space to clean it up, we remove it immediately. These violations are egregious, which is why I warned you. When 80% of an article is egregious BLP violations and BLPCRIME violations targeting a living person who is not a public figure, that is an attack article. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::Just to clarify, that was written in response to the article creator, and the warning was to the author, not VoC. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:in [[User talk:Voice of Clam#Murder of Susana Morales]], they gave as their defense on why they reinstated the BLP violations: "I was too busy at the time. You were quite capable of removing the violations yourself." I ''had'' removed the violations, Voice of Clam reinstated them, so I consider this statement gaslighting, and I don't see how this description of their behaviour is a personal attack. Some scrutiny of the reinstatements of the severe BLP violations by Voice of Clam and Bbb23, and the block threats by Bbb23 and Deepfriedokra while completely disregarding our BLP policy (and its exemption for edit warring), seems warranted now that we are here anyway. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 16:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


:Any article describing an unconvicted living individual as a murderer is as unequivocal a violation of WP:BLP policy as could possibly be imagined. Arguing the toss over exactly how this gross violation of policy should have been removed from sight (as WP:BLP policy absolutely demands) seems to me to be little more than pointless Wikilawyering. How about people getting back to doing something more useful, like finding better ways to stop such dross from getting into Wikipedia in the first place? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 16:12, 5 June 2024‎ (UTC)
Some evidence of problematic edits:
:Agree with SFR and ATG. Blatant BLP violations such as this should be deleted on sight, that's more important than the minutiae of which speedy deletion category should be applied. Reinserting the text, which accuses someone of a crime in Wikivoice despite there being no conviction, back into the page is definitely not the answer. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 16:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
* April 2009: ANI discussion which resulted in a block. [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive530#Disruption from two users at a GA-rated article|archived discussion]] The block was reduced when he showed remorse and an intent to improve [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=prev&oldid=284262090].
:Lots of little superscripted numbers in brackets don't mean that an article is sourced, and ''certainly'' not "well sourced" as you claimed in your edit summary. Three quarters of that article stated various accusations against a living person - mostly unrelated to the crime that was the article's purported subject - as fact, when the supposed sources did nothing of the sort. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
* August 2009: He was again blocked for edit warring [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=prev&oldid=309336892] and again promised to desist in the future [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=prev&oldid=310028901]. His block was again reduced[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=310028901&oldid=309998515].
:I saw the after-the-fact discussion on SFR's talk page yesterday, and thought:
* July 2010: Personal attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Milburn&diff=prev&oldid=371603015] (deleted edit), which resulted in a block.
:#While I disagree with VoC, and think the article should have been deleted, I can see how they might have thought it didn't meet the letter of G10. So not entirely unreasonable. '''However''', if they were going to deal with it and not delete it, they should have removed 2/3 of the article, revdel'd that, and moved it to draft space. If they didn't have time for that, they probably should have left it for another admin.
* October 2010: Petty vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=390977845#Off2riorob_is_the_best] when questioned about recent reverts ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644#Off2riorob|archived discussion]]).
:#We have a hard time dealing with high benefit/high cost editors like Fram. I'm not sure just looking at a benefit/cost ratio is enough, ling term. But in a case like this, where Fram is right on the important underlying BLP issue, it's going to be hard to do anything about their being a dick so often. The most important thing here is that the article was a BLP nightmare; I can't imagine anyone sanctioning Fram in this particular case. If it helps any, Fram's use of the word "gaslighting" was incorrect. But so many people misuse that word...
* My block for 3RR on [[William Connelley]].
:[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 16:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::How would you describe someone stating "you could have done X" when they know damn well you have done X and they are the one that has undone it? It sure feels like the kind of psychological manipulation and distortion described by "gaslighting", though a one-off and not a pattern. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 16:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::(Part of the problem is that out of my whole comment, ''this'' is what you choose to dispute.) Gaslightling means purposefully trying to get someone to doubt their own sanity. VoC obviously meant "you could have deleted the BLP problems ''without blanking the whole rest of the article''". Only a fool would think they were actually trying to trick you into thinking maybe you hadn't blanked the whole thing with your {{tl|db}}. You're not a fool. Therefore, you don't actually think you were being gaslit. You just thought the accusation sounded cool. When you claim this feels like "psychological manipulation" you are intentionally lying. You should stop that. It's beneath you. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 18:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Or, with a sprinkle of AGF, possibly Fram either misunderstood the definition of gaslighting or interpreted the conversation differently than you did. My telepathic senses are on the fritz today, so I guess I can't tell what Fram was thinking about at the time. Must be allergies. From every encounter I've had with Fram, he tries to do the right thing but can be rude while doing it. Intentionally lying about what he was thinking is not something I've seen; usually it's the opposite and we get more of the raw, unfiltered Fram than is necessary. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 19:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::I hate getting dragged into these things, but I don't have the self-control to let someone be wrong on the internet, especially when I think I'm being misread. If you re-read what I said, I'm not saying he lied when he used the term gaslighting. As you and I have now both said, that's a commonly misused term. But in his reply to me, Fram doubled down and specifically claimed he felt he was being "psychologically manipulated." Come on; that's bullshit. I will do my best to let this go now. -[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 19:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:The article text and sourcing are pretty severe BLP violations. The wording of G10 is very specific, and inflexible enough that it probably doesn't apply to this case. I still would have opted for summary deletion, but changed the rationale to cite [[WP:BLPDEL]] instead of G10. BLPDEL unquestionably applies to that article, since every version of the history is a severe BLP violation and repairing it would be impossible without rewriting the article from scratch. I also would have taken a look at the author to see if there was any disciplinary action that needed to be taken (it looks like he hasn't been notified about [[WP:NEWBLPBAN]] so I'll go take care of that). As usual, Fram can be prickly but he's not wrong. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 16:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::Looks like SFR took care of the DS notification already. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 16:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::G10 should just be expanded to cover BLPDEL situations since it's effectively the same thing. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::It's already there. It's the text of the criterion on [[WP:CSD]] that's controlling, not the short one-line summary that appears there or in the [[MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown|dropdown menu]]. It starts {{tq|Main page: [[Wikipedia:Attack page]] &para; Examples of "[[Wikipedia:Attack page|attack pages]]" may include: ...}} and leaves the non-example specifics to be defined in [[WP:Attack page]], which states in its first line {{tq|or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced}}. Incorporating these situations is almost the entire reason we have a separate G10 rather than leaving it as a variant of G3 and relying on [[WP:Vandalism#Page creation, illegitimate]]'s {{tq|articles written to disparage the subject}}. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:Textbook [[WP:BLPCRIME]] violation, deletion was the right outcome. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 16:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
* I think VOC and BBB got too focused on speedy deletion procedure and paid too little attention to how their actions restored a bunch of BLP vio to mainspace. I'd love to see them acknowledge those moves as errors. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 17:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:*{{ec}} The first part of what you say is right as far as I'm concerned. Usually, when I decline a speedy tag because it has already been declined I just remove the tag, but because of the nature of G10 (blanking the article "as a courtesy"), if I'd just removed the tag, the article would have been blank. The only "error" I'll acknowledge is I didn't do the work to figure out that the article was a BLP violation because you'd have to go through it to reach that conclusion. If I had it to do all over again, I would have done nothing because the whole thing is too messy for me.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


*'''Statement by Deepfriedokra''' Had the CSD not been declined twice, I'd've deleted the thing. I saw it had been declined twice and my brain locked up. I could not act. Deleting it would have been the least bad choice, and I should have deleted it.
Keeping in mind he is currently blocked, does anyone have thoughts or suggestions on this? --[[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]] ([[User talk:TeaDrinker|talk]]) 06:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
: To {{ping|Fram}} I offer my sincere apologies for the perceived threat. That was not my intent. I apologize for my ill-chosen words and their effect.
:User [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=prev&oldid=392550480 notified] --[[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]] ([[User talk:TeaDrinker|talk]]) 06:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
: To {{ping|Voice of Clam}} If I cannot bring myself to honor a CSD tag, I leave it alone. I leave it to be reviewed by an admin less squeamish than I or with clearer perception than I have at that moment. It is regrettable that such content was restored.[[User:Deepfriedokra|&#45;- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 17:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
===Proposal: 1RR restriction===
::Question for {{u|Bbb23}}. Hi Bbb23. Did you suggest that Fram be blocked for edit-warring, rather than removing egregious BLP violations. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
*Regarding his most recent block, I didn't see a block notice that is customarily given when a block is issued. Did I miss it? Regarding the sanctions, I would '''support''' a 1RR sanction. In addition, Rob has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Connolley&action=historysubmit&diff=392483721&oldid=392483603 identifying as vandalism] content disputes and using Twinkle in an inappropriate manner. I would also '''support''' removing his Twinkle access for now. [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 06:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:::No, that was a weird discussion on my Talk page. I responded to Dfo (the OP at my Talk page) who noted that Fram had tagged the page yet again, and my comment was "Block Fram?". It was then Dfo who talked about edit-warring. If I had blocked Fram, which, btw, I did not do and would not have done, it would not have been for edit-warring. I've answered your question, even though it was pretty loaded.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
**<small>See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOff2riorob&action=historysubmit&diff=392484527&oldid=392483929] for the block notice (plain text, not a fancy template - I suspect per [[WP:DNTTR]]).--[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 06:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)</small>
::::My dear fellow—! In an emergency, I must marry civility to bluntness if at the expense of neutrality. But thank you for giving me what I'm accepting as a straight answer :) [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 19:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
***<small>Oh there it is! Yeah, I just missed it. My eyes are much too tired. Off to sleep! [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 06:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC) </small>
*I agree with the proposal above by [[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]] and the comment by [[User:Basket of Puppies|Basket of Puppies]], and '''support''' a permanent 1RR sanction. (Note: Off2riorob was previously blocked for engaging in disruption at a GA-quality article that I wrote.) I would also '''support''' removing Off2riorob's access to Twinkle. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 06:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' both. <small>doesn't this belong on ANI?</small> [[User:Access Denied|<font color="red">Access Denied</font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Access Denied|<font color="black">[FATAL ERROR]</font>]]</sup> 06:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the proposed permanent 1RR restriction/sanction. Defer to others on Twinkle. I also note that in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive580#Disruptive editing by Off2riorob after multiple extensions of good faith|this November 2009 AN/I]], the great bulk of his support was from ChildofMidnight, who has since been banned from Wikipedia for a year.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 06:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
**&hellip; which is both irrelevant and outdated. (We have an article on what the [[Institute for Propaganda Analysis]] called [[transfer (propaganda)|transfer]] explaining why ChildofMidnight's endorsement is not relevant to Off2riorob's actions.) One could equally try to call Off2riorob a single-purpose account based upon what Cirt said in the April 2009 AN/I discussion. That's clearly outdated now, too. If the compelling evidence for action here is discussions from 2009, then I suggest that people take a look at [[Special:Contributions/Off2riorob]]. Early 2009, late 2009, and 2010 are not the same animal. We should not institutionalize hanging onto grudges like this. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*I'm not in principle opposed to a restriction, but what's wrong with the standard method of escalating blocks? If he doesn't comply with 3RR, he's not much more likely to comply with 1RR. If a restriction is to be imposed, somebody would need to spell out what exactly is being proposed here (one revert per page per 24 hours, I suppose?). Also, since the current edit war is in the climate change topic area, discretionary sanctions are also a possibility. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 06:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*One revert per page per 24 hours seems most reasonable. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
**Agree that 1-revert-per-pg per-24-hours seems appropriate. <p>As to escalating blocks, I note that Off2 was blocked for '''24 hours''' (March 2009), '''72 reduced to 48 hours''' (April 2009), '''72 hours''' (April 2009), '''1 week''' (April 2009), '''24 hours reduced to time served''' (July 2009), '''2 weeks''' (July 2009), '''3 weeks''' (''reduced on promise to desist edit warring in the future''; August 2009), '''31 hours''' (July 2010). All prior to this 24-hour block. Per our standard method of escalating blocks, which Sandstein refers to, it strikes me that the current 24-hour block is too low — it would have been appropriate for a first-time offender, but this editor has been blocked numerous times in the past year and a half, up to 3 weeks.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 07:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I agree with the 1RR restriction. Off2riorob has also got into lengthy arguments and edit wars on the [[British National Party]] and other articles about the British far right, which he thought were written from an anti-BNP bias. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 13:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' And the BNP argument holds no weight with me. Too much sounds like "let's get even" with a valued editor. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – June 2024 ==
===Proposal: Climate change topic ban===
*Overall 1RR may be fine for Off2riorob, but one revert per day is '''too lenient'' for a CC articles. One revert per week is more in line with the type of editing restriction needed to get CC articles to have stability. Otherwise, the result will be tag team edit warring that would be supported by the editing restrictions. I suggest Off2riorob be put on a stricter restriction for the CC articles. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 10:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
**Completely stepping away from the CC topic (and any other areas where Off2riorob gets heated and loses control) is a better restriction than a blanket 1RR which allow too many problematic edits on controversial topics and perhaps too few where otherwise needed. If there are overall problems beyond reverting then that needs to be determined (maybe with a RFC or ArbCom case) and further editing restrictions or bans can be imposed. So, I '''support a complete CC topic ban''' for now. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 13:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
* I think now would be a good time to ask Off2riorob to step away from the climate change topic entirely. For technical reasons it is not possible at this stage to propose a topic ban at [[WP:AE]], but the conclusion seems reasonable. He is by all accounts a very productive editor elsewhere, but as he admits himself he has a bee in his bonnet about William M. Connolley. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 12:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' A 1r restriction on an editor who mostly works BLP`s and the BLP noticeboard would hamstring him from the productive work he does. Everyone make`s mistakes, he ought not be overly punished for this one. [[User:Marknutley|mark ]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 12:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)</s><small>This editor is topic banned from processes related to climate change, broadly construed. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)</small>
**Making multiple reverts shouldn't be required in BLPs any more than anywhere else; remember that removing contentious, unsourced information about living persons is one of the exceptions to 3RR and by extension to an imposed 1RR. <span id="sig" style="background:#FFFFC0">'''[[User:Giftiger wunsch|<font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch</font></font>]]''' [[User talk:Giftiger wunsch|<font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]</font>]]</span> 12:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
***<s>Yes but there`s the rub, what if it is sourced but not written in a NPOV manner? Or as an attack piece? We see such on BLP`s all the time, if he is restricted to 1r he will quite simply be unable to work the BLP noticeboard. Why not a simple restriction of 1r on this one article? I think that would be more suitable given the nature of this offence [[User:Marknutley|mark ]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 12:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)</s><small>This editor is topic banned from processes related to climate change, broadly construed. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)</small>
*I agree with Tony Sidaway, and I suggest that people look away from AN/I to all of the work that Off2riorob does at the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]]. The slice of history presented here purports to cover a year's worth of editing but is very limited and one-sided, and really isn't the whole picture by any means. It reflects, I suspect, the area where Off2riorob is influenced to err by (a) xyr perception of climate change POV-pushing and (b) the proximity of a subject to Wikipedia itself.<p>Contrast that to xyr work at (to pick just one BLPN example) [[Ed Miliband]] where xyr work has been edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=390140616&oldid=390138835 this one] and efforts to stop our article from labelling Miliband (who [http://telegraph.co.uk./news/newstopics/politics/ed-miliband/8032163/Ed-Miliband-I-dont-believe-in-God.html has stated for the record] that xe does not believe in God) as "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Miliband&diff=391797508&oldid=391791879 the Jewish leader of the Labour Party]" and having <tt>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=391845825&oldid=391844559 religion=Jewish]</tt> in an infobox. When the biography is not climate-change related or close to Wikipedia, there's a rather different Off2riorob here. There's also a significantly different Off2riorob ''now'' to the one that Cirt characterized in April 2009, the discussion of whom is being used as evidence for action here. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
::I agree that in considering Off2riorob's editing history we must look at this work at BLPN - I'd be sorry to lose his help there. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 13:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
* Would a community topic ban from Climate Change articles, following the wording of those recently applied to various editors by ArbCom, and a permanent ban from the William Connolley article suffice? [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 13:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
**Yes, I think a full topic ban for CC is best for now. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 13:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''(ec) Off2 was ''not'' mentioned in any CC arbcom discussions, and imposing a topicban is absurd over-reaction. He is a valued editor, and all of this is simply going to be a matter of "let's remove anyone we disagree with" type rationale. In other words -- why not openly say "anyone with any position on CC whatever is to be topic-banned ''ab initio''" as the easiest way to deal with the topic? Nope. Draconian solutions generally do ''not'' work, and all this will do is make that more abundantly clear than ever. Meanwhile the BNP is so far rremoved from any reasonable argument on this as to be quite nicely irrelevant - we ought not have personal disagreements with anyone dictate banning a good editor who, as I noted, was never even mentioned at the arbcom discussions on CC. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*: It's not about opinion, it's about behavior. He edit warred on a BLP in a topic area that was under arbcom-imposed sanctions. The only reason he isn't being topic banned at [[WP:AE]] is that arbcom sanctions require prior formal notification. The community has the opportunity to say "enough is enough." --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 13:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*:The entire point of discretionary sanctions is to allow for editing restrictions for users not named in the ArbCom case. So, this editing restriction is perfectly reasonable given his edit warring on a CC related article within days of the case ending. I see no problem with discussing this here since this is where the discussion started. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 13:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (May 2024).
'''Questions'''
# Can each user please state their level of involvement (if any)? [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
# Why can't ArbCom discretionary sanctions deal with the CC related matters? Why does the Community need to relitigate this aspect here at [[WP:AN]] rather than [[WP:AE]]? [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
===Metadiscussion===


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
*'''Question''' Why was the above discussion archived? I understand that Rob has agreed to modify his editing, but the consensus ''seemed'' to be in favor of a 1RR restriction and, possibly, revokation of Twinkle. [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
**Because it seems more urgent to de-escalate the CC fiasco, than to worry too much about the rest of it. Besides, after Rob had agreed to step away from the immediate flashpoint, nothing else needed urgent admin action. If you want to pursue more general complaints, then I suggest a user RFC is the normal way.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 16:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes'''
: It's been closed because the issue was resolved and, as Doc has correctly stated, the community is sick and tired of the subject. [[User talk:Tasty monster|Tasty monster]] (=[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] ) 16:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:Permalink/1222103388#Resysop request (Graham Beards)|Graham Beards]]
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline
|[[Special:Permalink/1221623112#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#May 2024|Deskana]]
|[[Special:Permalink/1221623112#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#May 2024|Mets501]]
|[[Special:Permalink/1221692285#Desysop request Staxringold|Staxringold]]
}}


[[File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Bureaucrat changes'''
::I am only confused as to why this discussion was closed, seemingly out of process. Isn't it against consensus to close a discussion where a consensus has nearly been reached? The underlying issue of Rob's behavior isn't much of a concern to me as the issue of prematurely closing a discussion. [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 16:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline
:::And doesn't this belong on [[/Incidents]] anyway? [[User:Access Denied|<font color="red">Access Denied</font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Access Denied|<font color="black">[FATAL ERROR]</font>]]</sup> 16:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
|[[Special:Permalink/1221620229#Inactive bureaucrat (Deskana)|Deskana]]
::::*Shrug* [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 17:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
|[[Special:Permalink/1221956999#Standing down as bureaucrat (Warofdreams)| Warofdreams]]
It is in the interests of this project to allow issues associated with CC to cool. Rob has seen that, and we should thank him for it and drop this. Sanctions are always a piss-poor substitute for getting agreement and peace. The technicalities of which board and broken process are worthy casualties of drama-ending. Now, walk away. This has ended as well (indeed a lot better) than any other possible ending. And I, for one, don't wish to waste any more time on CC and those who can't let it go.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
}}
:That was unnecessarily dramatic. [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 17:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*I disagree with the closing of the thread. Way too early. And there is no reason to roll it up, other than to conceal its contents from future searches. I don't believe Scott's action in in line with the sentiment of the community on this page. And I don't think his and editor Tasty (who is "sick and tired of the subject" after under 1,000 edits) are reflecting the sentiment on this page in suggesting that we should sweep it under the rug because of their sense that the community prefers that. Rob has made agreements before, which triggered sanction reductions -- and which he has just violated with his edit warring here. --[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 18:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
**Have you discussed your concerns with Rob? If so, unless there's need for urgent admin action, I'd suggest that a user RFC is the place to take ongoing concerns. (For your info Tasy = [[User:Tony Sidaway]], not that the edit count should really matter).--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 19:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*Let's be clear here. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOff2riorob&action=historysubmit&diff=392587317&oldid=392582590 This] was [[quid pro quo]]. Scott Mac did exactly what he promised, shut down discussion, on the basis of Rob's consent. My personal opinion is that's entirely OK and within the scope of administrator discretion to "talk someone down" like that, but I think that Scott should have been a bit more open here about the deal he offered and concluded. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 20:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
{{cob}}
*'''Question''' Why was this thread again archived when the discussion is ongoing? [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 21:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:Not sure. However, the user that hatted the thread, noted he did not read it at all: ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=392587219&oldid=392582590 "discussion of whatever it is that they are discussing on AN, and which I am not even going to bother looking at."]'' Most inappropriate to archive and declare something as closed, which one has not even bothered to read. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 21:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
* This constant hatting of discussion without notification or warning is leaving multiple users (myself included, and i'm not even involved in the discussion) with a sense of bad faith toward the hatters. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 22:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


</div>
== [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review]] and [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tiamut/Palestine]] ==
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]]


[[File:Oversight logo.png|20px|alt=]] '''Oversight changes'''
{{Resolved|I got one, and [[User:Horologium]] closed the other. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 13:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)}}
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:Permalink/1221703338#Changes to the functionaries team, May 2024|Dreamy Jazz]]
Would an admin (or admins) close [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review]] and [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tiamut/Palestine]]? Thanks, [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:I closed the first one, but I had a personal opinion on the second, so I commented instead. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 13:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


</div>
== BLPs and maintenance tags ==
</div>


[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news'''
I invite participation at a discussion here: [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Maintenance tags]]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II|Phase II]] of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|2024 RfA review]] has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I|Phase I]].


[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news'''
== Banned users and their userpages ==
* The [[mw:Special:MyLanguage/Extension:Nuke|Nuke]] feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. [[Phab:T43351|T43351]]


[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration'''
At [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Stevertigo|this deletion discussion]], an issue has arisen concerning a banned user and whether his User page should have the "banned" template while his User Talk has the same template.
* The arbitration case ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics|Venezuelan politics]]'' has been closed.
* The Committee is [[Special:Permalink/1225426349#Conflict of interest VRT queue and call for volunteers|seeking volunteers for various roles]], including access to the [[WP:COIVRT|conflict of interest VRT queue]].


[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous'''
I seem to remember that banned users do not always have a "banned" template placed on their user page, such as when they have retired. I'm also sure there have been instances where a banned editors user page has been blanked for the duration of the ban. Does anyone know of more details or the circumstances? <small>Or is my memory failing me? :(</small> [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
* WikiProject Reliability's [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive|unsourced statements drive]] is happening in June 2024 to replace {{tl|citation needed}} tags with references! '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive|Sign up here to participate!]]'''
:If someone is commenting on this, it may be better to comment [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Proposed decision|here]], so the discussion doesn't fork off in three ways (it's also happening at the MfD). <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 21:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


----
== Rich Farmbrough's persistent disregard for community norms and (semi-)automated editing guidelines ==
{{center|{{flatlist|

{{seealso|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/January 2009-September 2010}}
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]]
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010}}
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]]
:{{usercheck|Rich Farmbrough}}
}}}}
:{{botlinks|SmackBot}}
<!--
Earlier today, I advised {{user|Rich Farmbrough}} that I would request both he and his bot be blocked if he continued making trivial and unnecessary changes that have proved controversial without first obtaining consensus for these changes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough&oldid=392665704#There_is_no_consensus_for_.22ucfirst.22_as_a_standard_for_template_calls].
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)</small>}}

<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1227360647 -->
Rather than cease making the changes, he simply went on ahead with them on both his bot account ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Made_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=392664065] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condor_of_Bermuda&diff=prev&oldid=392663976] - unnecessary capitalization changes), and his main account ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Päevaleht_(1905)&diff=prev&oldid=392648699] changes spacing around header for no reason; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_oficinista&diff=prev&oldid=392647951] capitalizes template for no reason).


== Partial Unblock Request ==
It is perfectly reasonable to hold the view that all templates should be ucfirst, it is perfectly reasonable to hold the view that headers should have no spacing around them. However, it is unreasonable to push these views on the community without first obtaining consensus for them. The edits today display a shocking disregard for the collaborative editing model and indicate that Rich feels that he does not have to operate within the consensus model.


After placing a request to be unblocked on my user page, I was instructed by User:331dot to start a community discussion by going to [[WP:AN]] and request its removal.
This is unacceptable behaviour for a bot operator and administrator and I request he be blocked pending the decision of the proposed restriction below, which has been copied here from the ANI subpage for greater visibility. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


* I acknowledge my past involvement in problematic COI editing.
===Proposed editing restriction: Rich Farmbrough===
* I now believe in regaining trust and commit to ceasing any further problematic COI editing.
:''This is an alternative proposal to more strict proposal [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010#Edit restriction proposal for Rich Farmbrough|here]], which generated a fair amount of support for a complete ban on non-manual editing''
* Since my partial block, I have authored 20 new articles, all of which have been reviewed and accepted by my peers for inclusion in the main article space.
Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), {{user|Rich Farmbrough}} is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock [[WP:AWB|AWB]] or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see [[WP:AWB/TR|here]] for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes ([[WP:CFD]]/[[WP:TFD]]) should be engaged.
* I have also contributed to 28 articles through the Edit Request process since my block.
* Upon unblocking, my intention is to contribute to Wikipedia by assisting with the backlog of AfC and edit requests.
* My dedication lies in making Wikipedia the best encyclopedia globally.
[[User:Greghenderson2006|Greg Henderson]] ([[User talk:Greghenderson2006#top|talk]]) 16:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:Courtesy link to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/1209837378#Proposed_article-space_block_Greghenderson2006 pblock discussion]. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 17:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Greghenderson2006|Greghenderson2006]], you specify '''problematic COI editing''': what type of COI editing do you consider to ''not'' be problematic? [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 17:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::Schazjmd, any COI editing would be problematic per [[WP:COI]]. This request is based on my recent pldege to refrain from any further COI editing, as well as on the recent articles and upates I have made. [[User:Greghenderson2006|Greg Henderson]] ([[User talk:Greghenderson2006#top|talk]]) 17:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


*Greg, didn't you make essentially the same promise [[User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_17#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Ferdinand_Burgdorff_has_been_accepted|six months back]] and then [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Proposed_article-space_block_Greghenderson2006|break it]]? [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 17:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Thoughts? –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*:Yes, I made a mistake and I am fully committed to upholding my pledge this time. I have taken this expereince as a learning opputnity and am determined to demonstrate conistency moving forward. The recent articles I have written provide evidence of my committemnt. [[User:Greghenderson2006|Greg Henderson]] ([[User talk:Greghenderson2006#top|talk]]) 18:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:What about emptying and deleting categories? This is what happened in the immediate incident. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*:: That's what you said last time too! And you have had the following COI related declaration and commitment on your userpage for a long time:
::Added a sentence, though that is expected of any editor already. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 15:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*:::{{quote|I have a conflict of interest and [[Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure|paid-contribution disclosures]] in some of my Wikipedia articles. I intend to follow best practices by asking for help, sticking to neutral language, and having other editors review my work.}}
:Unless a guideline directs such a change. There's always the potential for future guidelines on the matter. Otherwise, it seems a fine proposal to me. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*:: If those previous commitments weren't upheld, I am not sure why we should just take your word for it ''this'' time instead of sustaining the pblock to ensure that all your edits to articlespace are in fact reviewed. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 18:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::That's covered by 'demonstrable consensus'. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Indeed. Good enough. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 15:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*<del>'''Support'''</del> --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
**I think this has become stale now, but I'll revisit if that seems to change. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 19:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
* I think this is agreeable, this has my '''support'''. Rich, I hope you will do an effort in checking the diffs before you save, and not save them if they are mere changes of capitalisation, etc. Real mistakes, well, we all make them (as do our bots), I do hope your fellow editors will treat them for what they are. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*Now that's a whole lot better, being a lot less disruptive and punitive. But how about [[WP:DISCUSS|discussing]] with Rich about the categories' name changes and moving, instead of immediately reaching out for punishment? --[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 15:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
**Discussion doesn't help if he ignores objections and continues full-steam ahead without stopping to gather consensus for his changes. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. This proposal is more about setting a bot policy rather than addressing or remedying the allegations. Bot policy should be debated elsewhere. [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 17:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*:Policy already exists to prohibit these changes ([[WP:AWB#Rules of use]] #3/4), this is more of a compliance issue. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*We're prohibiting him from something that's already prohibited (using a bot or script to make cosmetic changes) and telling him to use the processes that he's already supposed to be using (CFD/TFD). Is there any substantial difference here from doing nothing and hoping the problem resolves itself? <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
**I suppose there's also the prohibition of using even manual methods to make those cosmetic changes, and it looks like even if those cosmetic changes are made at the same time as another edit they would still be disallowed (without bot approval, which I suppose ''is'' already bot policy). To my mind this is just because it's difficult at times to tell if Rich is making manual, semi-automated or fully automated edits from his account (because, as you know, in violation of the bot policy he appears to make all three from his main account, without using proper edit summaries). Personally I think we should be stopping this problem there. With enforcing the bot policy and stopping him from making ''any'' bot like edits from his account, as proposed above. But would also '''support''' this alternative proposal after the original one. - [[User:Kingpin13|Kingpin]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kingpin13|13]]</sup> ([[User talk:Kingpin13|talk]]) 21:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
**The restriction would make it clear that these changes lack consensus and he may be blocked if he continues making them prior to gathering consensus. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:04, 5 June 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.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archivessearch)

    Open tasks[edit]

    XFD backlog
    V Mar Apr May Jun Total
    CfD 0 9 43 0 52
    TfD 0 0 9 0 9
    MfD 0 0 2 0 2
    FfD 0 0 3 0 3
    RfD 0 2 23 0 25
    AfD 0 0 3 0 3


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (24 out of 7807 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    List of Pakistanis by net worth 2024-06-05 16:48 2025-02-13 08:30 edit Edit warring / content dispute: Restore to semiprotection when dispute is resolved Anachronist
    Pors 2024-06-05 13:52 2024-09-05 13:52 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry, editing by IPs that are a clear behavioral match to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bensebgli Rosguill
    Morty Smith 2024-06-05 02:51 2024-09-05 02:51 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
    2024 Indian general election 2024-06-04 19:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Template:Catalog of Fishes 2024-06-04 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3449 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Group A 2024-06-04 02:18 2024-06-11 02:18 move Move warring: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Robert Adams (spiritual teacher) 2024-06-04 01:59 2024-06-25 01:59 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Rescue of Ori Megidish 2024-06-04 00:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Combat operations in 1964 during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation 2024-06-03 23:20 2024-07-03 23:20 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    User talk:Leonidlednev 2024-06-03 22:41 2024-10-08 05:50 move Persistent vandalism Daniel
    Clancy (album) 2024-06-03 22:03 2024-07-03 22:03 move Persistent vandalism and disruptive editing Carlosguitar
    Israel–Maldives relations 2024-06-03 21:13 2025-06-03 21:13 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Sporting CP 2024-06-03 17:42 2024-09-03 17:42 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Enough. ECR protected. Black Kite
    Economy of England 2024-06-03 09:21 2026-06-03 09:21 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Draft:Yash Shah 2024-06-03 01:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case
    Joseph Kallarangatt 2024-06-02 20:25 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; raising to ECP Daniel Case
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unzela Khan 2024-06-02 20:21 2024-06-09 20:21 edit Persistent vandalism Star Mississippi
    Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons in 2024-06-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2571 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Battle of Sulaymaniyah (1991) 2024-06-01 21:55 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/KURD Daniel Quinlan
    Hossein Kamalabadi 2024-06-01 21:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Extraordinary Writ
    Free Palestine Party 2024-06-01 20:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    List of characters in Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai 2024-06-01 19:01 2024-06-22 19:01 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case
    Jogi (caste) 2024-06-01 18:04 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per WP:GS/CASTE and recent disruption Daniel Case
    FCSB 2024-06-01 17:55 indefinite edit a number of issues involving confirmed accounts, see TP Black Kite

    Closure review[edit]

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


    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)[reply]

    Uninvolved (COVID19)[edit]

    This close was within the threshold of reasonable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      Overturn to no consensus to include or exclude Within the confines of the question of the RFC the close was with reason, but the the situation is bureaucratic. RFCs on whether a talk page consensus is still valid is a waste of time, work on something to include in the article and towards consensus for it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • That RfC is probably one of the shortest (and most concise) I've ever seen. And I would have reached a different conclusion after spending just 5 minutes reading all the comments. A double-vote was not correctly identified and discounted. Closer wrote much more than every participant in the discussion to justify their stance, giving an appearance of a supervote. That's a clear Overturn. I echo what has been said about shutting down the current RfCs based on previous RfC from 6 months ago. The whole virus is only 4 years old. That means (checking my math) it has been more than 1/8 of the virus' entire history since the newest RfC was created after the last one. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weakly overturn I feel Compassionate727's argument somewhat compelling. While we normally require a clear consensus to establish a new consensus and it its absence stick with the status quo ante, in this case since we were simply removing a documented current consensus, the lack of consensus should be enough to remove it. I have felt this for a while but didn't say anything because I hadn't looked at the discussion. Having done so I see that was actually another recent RfC. In the scheme of things, 6 months since the previous somewhat better attended discussion is a relatively short length of time. It's well accepted that those wishing to make a change cannot just keep making new RfCs until they wear everyone down and get their result due to non-participation. If the previous RfC had found a consensus to keep 14, I would have supported keeping FAQ item 14 but since it also found no consensus, IMO it seems clear this should just be removed due to the lack of consensus for something said to be the current consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That said, I'm only coming to this weakly since I also agree with those who've said the whole thing is a silly exercise. Rather than continuing to have these fairly pointless RfCs, it would be better to just start an RfC on some proposed change to the article which would go against RfC 14. If this succeeds, 14 will be overturned implicitly. If not, then even if technically 14 may have no consensus, since there was no consensus to add anything, who cares? Talk pages aren't for chit-chat and until there is consensus to add something the fact that there may simply be no consensus to add something rather than consensus against something doesn't matter. And if editors are able to provide compelling reasons for some addition then some FAQ item which has been through 2 RfCs with no consensus is not going to stop it. That said, this is one area where I disagree with the closer. Unfortunately all this means it's probably a bad idea to start an RfC so soon. It starts to become disruptive when editors keep having RfCs for the reasons I've mentioned. So I'd suggest this unfortunate series of RfCs means it would be best to wait at least 6 months before anyone tries to come back to this. Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For clarity, when starting an RfC on some proposed change to the article in violation of 14, it would be advisable to acknowledge 14 and say this will also strike it down; or something like that. But the point is the focus of the RfC should be on some real change to the article rather than just changing what the current consensus says. IMO it's also fine to workshop an RfC on some proposed change in violation of 14 and would oppose any attempts to prevent that because of 14. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-of any particular importance comment) I don't think I could adequately describe how much I am sick of this issue being raised (not sick with COVID though!) Remove it, leave it, whatever... as long as we don't have another one any time soon. On the latest discussion, I don't see any consensus either way. I will note that Lights and freedom (talk · contribs) is apparently now CU blocked as of 26 days ago though, which would not be information that was available at the time of close. (I suppose I should also note I read WINC narrowly, which I see was mentioned in the previous RfC close, and thus do not find it compelling in the context which it is used) Alpha3031 (tc) 13:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved (COVID19)[edit]

    • 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" [1] of "votes" [2] (6-4 in favor of the RfC - though challenger claimed it was 7-1 [3] 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.
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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] [4] of the "vote" [sic] [5] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    What exactly do you mean by reality? Can you explain what you meant by that? FailedMusician (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We could start here, but this is only a beginning... Buffs (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was concurring with you :-) Buffs (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion[edit]

    Ignoring the massive discussion, the facts are abundantly clear. I went WP:BEBOLD and invoked WP:IAR: [6]. WP:BRD if you feel I'm in error. Buffs (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Are these "/current_consensus" pages even real?[edit]

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


    • 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)[reply]
      I don't know why this section has turned into a bunch of people making bolded support and oppose votes to... what? What are you supporting and opposing? I do have an opinion on what should be done with these, but I did not say it in this comment, and the opinion is not "these should all be deleted". jp×g🗯️ 22:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • I think these lists are generally helpful on high traffic contentious topics, but they should be subject to time decay. They run afoul of brd and WP:5P3 as time goes on. The failure modes seem unaddressed by editors here, like what happened on the covid article where the rfc was unenforced and a new stable state was established through brd. SmolBrane (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      I agree too, it's instruction creep of the worst kind. This kind of thing should be in the WP namespace as a formal policy or guideline. It's no wonder people fall foul of these pseudo-regulations if they're spread all over the place in talk subpages. If an RfC finds consensus to make a guideline, make it a proper one. WaggersTALK 08:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Aren't these current consensus templates just a list of RFC results though? A list of RFC results doesn't ring any alarm bells for me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It depends what the RfC is for. If it's to establish a rule like "don't mention the theory that COVID-19 might have originated in a lab" then that's a guideline and should be published as such. WaggersTALK 08:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess it depends on scope. Guidelines like that go beyond a single article. Others might just be consensus for what one particular article should say, in which case it's fine that they stay on the talk page. But that sort of consensus only reflects that moment in time, so doesn't necessarily need to be kept for posterity. In short, we can't have it both ways. Either it's a "moment in time" decision or it's a lasting guideline. WaggersTALK 08:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And sometimes the so called "consensus" is just two people agreeing, yet it's treated like a commandment forever more (often by the same two people). The Trump list is like RSP: start clicking through the links and you'll find a bunch of the entries are BS. The lab leak one is another example where "documented consensus" -- aka the opinion of strong minded editors -- failed to keep up with RSes and actually impeded Wikipedia writing an accurate summary of current scholarship on the subject. Havana syndrome is another example. Pentagon UFOs also IIRC. Same with policy/guideline FAQs. Sometimes it's good to establish and document consensus, but also those tools or processes get abused by folks who want to use them to assert consensus rather than document it. Levivich (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. This is why I think this kind of thing needs to either become actual guidelines, or not be kept at all. Discussions about genuine policies and guidelines tend to attract a fair bit more community scrutiny and stop rubbish like this getting through. WaggersTALK 13:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think to some extent this happens because people want others to read the previous discussions and not cause massive time sinks. Talk:Twitter has an FAQ section where 8 move discussions are linked, for example. Obviously consensus can change but I don't think that mentioning previous consensus where there's been strong editor participation (not a two person decision like Levivich mentioned) is a bad idea in itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh absolutely. I occasionally do a bit of work on British Isles and related articles and the same conversation happening time and time again about the name of the island group (or even whether it is a group) is mind-numbingly dull. Probably the biggest problems in the COVID case are (1) the original consensus was a very local one and (2) some editors are treating it as set in stone when it absolutely isn't. WaggersTALK 07:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But it's a local consensus on a local issue. If editors were trying to say that based on this consensus you cannot add the lab leak to any article that would be a problem. Likewise if editors were saying this local consensus overrides some wider consensus. But this is simply documenting a historic consensus established on the talk page of the one and only page it applies to. And it's documenting it on that same talk page basically. (I mean yes it technically derives from a subpage but it's intended for the talk page.) And there's no wider consensus that comes into play. So the local consensus issue is a red-herring here IMO. (As I said above, I find it weird we have a current consensus which isn't a consensus so would support removing it for that reason, but that's unrelated to it being a local consensus.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm unconvinced your claim about Havana syndrome is accurate. AFAICT, there has never been a current consensus documented on the talk page [7] Talk:Havana syndrome/Current consensus. I'm aware of how controversial it's been in recent times, but my impression and I had a quick look at Talk:Havana syndrome which seems to affirm my belief that the discussion has primarily about whether the recent reports are of sufficient quality to be mentioned in the article and where and how WP:MEDRS applies. In terms of discussions over consensus, I see repeated claims there is consensus to add stuff based on the recent reports (which clearly can only be referring to a recent consensus) as well as discussions about there being consensus for MEDRS etc and people imploring others to gain consensus before making changes to avoid blocks and page protection (i.e. not necessarily because there was existing consensus they needed to override but because as always when there is dispute there needs to be discussion rather than edit-warring). Oh and there are also mentions of alleged consensuses outside of wikipedia e.g. a scientific consensus or medical consensus. In other words, this is a fairly typical highly charged disputed involving stuff some editors feel is fringe and the sourcing making certain claims are insufficient, and where others disagree. It may very well be correct that the anti-fringe editors often have the "upper-hand", so to speak, for various reasons but this is not because of any specific claims about a documented consensus other than MEDRS itself (for which there clearly is consensus even if not in it's application to any specific case). Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they're fine to have FAQ-style lists of common things people bring up.
    NOTE: The following is a fictitious example meant to illustrate a general point that applies to all Wikipedia content equally, and is not intended to be an analogy, endorsement or condemnation or any political subjects, activities, lifestyles or worldviews.
    Led Zeppelin IV actually wasn't released with an official title, so some people call it "Untitled (Led Zeppelin album)"; if we had some RfC about what to call it, but people keep showing up to ask about it eight times a week regardless, it makes sense to have a little talk page header saying "this title was decided on by XYZ discussion in 20XX". I think the main thing lacking justification is the idea that the talk-page summary header becomes a thing in itself -- e.g. that people argue that something should or shouldn't be done on the basis of what it says in the header, rather than the actual discussions themselves. Maybe a useful litmus test (a hypothetical statement concerning a thing that I do not claim to be the case) is to imagine that some random person makes a page at Talk:Moon/Current consensus that says "The article MUST say that the Moon is made of cheese" -- what happens? I feel like what should happen is that nobody cares, and we all go about our business, and edits to the article are made based on what sources say, etc. jp×g🗯️ 02:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    covid!
    The problem there is that it discourages good editing practices such as WP:BRD, WP:SOFIXIT, and WP:NORULES. "The science discussion on this is settled" is the governing statement.
    I find it completely ridiculous that we have a discussion result no one is willing to overturn due to bureaucracy despite
    1. a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin
    2. literally hundreds of reliable sources
    3. the actual article which has it there in spite of the consensus
    4. even if you don't agree with it, you have to admit that it is possible or at least a widespread theory and its exclusion from the COVID-19 article is a disservice to what reliable sources state.
    Some Admin needs to step up and say "enough." Who is going to be brave enough to do what is right? Buffs (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You sound pretty confident that the current consensus is wrong. If so, wouldn't it be easy to just RFC it again and get it changed? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An RFC shouldn't be necessary; it's unnecessary bureaucracy. The article already has the consensus to include it. Buffs (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buffs: I don't really understand your point 1. There's nothing in FAQ 14 which stops us mentioning what the general public believe is the most likely origin i.e. that it came from an animal of some sort through natural means. (In such much as the is a general consensus, probably over 50% of the world haven't really thought about it any any great deal.) FAQ 14 only stops us mentioning what a small minority of the public believe is most likely i.e. that it came from a lab. There may or may not be merit to mention what this small minority of the public believe but there's absolutely nothing stopping us mentioning the general consensus of the public of the most likely origin i.e. that it came from an animal through some natural means. Since this confuses you, we would consider re-wording it although I'm not entirely sure how you could confuse although to state the obvious "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article" into somehow affectingdoes not stop us mentioning the most common belief by the general public i.e. that it came from an animal through some natural means. Nil Einne (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Let's start with FAQ 14's verbiage: "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article." This means that, according to the "consensus" that was reached 4 years ago and bare months after the virus started, we cannot even mention the theory that COVID had a manmade origin. Even if you still wear a mask (despite ZERO supporting evidence that it does anything significant against the most current strains of the virus) and ample evidence that there are deleterious effects to social development, you have to admit that there are a lot of people who believe it. Including the following entities who admit it
    2. "only stops us mentioning what a small minority of the public believe is most likely" You might want to get out of your own circles a bit more. None of these are a "small minority. They are, at worst, a sizable minority and, at best, a solid majority:
    3. "Since this confuses you..." There's no confusion. You're being condescending and casting aspersions I would expect an admonishment from an admin.
    Buffs (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buffs: so you're saying American represent the world now? And you're accusing me of being condescending. (Redacted) I'm experienced enough to know many Americans are not like you, but it doesn't make you treating 95% of the world as if they don't matter any more acceptable. (Hint 25%+ of the UK means not even a majority of the UK thinks what you're claiming. A majority by any normal definition means 50%+1 person. The Chinese population represent over 17% of the world's population and while it's very difficult to know what they think there is a reasonable chance quite a high percentage of their population do not think it came from a Chinese lab. India's population also represents over 17% of the world. While there can be slightly better data on what they believe, for various reasons it's still going to be very limited. There are reasons to think they're more likely to believe it came from a Chinese lab, however what percentage of them think so is almost definitely not only unknown but unknowable. As I mentioned, there's actually good reason to think a large number of people have not really thought about it to any degrees. And indeed for various reasons some justified e.g. the behaviour from people like you who act like America represents the world, some unjustified, there's actually IMO a fair chance a greater percentage of the world's population thinks it came from a US lab and not a Chinese one which demonstrates who incredibly stupid this is in the first place. I mean it wouldn't surprise me if more people believe that HIV came from an American lab than think COVID-19 came from any lab.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I redacted the personal attack. starship.paint (RUN) 08:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you...the fact that it was up as long as it was demonstrates this page could certainly be more effectively monitored by the Admin corps. Buffs (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said America represents the world. You are intentionally dismissing any opinion that differs from your own as a "small minority" opinion (regardless of the evidence, I might add) when, in fact, there is evidence that it is not such a small opinion. While it may or may not be a minority opinion when checking by country (in the US, it is a MAJORITY opinion), it is widely accepted as a possible vector origin.
    There are parts of WP that still won't even admit that the FBI and DoE think it's the most likely vector going so far as to prevent any mention of it on WP.
    I'm not suggesting there is conclusive evidence. Until China cooperates, that's going to be impossible. But it is still a significant and widespread theory. Buffs (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buffs: you've provided absolutely no evidence that it is not a small minority opinion. The only evidence you've provided is it's an opinion shared by maybe 3% of the world's population which by any definition is a small minority. I admit, I have no evidence it is a small minority opinion, but frankly that wasn't and isn't by main point. Just to re-iterate, I believe that it is a small minority opinion but I have no evidence so I will not repeat the claim. However I am entitled to have that belief just as you are entitled the belief the general consensus of the public is that it originated from the lab. My main point is that we should not be making such claims in discussions like this when we have no evidence, especially when you're not willing to be challenged on it. You claimed "a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin". But you have no evidence for this. The only evidence you have is that 3% of the world believes it which is clearly, very, very, very, very, very far from "a general consensus of the public. And when I first challenged you on this, instead of acknowledging, yeah I have no evidence, it's just a belief I hold, you instead implied that what people believe in the US somehow proves the claim is true when it is clearly does not in any way. And you're still making claims without evidence. You claimed " it is widely accepted as a possible vector origin" but again the only evidence you have is about 3% of the world, some in the US intelligence community, along with a few UK scientist. (There is really no way to know about the reliability of the Censuswide survey. Such surveys tend to be very problematic since there is no way to test any corrections for non responses etc.) To be clear, I am explicitly not saying it is not "widely accepted". I have an opinion on that but as I said earlier I have no good evidence, so it's best I do not share that opinion on whether it is. I am simply saying you have not provided any evidence. Note that whether or not the idea is "widely accepted", it may still belong in the article but that doesn't mean it's okay to make claims without evidence. Also, for clarity although I did say it earlier, I admit I let my self get-heated when I said that. I'm a lot less sure about the majority opinion being from a lab thing and so I never should have said that point blank even putting aside my lack of evidence. As I said, a good chunk of the world has probably never thought about this that well, so there's a far chance the majority opinion is "no idea" or "I don't understand the question". But ultimately I have no evidence so never should have said that since my point was to re-iterate, even if I did it in a poor way, that editors should not be making statements for which they do not have the supporting evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne, you have focused on a single portion of my statement (#1) while ignoring a majority of it (#2-#4) in which I also stated "even if you don't agree with it, you have to admit that it is possible or at least a widespread theory and its exclusion from the COVID-19 article is a disservice to what reliable sources state". My point was to show you that it is not a "small minority" and not insignificant, not conclusively prove what the world thinks. You have then taken surveys (which are generally indicative of larger populations and dismissed them because they ostensibly aren't representative of the world at large. That was never the point of the articles I cited (you're moving the goalposts from "this isn't even a small minority opinion" to "this isn't indicative of the world's opinion"). Lastly, you admit you have no polls to back it up, so popular opinion is out.
    So, let's stick with what every source I've been able to find seems to suggest: most scientists believe it has a zoological origin but admit a lab leak is also possible and the evidence is inconclusive to date. Buffs (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) I'm focusing on a single portion of your statement because it's what I care about. I hate it when editors make conclusive statements for which I believe there is no evidence. I don't care that much about your other statements since while some of them are IMO also problematic they aren't nearly as problematic, hence why I have not addressed them and am not likely to.

    And I never said or implied that a lab leak was impossible. And I feel I've already clarified enough to make it clear I never meant to say or imply that the lab leak theory is definitely not commonly accepted by the general public. That's all besides my point which is that you do not have sufficient evidence to make the claim "a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin". You've still not withdrawn the claim nor conceded you do not have sufficient evidence to make that claim.

    I've also never shared a definitive opinion on whether it belongs mention of the lab leak theory belongs in the COVID-19 article because it's irrelevant to my point. (I did say I support removing the FAQ item, and say the opinion might belong even if it's only from a small minority.)

    Note also that acknowledging something is possible is very different from thinking it's what happened. Even if 100% of the world believes it is possible, but they still think it is not what most likely happened, it would not be accurate to say the virus originated from a lab is a majority opinion or the "general consensus of the public". It would not even be accurate to say it's an opinion of a small minority.

    In such a case, it's actually an opinion of zero people, with 100% of people thinking it's possible, but not where the virus likely came from. Or to put it in your earlier example, "a general consensus of the public that this is a possible point of origin" or better "unanimous consensus of the public that this is a possible point of origin". But in any case, I've never denied it could be a small minority opinion so I'm not sure why you mention this.

    Also surveys are only useful when they have been done well. Surveys on the general public are okay, but often not brilliant when done for things besides voting When they're done for things which people actually vote on, the people who run the surveys have a way to check if their survey actually worked. When done for things people don't vote on, they're a lot more iffy since there is no way to check if the results are accurate.

    Random sampling is a well recognised statistical method which works well, but most surveys are very far from random sampling given non responses and the way subjects are selected. (For example telephone polling is well recognised in many countries to miss a reasonable chunk of the population in a biased way.) And so a decent survey might need to try and correct for these divergence from random sampling. But this requires things like looking at the demographic data etc and trying to account for the people you've missed.

    But while you can get a good idea about whether your corrections work when you can check them against vote, you don't have that for other things and cannot assume they will hold for other stuff especially when they are so divergent. Note that in cases when you want to assess a vote, you're also generally intentionally ignoring the people who don't vote and even if you report their results, you have no way to check them.

    Surveys on specific subpopulations, especially small subpopulations like lecturers are generally even more unreliable (I believe the technical term is validity) given the earlier problems, especially the problem of checking the result. 200 lecturers might be fine if you actually had a proper random sample with responses from all, but it can easily fall apart in practice.

    I have no idea about the quality of Censuswide so I've assumed they're actually trying to do a proper job since ultimately even if they are their results would still be flawed. But it's well recognised that some companies don't do so, with poor questions or worse biased sampling.

    Note that although I've sometimes qualified my acceptance of the US population results, I have not questioned them in the same way precisely because these tend to be a fair amount more reliable although still often fairly imperfect for the reasons I outline. (Likewise when I incorrectly believed the UK one was for the whole UK population not just scientists/lecturers.) Still there are whole books written on this sort of thing Lies, damned lies, and statistics has a tiny list.

    Finally, possibly this is better defined somewhere but I'm not going to look so I'll just note that lecturers in "all disciplines" is also not as useful as it seems. The source says scientists so I'm assuming they're restricting to science disciplines. But the opinion of a astronomer on the origins of the virus is frankly only slightly more significant than the opinion of the general public. You get the same same problem with evolution. Does an astronomer rejecting evolution actually tell us much about its acceptance among people who should understand it and have seen the evidence? Not really or at least not much more than a survey of checkout operators.

    So yes there are multiple reasons I feel it's fair to be dismissive of that UK lecturer survey as not being a particularly useful data point for anything.

    Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For clarity I stand by my statement that you have not provided sufficient evidence to disprove the notion that it's a small minority who believe it's the most likely origin since as I've said such a small percentage or the world's population definitely is a small minority. Again, I'm not saying it is a small minority just that I have no seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate it is not. And again, this IMO has very limited bearing on whether it belongs in the article. (If it was more than a small minority it's more likely to belong but it may belong even if it is a small minority and that's all besides my point.) Also editors might have differing opinions on what constitutes small minority. I don't think you can argue against 5% being a small minority. But from my PoV 15-20% is still a small minority. So it's fair to say even the entirety of the developed world [8] is a small minority. If others feel that 15-20% is not a small minority I see no problem with that, but my statements are going to be based on what I think is a small minority. Nil Einne (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Yes I'll acknowledge I was being needless provocative when I said "what a small minority of the public believe is most likely" and the stuff about the editor being confused etc and I should not have been. While I personally suspect my statement about small minority is true, especially since as I've said it's quite likely a large percentage of the world has never really thought about to a degree that they can be said to have clear thoughts on the matter, I have no evidence. However it was in response to the existing claim "a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin", which would imply a majority think so. When as we've seen the editor has no evidence for such a claim. I suspected, and have sadly been proven right, that this editor is largely approaching this from the PoV that if under 5% of the world's population i.e. the US population have a "general consensus" then it'd fair to ascribe to the world. I strongly object to such a PoV and will call it out whenever I see it since I find it incredibly offensive although will do my best to do so in a calmer fashion in future. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'Needlessly provocative' is really underselling vitriolic abuse of another editor. You could at least have the decency to strike and apologise. Riposte97 (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't expect an apology for someone so overtly hostile to anyone they perceive as Americans. Buffs (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care whether anyone is an American and work with Americans every day in BLPN etc. I do care when someone implies that what Americans somehow represents the "general consensus of the public" Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    no matter how many times you assert it, I never said nor claimed nor implied that "Americans represent the general consensus of the public". Buffs (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet you continue to stand by your statement "a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin" as a point of fact rather than just accept it is an opinion for which you have no real evidence, when the only evidence you have is that a majority of Americans may believe it. Just to emphasise you did not say 'a general consensus of the American public that this is the most likely origin' which might be justified by your evidence. How else are your fellow editors supposed to reconcile these inconsistencies in what you've said? I.E. That "a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin" is a factual statement something you seem to continue to stick by even after I've challenged it multiple times in different ways, rather than just acknowledge as an opinion for which you have no real evidence (as I did for my claims). And the only real evidence I have for it is what most Americans believe. (Which as I've already explained is a very poor proxy for what the rest of the world believes especially in a case lile this.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From my PoV anyone is free to collapse these discussions if they feel it best at any time even if they start with my first reply and ignore Buffs original comment. But also, if Buffs ever withdraws or qualifies either with an edit or a reply their statement "a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin" to acknowledge they do not have sufficient evidence, I'm fine with people just deleting this whole diversion starting with my comment if others involved (especially Buffs) agree. Nil Einne (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example, I remember the discussion earlier this year about "Consensus 37" at the Trump article. This RFC from five years ago with an 8-3 vote is still the law of the article despite being obviously outdated because it's about "Content related to Trump's presidency" which ended three years ago. Levivich (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Pretty much all of these should be shitcanned. Editors do not get to form a little clique and vote themselves a preferred consensus to be preserved in amber forever. Jtrainor (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The one thing I will say is IMO it might be helpful if we establish somehow that when we have these current consensus FAQs, a no-consensus outcome in a well attended RfC would be enough to remove them. However also that most of the time, such RfCs are ill-advised since it would be better to propose some specific change that would be in violation of the current consensus. (An exception might be broader current consensuses like consensus 37 mentioned by Levivich above.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've found these sorts of consensus-collections and FAQs to be useful, and I greatly appreciate not having to dig through archives to find the relevant RfC. Levivich's point about obviously outdated items is a good one (though I don't think of item 37 being a good example), but it's more bathwater than baby. In general, older RfCs should be more easily overturned by non-RfC discussion; this is a position I hold generally, and it doesn't matter whether the RfC is buried in the archives or collected for convenience in a pinned section. I would prefer (a la Nil Einne) that new discussions/RfCs focus on proposed article changes than meta-discussion about the consensus item itself. If we do get more "should we keep item #86" RfCs, I agree with NE that a "no consensus" outcome should be enough to invalidate the item. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Re: "new discussions/RfCs focus on proposed article changes than meta-discussion about the consensus item itself". The problem is that the conclusion of the RFC itself is the problem. We can't have a discussion about content when the RfC prevents such changes. Buffs (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please provide evidence that the current consensus item prevented an actual attempted discussion at some change to the article. Anyone can say the FAQ did something without evidence. I can say the FAQ prevented people who think Americans represent the world making harmful changes to the article based on such a PoV but I have no evidence so will not make such a claim. Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) 19:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course we could have a discussion about content, and the old RfC couldn't possibly prevent such a discussion. For example, the new RfC's question could have just been "Should the article mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory?" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The article had already mentioned the lab leak theory for six months. Based on which policy would an rfc be required? SmolBrane (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If there wasn't any controversy over continued mention of the theory, no RfC would be needed. As I recall, continued inclusion was contentious, hence the need for an RfC. I don't believe there's a policy that requires it, but it's basic dispute resolution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Inclusion was established via WP:EDITCON, the policy by which most editing occurs. We need good reason to stray from that, and we cannot do so indefinitely. Why did 2200 watchers fail to enforce the rfc? Continued inclusion was not contentious (or please demonstrate where/how). As I stated in the latest rfc, the consensus list should have simply been corrected to reflect the mainspace; this is what I did with consensus 18. SmolBrane (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was mistaken about inclusion being contentious pre-RfC, though it evidently became so once the RfC began. I agree that an appropriate first move would have been to just strike the consensus item. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how many topics have general consensuses, but I think said consensuses should be revisited regularly, say maybe 3 or 4 months? That would help keep things current, as it were. That would mean that the divbox containing the general consensus should also reflect when it was decided on, and possibly when it should be reevaluated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The informal, unofficial, not-always-followed standard we have used at Trump is: If the situation addressed by the consensus has changed significantly, it's ok to revisit it. If an editor has significant new argument(s), it's ok to revisit it. Otherwise, it's a settled issue and time-limited editors have more useful ways to contribute than putting the same ingredients through the same machinery to see if we get a different product. What we don't do is revisit merely because the editor mix has changed, not merely because an editor drops by who disagrees with the consensus, and certainly not because some arbitrary number of months have passed. This has worked fairly well there, in my opinion, and we're considering revisiting our current consensus item 22 as we speak, per the "situation has changed" criterion. ―Mandruss  03:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, while I'm sympathetic to the sentiment of avoiding bureaucracy, I'm not sure it's a good idea to essentially reward raising the same issue over and over again until the people opposing it give up, which is the only reason I see for these "current consensu"/FAQ sections to be used. Ultimately, I don't think there's a good way to write a general rule on this, so I would prefer to leave it to the judgement of the uninvolved closer, considering the history on a case by case basis. Alpha3031 (tc) 06:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hesitant to criticize a method of making it easier to find past discussions and RfCs. Talk:Donald Trump has 169 talkpage archives. CMD (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If we're just talking about previous discussions, I don't think anyone has a problem with it. The problem is that these discussions are treated as sacrosanct, i.e. "These are the rules for this page" when they are just a record of previous discussions. Such discussions should indeed be archived as they flow further into the past and more information becomes available. This instance is probably one of the most egregious. The RfC says we can't mention the COVID lab leak theory, but it's prominently in the article by extensive consensus. It is one of two leading theories as to the origin (there doesn't seem to be any significant debate on that). Wordsmith was absolutely correct on his assessment of both the RfC and the subsequent discussion. The fact that it took so much discussion for an easy, clear outcome is just one example of the bureaucratic hoops that are stifling Wikipedia.
      These pages and ones like it sprung up in the "fact checking" era of Trump's presidency when self-appointed "fact checkers" went out of their way to block "misinformation". This was an extension of that era and continues to strangle meaningful discussion and reasoned debate in society. I'm not saying "publish everything they say as gospel truth!" but I am saying that it is better to reasonably reflect the public discourse than become an arm of "fact checking"; it invariably leads to censorship. Buffs (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think there's an issue with documenting prior discussions, listing prior discussions so that the same issue isn't raised over and over is useful. But RFCs about what consensuses they should contain is bureaucracy, it's an abnormal process that achieves nothing. There still no consensus to include anything.
      If someone were to add wild lab leak conspiracy theory nonsense (note I've always been of the opinion it's a valid minority view, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lots of nonsense about the issue) there would still be valid reason to revert the addition, and consensus building would still need to happen.
      For me the issue to be resolved is how to document such discussions without promoting situations such as this one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In this case, it seems like the bureaucracy was necessary. When the topic area was under General Sanctions, a page restriction was logged preventing editors from making substantial changes to the "Current consensus" page without a clear consensus. It might be worth discussing and possibly appealing the restriction either here or at WP:AE or WP:ARCA since the GS was converted into WP:CTOP. The other two examples I know of where a consensus was binding were also under Arbcom's authority, namely WP:RFC/J and WP:GMORFC. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      True but the consensus (not the consensus page) could have been changed by normal consensus building. Any consensus to include content would have been a 'clear consensus' and so would allow updating of the 'current consensus' page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would support removing that GS remedy for similar reasons to why I supported removing FAQ item 14. But otherwise I agree with ActivelyDisinterested. From what I see, the GS did not stop editors proposing changes such as adding the lab leak to the article, on the article talk page. If editors can demonstrate that editors were stopping concrete proposals for change to the article based on the current consensus page overriding/preventing any new discussion, then that is indeed a serious concern and IMO a reason to remove or at least clarify what these pages mean. If editors are simply insisting that these are harmful because they do not always accurately represent the current consensus, I'm less certain that matters much. So I see no reason to have an RfC just to establish what a consensus is absent a concrete proposal for change to the article. Although to be clear, I still support removing items when they clearly have no consensus rather than requiring there to be a consensus to remove them. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @ActivelyDisinterested: for clarity, are you aware that our article has had a limited mention of the lab leak since July 2023 [9] and still with some rewording [10]. It seems the recent RfC was started in part because of the weird oddity that the FAQ said not to mention something we already did. I still don't think it was the best solution, as I outlined below, but this realisation helps me better understand why editors took the route they did. Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm less favourable to that idea as a way of changing the consensus. Was there a consensus to include that, or was it in the article but unnoticed by any who might object? It's a big article, and that's five words of text.
      Does it overrule a consensus against a larger addition? I don't know that there's a simple answer to that. The addition was added before the RFC prior to this RFC, so again what the consensus was on its inclusion was unclear.
      I still believe working towards something to include and consensus through normal practice is fundamentally a better idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support abolishing these - Only 12 of these currently exist, of which 5 are currently at MfD for being empty. That leaves only 7 in the entire encyclopedia, and most hot-button issues don't have them, as pointed out by JPxG. We clearly do just fine without these.
    The main issue with them is that they are simply false - they purport to show a "current consensus" by citing discussions that are often multiple years old. This is deeply misleading, lends excessive authority to old discussions, and leads to odd consequences like an RfC and then an AN appeal to overturn stuff that is obviously outdated. For example, at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus, 10 out of the 11 entries are over three years old, and the 11th is only 3 months younger. Talk:COVID-19/Current consensus entries are all over 4 years old, it isn't even transcluded anymore at Talk:COVID-19, and items 1 and 3 don't hold true anymore (1 even has the now-infamous claim that COVID-19 is "not considered airborne"). And number 2 is silly, no one is going to add the "current events" template there in 2024.
    An FAQ template directing people to previous RfCs is fine and can be useful, but presenting RfCs and other discussions all together regardless of age as "current consensus" is incorrect, causes problems, and is unnecessary. Crossroads -talk- 23:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure here is the best place to discuss abolishing these because the users of them have not been invited to the discussion. We should consider closing this AN without action and moving to mfd. I suspect many more folks will have keep opinions after notices are left at the corresponding article talk pages. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object to removal. No editor has articulated any actual problem with these. One editor has gone so far as to imply that because a majority of Americans agree with something that means a majority of the world does, which is clear and utter nonsense and also nothing to do with whether we should remove these. I agree with ActivelyDisinterested that it's fairly dumb that editors are having RfCs to remove items from the current consensus pages, but the solution would seem to be to remind editors not to do that. As I've already said, if necessary we can clarify somewhere that lack of consensus in a well attended discussion is enough to remove something from a current consensus FAQ, but that's probably about all we need to do. I don't think the small number of these is indicative they're not needed. If anything what it suggests is that they're rarely needed and are unlikely to be a problem since they're only used in exceptional cases. Of course, any individual current consensus could be deleted if it's felt it's no longer needed so I see no harm in an editor nominating a current consensus page for deletion. By the same token, an editor is technically free to nominate them all in one go, and if consensus develops in such a discussion we should never have these then so be it. But I definitely do not think this is the way, especially when editors participating have made such extremely offensive comments to many, many, many of us who whether we're Americans or not, do not think that Americans represent the world. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) 19:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For further clarity, the most likely problem with these would be that they are preventing discussion on making changes to the article which have a chance of gaining consensus. This would most likely be in the form of discussions proposing some change to the article which were closed because they were against the current consensus. (As opposed to other reasons e.g. there was a recent discussion, there was no real concrete proposal for a change or attempts to formulate an RfC or something else concrete instead just chit chat about how evil the article is or whatever.) Perhaps some editors may claim that such FAQ items mean editors are not going to bother to propose changes which might be able to gain consensus. But on the flipside, I'd argue that such FAQ items are stopping pointless discussions which have no hope of consensus or are more chitchat that serious proposals for change. Since we cannot know what editors would have done absent such FAQ items, it's very hard to actual claim they're harmful because of that IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Somehow even though I had skimmed both RfCs (i.e. including the most recent where this is a big deal), I missed until now that our article has actually mentioned the lab leak theory since July 2023 [11] and still does with some rewording [12]. This leads me to 2 thoughts. One is the obvious one that it really shouldn't have taken so much work to remove the FAQ item and can better understand the frustrations of those trying to remove it. There was apparent at least silent consensus to mention it so there was absolutely no reason for item 14 to be there for so long. I think it's fair to look into what went wrong here. It seems one of the problems is that it was added without discussion and possibly not many noticed. So we got into the weird situation where we had an older consensus and there were disputes over whether the long term undisputed change meant there was a new consensus. IMO the earlier discussion and removal of the GS item would be helpful steps to resolve this weird contradiction. As I said before, perhaps we need to be clearer that the lack of consensus is by itself enough to remove a FAQ item. However to my mind, if anything this whole thing demonstrates that these FAQs aren't really doing much harm to articles. Apparently the existence of that FAQ item didn't stop us mentioning the lab leak for 9+ months. And even after the no consensus RfC on the FAQ we got into the weird situation where FAQ item 14 stayed but the mention also stayed. So it's not like the preservation of the FAQ item was actually used as justification to remove any mention. Perhaps this AN stopped that, I don't know. But frankly, even if someone had tried to remove the mention, I'm not sure if this is a problem with the FAQs per se. While I don't think the FAQ item should have stayed, the better RfC would have concentrated on what we said in the article (and perhaps mentioning this would overturn 14). If there was consensus for mentioning the lab leak, then great keep it. If there was consensus against, then great remove it. If there was no consensus then we get to the tricky situation we always get to when it comes to no consensus outcomes. WP:NOCONSENSUS would suggest going with the WP:STATUSQUO before the RfC which in this case would have been with mention. But others might argue even if it has been so long the change had simply been missed and the RfC should take precedence as demonstration of the most current consensus/actual status quo. I'm sure most of us with experience know there's no simple resolution to these disputes when there is no consensus. And indeed as in any case where there is no consensus, it's quite likely a bunch of editors would be unhappy with the outcome. But I'm just unconvinced the FAQ would have made the problem worse it seems to arise from the existence of the earlier RfC and the change made soon after without ?much discussion. Note also as I've said editors feeling it's too soon for a new discussion is a very normal thing and largely unrelated to FAQ items Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified: Talk:Donald Trump, Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got summoned by a notice on the Donald Trump talk page. Clearing up JPxG’s misunderstandings in the post that started this discussion:
    1. the "current consensus" was not unilaterally created by one admin in 2017. It got its start as a consensuses banner at the top of the talk page in December 2016, then converted to the "sticky" thread in the body of the Talk page in August 2017. In between, the admin appears to have protected it so that only template editors could edit it. That doesn’t seem to be in effect any longer, because I’ve edited it, and I’ve never made a request for template editor (don’t know what that is).
    2. What in tarnation are these? Are these binding over actual article consensus or actual talk page consensus? Please take a look at the individual consensus items. Each one contains at least one link or more to the discussion(s) and RfCs on the Talk page that led to the consensus.
    The consensus isn’t written in stone. Items have been superseded by new items or amended, as indicated by several linked discussions.
    Anyone can start a discussion or an RfC on the Talk page but be prepared to back up your proposal with reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If it goes against current consensus, the onus is on you to get consensus for a new one. And if you’re wondering why editors in 2016/2017 (before my time) started the list and why current editors still support it, just start reading the 168 archives. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Summoned from the Trump talk page. Very tired of these discussions that don't bother to post notices. If, for example, editors agreed to abolish the consensus list, and no one had posted a notice on the Trump page, I'd be pretty freaking pissed.
    The consensus list is a collection of RfC and discussion results. That's all it is. It's basically a psuedo-FAQ/timestamp: it reflects a moment in time in which editors came to a consensus. People agreed that X was how it should be done in the past, so no one is allowed to change it to Y without first establishing a new consensus. Very reasonable, in my opinion. And—the key to its enduring success—it's not binding. Consensus items can, and have, been superseded. Old items are looked at and changed. Editors just need to gather a consensus to do so.
    The Trump page is not a normal page. Hell, it isn't even a normal large page. Without defined consensuses to fall back on... oh my God. The timesinks. The waste of editor time. The rehashing of old, useless topics. The endless bickering. There's a reason why Muhammed has a FAQ, and it's very similar to why the consensus list exists.
    I can confidently state that, IMO, the consensus list is one of the greatest innovations to come out of Wikipedia in the last ten years, and I think that every CTOP article of a similar size should adopt it.
    Also, I don't think any consensuses that are currently in effect on the Trump talk page consist of two people agreeing. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm too lazy to check. At the very least, since I started editing the article, it's been the exact opposite: multilayered discussions that lead to RfCs are pretty standard (see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 166 or this), as are 'smaller' discussions that don't quite reach RfC level.
    I'm a fan of the consensus list. A massive fan. Cessaune [talk] 22:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's an informal FAQ, then call it an informal FAQ -- I don't think anybody objects to keeping that at the top of the page -- the only thing I object to is people on a talk page inventing a policy where all content is subject to an additional made-up process that they're in charge of. The process of adding or removing things from the current-consensus list should be downstream of what happens article and the talk page. That is: "the consensus page says we must XYZ" should NEVER override a consensus on the actual talk page/article that "we shouldn't XYZ". This is all I say. jp×g🗯️ 01:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus page is updated constantly. There is no real danger that the consensus page will fail to reflect a consensus on the talk page. If such a scenario does happen, it would be fixed pretty quickly in 99% of cases. Cessaune [talk] 01:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does this have to do with what I said? There is obviously nothing wrong with having a pinned section at the top of a talk page that simply links to (or includes) the outcomes of content RfCs -- I agree with this and have said so repeatedly. jp×g🗯️ 02:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is: "the consensus page says we must XYZ" should NEVER override a consensus on the actual talk page/article that "we shouldn't XYZ"
    Sure. But an informal discussion should not overrule an RFC. If the consensus page is a record of multiple RFCs/large discussions, a small discussion would also not overrule those. It has no power beyond the discussions it lists. — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the discussion here on the Trump talk page, not going along with consensus item #25 was called a violation, as if it were policy. As it turned out, consensus item #25 mischaracterized the result of discussions that it was based on and should not have applied to the edit in question. The edit was prevented from going into the article because consensus item #25 had to be changed first. Some attempt was made at a change but it did not go anywhere. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      called a violation, as if it were policy - WP:CONSENSUS is policy. Congratulations, you've astutely identified an imperfection in the system (a very rare one in my experience, and I've been around the Trump list since its inception in ~2016). Hardly an argument for scrapping the system. Bottom line there is that the issue was discussed at great length, including the argument you make above, and you lost. ―Mandruss  01:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x and Cessaune, in particular with Cessaune as to notification. That was completely out of line—again—and it's getting to the point where it should earn sanctions.
      What is the point of local consensuses that nobody can remember in the long term? Do consensuses have an expiration date? Do they stop counting and require "refresh" when most of the contributing editors have moved on? Where is that in the policy, and how would it make sense anyway? Even when we can remember them, what's so awful about making it easy to find the related discussions?
      I have no "proof", but I believe many editors are willing to spend more of their time helping establish a consensus when they know the product of their effort won't disappear into the archives and be forgotten by next year. That's good for the project.
      Any "set in stone" arguments are completely baseless, at least at Talk:Donald Trump (no experience with the lists elsewhere). Twenty percent of the items in that list have been superseded, a healthy percentage. If items are more set in stone elsewhere, then fix that without throwing the baby out with the bath water. If editors don't understand/respect WP:CCC, that problem is not caused by the consensus list. We really need to stop blaming systems and start blaming editors who misuse or abuse them.
      Otherwise I don't care to read all of this massive wall of text. ―Mandruss  06:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Donald Trump is one of the weird ones..... there's consensus that the article can be very large for going accessibility concerns? This is just odd. Moxy🍁 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, no idea what you're saying there—or how it pertains to a discussion about the merits of consensus lists. ―Mandruss  00:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Can't mention the article is too long is a weird thing for a consensus. Moxy🍁 00:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm left to guess that you disagree with current consensus 64. Too bad; it's a consensus. And that has nothing to do with the consensus list; the consensus would exist with or without the list. ―Mandruss  01:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's exactly the problem..... Thank you for expressing my point..... that the page is so inviting and seems so collaborative. Moxy🍁 01:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a page issue, not a consensus list issue, which is the point Mandruss is making. Cessaune [talk] 02:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      the page is so inviting and seems so collaborative. Unidentified sarcasm impedes communication, if that's what that was. I never use it and I encourage all editors to avoid it. ―Mandruss  05:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      FWIW, see the Brilliant Idea barnstar that I received in January 2017 from MelanieN, then a respected admin (no longer an admin but I assume still respected): "For coming up with the idea of a List of Consensuses, and maintaining it as a very helpful addition to Talk:Donald Trump." It's on my user page. (Melanie mistakenly gave me all the credit, which should have been shared with JFG.) It's far from the only positive feedback from experienced editors, just the easiest to find. ―Mandruss  03:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idea of having links to previous relevant discussions is useful. For example, if someone reverts an edit they should give the reason in a statement in the edit summary and add, "See consensus item #xx ." In that way, if an editor wants to appeal the revert on the talk page, the previous discussions can be used as a starting point for the new discussion instead of having to repeat them. The editor then has the opportunity to show that the previous discussions did not apply and that the reversion of their edit is incorrect. An editor who is just trying to make an edit to the article should not be required to campaign to change a statement of a consensus item that may mischaracterize previous discussions. The editor should only be required to show that their edit improves the article.
      I think we want to avoid the situation where an editor justifies a revert by treating a consensus item like a law: "I'll concede that #25 did not anticipate this situation. Nevertheless, its letter precludes this addition (the source in question is not dead) and would require amendment."[13] Bob K31416 (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      [14] Thank (the deity of your choice) for talk space diffs; they save us from having to repeat ourselves. It's not going to be useful to debate a "problem" that almost never occurs. Those rare cases can and should be handled in local discussion, as that one was. WP:CREEP applies even where there is no actual guideline. ―Mandruss  06:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my experience editing the Donald Trump article, he is so controversial that it is very beneficial to have an institutional memory of consensus. This is not set in stone, a new RfC can overwrite any old consensus. If you remove this and Trump gets elected again... good luck to all the editors of the page. starship.paint (RUN) 14:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the best way to think about these are "These are the RfCs we've already had and this is what the outcome was." I don't think it's any different than starting a new section in the Talk: and being told "This is the consensus according to this RfC. Start a new one if you want to change it." Only difference is I can go and look at the RfC without searching and decide if it's stale enough that I think it warrants discussion. It may be worth documenting on a WP: page or Template to help with anyone who tries to treat it different from a normal consensus, but that is ultimately an editor problem – no different from editors who are delete happy or already bitey. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't imagine Trump coverage stuff, but I will put in for maintaining FAC's of prior consensus: some time ago, there were many years of much back and forth, arbcom cases, hugh and cry, endless discussions, angry words, and on and on and on, about a certain religious figure's article but then broad consensus was assessed and years and years later, it's still basically settled with a reference to the FAC of prior consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going to reply to a comment here and the stopped myself as it was about content, as is half of this discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think they can be a useful tool to summarise current consensus in regards to the article content as long as they don't go beyond that. As long as they don't stray into other areas than the content of the article itself, they can save editors time that they otherwise would have spent trawling through archives whenever a discussion arises. The Donald Trump one goes beyond the article and discusses all sorts of administrative stuff that has nothing to do with the content of the article. I find that the discussion of the administrative stuff in the Donald Trump one makes it a lot longer than necessary and it has become unwieldly. The COVID-19 pandemic one as compared to the Trump one I find useful, although it could be improved by removing entries which are superseded or obsolete. TarnishedPathtalk 04:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm confused? So are you challenging the validity of the non-content discussions/RfCs that make up the consensus list? Cessaune [talk] 05:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not challenging the validity. I'm questioning the usefulness of including those items in a current consensus page when they start to make it unwieldly. For me the usefulness as a tool for current consensus page is being able to quickly access information. That usefulness starts to be eroded when the current consensus page includes listings for discussions which are either obsolete, superseded or about things which have nothing to do with content and the page takes up over a screen thus requiring scrolling. TarnishedPathtalk 05:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Scrolling" might be a little tedious. But it does not even begin to compare to the tediousness of finding old discussions that may or may not exist. Most articles don't have over 160 archived pages. It would be nigh impossible to find anything, unless you personally took part in a specific discussion. Worst case scenario: we can collapse the list. Cessaune [talk] 14:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Worst case scenario: we can collapse the list. Or alternatively such lists could exclude obsolete and superseded entries for a starter. TarnishedPathtalk 14:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, I guess. Though I don't feel that the list as it is is as unwieldy as you make it out to be. Cessaune [talk] 19:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose getting rid of consensus pages - I was involved in creating some of the COVID ones iirc, and would support keeping them. We intentionally created it as a list of RFCs, and we put the dates of each RFC so that people would know how long ago and how frequently the topic had been brought up. It's just a record of the situation, a shortcut to say "see we talked about this already". It does not in any way preclude creating another RFC to overturn the consensus, or to change the page. It does not add any layer of bureaucracy, it just records the bureaucracy we've always had. And helps the tedious repeated citation of the same thing over and over again to new anon IP users who come in to vandalize or POV-push pages. Getting rid of these (at least in the COVID space) will only serve to push out experienced users and invite more POV-pushing.
      When ideas change, evidence changes, the process is the same regardless of whether these consensus pages exist. You just create a new RFC, and then change the page when the RFC results in favor of the change. That would not be different if we abolished consensus pages. — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • View consensus pages highly skeptically, abolish, or set a framework for removal of a consensus In the covid close review discussion (directly above) a consensus was used in a buracratic manner to fly in the face of WP:NOTCENSORED. Once the so-called consensus was put in place, it took two RFCs to remove it, noting both RFCs were pretty clearly in favor of removal and/or raised serious questions about the consensus. The closer of the review was comedic in their close stating there was 'no consensus for the consensus' yet this consensus (aka defacto article level policy) was still being pushed by editors supporting a particular content position and I suspect would even have moved any editor over to ANI for violating the 'consensus' (aka censorship rule). Thus the consensus pages are WP:SQS on steroids. 'If you violate our rules (eg WP:CIRCUS) and dare to WP:IAR we will get you a tban, so go back to your other articles and keep your mouth shut' is the result of these so called consensus rules (at least in some cases)... I do see it is useful that consensus exists (that is how humans form WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS) but the way these consensus pages were used (at least in this covid case) where abusive and contrary to WP:5P. I suspect these tools are used more often on highly political articles, which I normally try to steer clear of. If we want to keep them, lets at least have a clear policy where consensus must continue to clearly support & demonstrate the so-called "consensus pages" when challenged (in a reasonable timeframe interval and manner such as an RFC), as the discussion above about covid demonstrated that the RFC closing editors believed incorrectly that we needed a tidal-wave of change of opinion to overturn the consensus, rather than more common sense that 'hey it looks like the consensus no longer exists, so we should probably remove it from the consensus page' I am glad the above closure discussion opened this wider discussion as I think it is important that we seek to limit censorship on this platform, the absurdity of this "consensus" was made clear on the covid article in that it banned a wikilink to another wikipedia article, LOL! Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block request[edit]

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


    User:Nil Einne has been overtly hostile, insulting, and noncollegial/over-the-top/passive aggressive in his/her replies/advocacy:

    Notification as required

    No one should have to put up with this. Requesting administrative action/oversight/other as appropriate. Buffs (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear lord. Just what we needed, making this even more drama-filled. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You came to AN and made some bullshit claim about "a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin" of COVID-19 is from a Chinese lab. When I challenged you on this, the only evidence you were able to provide is that a majority of the American general public may believe that COVID-19 came from a Chinese lab, and the the majority of the general public the UK (an English speaking country which strong political and social ties to the US), do not think soedit: and about 50 UK lecturers think so(end edit) . In other words, you made a claim about the general consensus of the public based only on what Americans believe. I stand by my statement that it's an incredibly harmful worldview to think what Americans may think somehow represents the "general consensus of the public" or is somehow the only thing that matters and no one should ever be making such statements on Wikipedia. Yes I acknowledge I should not have made claims about what the general public believes which I will I have no evidence since it did not help the discussion even if I was just doing the same thing as you, but since I have now made it clear that I have no evidence I don't see much point striking such statements. Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    However I have struck the needlessly provocative parts of my original statement. I didn't see much point since you had already replied to it, but since it matters to you, I've done so. Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also struck the "one editor" and "I can say" bits and acknowledge it was harmful to the discussion to make those statement there. Nil Einne (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I missed until now that the UK thing was for scientists (actually lecturers) not the general public. This does not change my view though, it's an irrelevant data point because such surveys are notoriously unreliable for testing anything useful since there is no way to test for non responses etc. (And that's assuming company involved actually did a decent job of trying to randomly sample.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread is about behavior alone. I'll address the rest of this above other than to say you only seem contrite when pushed. I will let others assess whether this is sufficient. Buffs (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but as always on AN, it's about the behaviour of everyone involved in the dispute. You have and continued to make claims without evidence on AN, and when editors challenge you on this, instead of acknowledging your lack of evidence, you just double down or provide evidence which does not support the claim made in any meaningful way. Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The demands for information you are making are unobtainable and unreasonable. There are no polls to back your opinions which you admit. The polls I have back my opinions, but they don't exist outside the US (as far as I can find). You have zero evidence to the contrary. I am not going to debate this here any further. If you want to argue with someone about those points, please do so above. This is about your profane and inexcusable remarks. Buffs (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming this is uncharacteristic behavior, I don't see a need to sanction NE for this, as long as it doesn't continue. But I'll note that NE is clearly annoyed, and has edited this thread a lot in the last hour, and might want to take the advice at the top of their talk page for a day or two. (not necessarily WP as a whole, but this topic.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether characteristic or not, FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING AMERICAN CENTRIC POV ([15]) should have been met with a significant response. That is not appropriate from any editor on Wikipedia, at any point, regardless of their level of annoyance or history on the project and letting it slide from a user with extra rights (rollback, pending changes reviewer) particularly is not setting a good example. Adam Black talkcontribs 20:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed! SmolBrane (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And could just as effectively have been addressed in a separate level-2 thread, more appropriately at WP:ANI. There was little to no need to attach it here. ―Mandruss  20:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be plenty of eyes here. Why are we adding layers of bureaucracy? Buffs (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that it doesn't matter if it is characteristic behavior. It makes a tremendous difference whether something is a one-off or habitual. In general, I feel WP comes down too hard on one-off incivility due to frustration, and not hard enough on habitual incivility. For the former, a short warning suffices, for the latter, a more significant response is needed. I'm also puzzled why you think it's reasonable to assume I suggested no sanctions because of NE's "extra rights" (rollback?!). I don't think it was unreasonable for Buffs to object, I don't think Buffs should have to put up with that, and I don't feel strongly whether attaching it to this thread was good or bad. I just think sanctions are not necessary. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not mean to imply that I thought you suggested no sanctions because of their extra rights. Rather, it was meant to say that I think any editor who has been granted extra rights should be held to even higher scrutiny. I was not suggesting any impropriety on your part. Adam Black talkcontribs 21:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with trying to clean up the page and correcting errant editors. FYI, there's still the following comment on the page, "Sorry, we're currently oversubscribed with people being assholes to everyone they encounter right off the bat. We cannot accept any more applications for that position for several months. Until then, please fuck off."[16] Bob K31416 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Struggling to see what this (or the WOT that triggered it) has to do with the topic at hand (consensus lists). Never mind the usual problems created by off-topic diversions—do you think other editors care about your little spat in the preceding section?—you do realize you're keeping a gigantic multi-section discussion on the page longer than might otherwise be necessary? Please learn when to go to a user talk page. ―Mandruss  20:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conventional progression was waived when "FUCK YOU" were declared. SmolBrane (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll make two additional comments for now. One is that I agree experienced editors should be held to a higher standard than new editors. I wouldn't bring rights much in to it except for admins, except when those rights are related to the offence. Two is that while I should have expressed myself far better, from my PoV when an editor says "a general consensus of the public that" and another editor in an indirect way asks them for the evidence for this; and the primary evidence they provide is what the majority of Americans believe with the only other population based evidence UK lecturers (albeit incorrectly thought to be UK population) which isn't a majority anyway; I find it hard to understand what this editor is trying to say other than evidence of what the majority is Americans believe is enough to demonstrate what's a "general consensus of the public". I find this extremely offensive for reasons which I've outlined even if poorly. Americans represent less then 5% of the world's population so they cannot be in any way taken as a proxy for the "general consensus of the public". If this isn't what the editor was trying to say, then I apologise. But despite multiple attempts to get the editor to explain, they still haven't done so in a way that I can understand. If any other editors were able to understand what this editor was trying to tell me, then it would help me if they are able to explain it to me either here or on my talk page. I will refrain from editing the above subthread any further except for strikes if I realise from this I've misunderstood something. Nil Einne (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional rights, of any description, are given to trusted members of the community. That is why I brought them up. I appreciate everything you've said but you have thus far given no reasonable explanation for the language you used. Expletives have their place in some articles and discussions, Wikipedia isn't censored after all, but FUCK YOU etc. isn't a justified reaction by any stretch of the imagination. Although as Bob K31416 pointed out above you aren't the only one to use utterly unacceptable language on this noticeboard in recent days, the other being an administrator. Perhaps WP:CIVIL needs a rewrite - it seems only some editors are expected to abide by it while others can say what they like with impunity. Adam Black talkcontribs 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BRIE is relevant here, but it seems to be regularly unenforced. It would be unfortunate if this led to double standards on enforcement. One wonders if editors can freely lob f-bombs at one another here, now. SmolBrane (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently we've devolved that far as Floq did just that with no sanction either. Apparently being civil has WAY lower standards than I thought; I must have misread it. Perhaps someone can correct me on what I'm missing:
    Identifying incivility " The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:
    • Direct rudeness
      • rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions
      • personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities
      • belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")
    • Other uncivil behaviours
      • quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they meant something they did not.
    Seems pretty clear-cut to me, but what do I know? Buffs (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, responding to something you don't understand with "fuck you" is very common in America. Levivich (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is some basis for us to put up with stuff like "this is a stupid argument", because well, sometimes people make arguments that are stupid. But something like "FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING AMERICAN CENTRIC POV. People like you are what make a large chunk of the world very strongly dislike Americans" is worthless, unnecessary and mean: if this isn't worth a block, nothing is. If I weren't WP:INVOLVED and I saw this I would do it myself. jp×g🗯️ 01:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nearly a week...nothing? Buffs (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • We do have a policy that also is against the American centric POV, forgot the wikilink but have seen it in the past. Maybe someone could wikilink that policy here. I do no support the profanity however. Next, I dont much travel the politics articles (just too much negativity), so take my comments with a grain of salt. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The {{Globalize}} template links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I'm not sure whether there's a specific policy page. Adam Black talkcontribs 09:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Misuse of wiki warning notice by a new editor or sp!?[edit]

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


    User:Mabyn Pajari interestingly created account today and started a campaign against all ip edits without merit and sending warning notice wholesale and not responding any of ip messeges. Admin should stop him for Wiki and group works! Thanks - 2A02:3035:609:765E:D99E:62B8:2894:5C1C (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    got blocked as a Hamish Ross sock. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Thoughts on ARBPIA objectivity[edit]

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


    Hello, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what is known here as ARBPIA, is a very sensitive issue in the world.

    My personal opinion, as one whose conflict also concerns his personal life (I am Palestinian :)) One should deal with the issue carefully and not light the fire for nothing. I would like to raise the issue of one editor - @JDiala's behavior that, as I see it, not only has a troubling effect on the neutrality of Wikipedia, but also harms the chance of a peaceful and quiet life in our area.

    Here are some examples:

    1. In the past, they featured quotes from Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar (who, no matter how we define him, is probably one of those responsible, along with Netanyahu and the extreme right from Israel, for the ongoing current conflict) on their talk page [link]. They also made clear the quotes were in praise of Sinwar [link]. They were removed only after a lengthy discussion on this page.
    2. They currently have a quote on their talk page [link] that can be understood as a justification for the murder of Jews by Palestinians. I think that any quote that starts with "X do not go out to murder Y because they are Y" should not be acceptable on Wikipedia. This is totally unnecessary.
    3. A few days ago, they closed an RFC that they themselves opened on the "Israel" page, which raises a question of integrity [discussion on this is still on going above, link].
    4. Recently, they stated that Israel is a rough state of the same level of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan on Israel's talk page [link]. In the same message they wrote that "For Israel, war crimes are a sine qua non, a core aspect of its existence", and stated that, unlike Israel, "Other states like China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies, with large economies, deep histories, and immense global influence beyond their militarism, and this richness is reflected by WP:RS.", a weird comment.

    It looks like I am not the first to raise concerns on this. I looked up his talk page and saw that editors have been asking them to moderate their language many times in the past decade. [link - December 2014], [link - May 2015], [link - January 2024], [link - February 2024].

    The editor was even banned for a week last December for violating the 1RR rule. [link]

    As a Palestinian, whose life is affected daily by the conflict, with my criticisms of Israel, I find this behavior problematic for Wikipedia. I think we should try our best to promote neutral coverage of the conflict. I think it is necessary to ask JDiala not to deal at all with a topic that is obvious to everyone that arouses their anger. Their edits hurt the project, and ultimately the Palestinians as well.

    Please don't add fuel to the fire.

    Rajoub570 (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note the current AE thread (opened by me). FortunateSons (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are your thoughts on the role of honesty in ARBPIA? Is it important? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there context I missed? FortunateSons (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you haven't missed any context or anything related to the AE report FortunateSons as far as I'm aware (although you might want to check some of the diffs in your AE report. I think some may not take people to the section you intended e.g. [17]. The AE report is a reasonable report with legitimate concerns as far as I can tell. My question was for Rajoub570 specifically. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New user is making bizarre, inappropriate edits, not interested in discussion[edit]

    I'm getting some strong WP:NOTHERE vibes from Colorationarian (talk · contribs · logs); edits like this (added again here) and this make me wonder what his motivations are and edits like this are just clearly inappropriate. In spite of the fact that his talk page solicits users to tell him what he did wrong, he seems not at all interested in explaining his arcane reasoning. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    While I see your point, I think the indef block that has just been issued by @Bbb23: is a bit heavy-handed. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not fully comfortable with the speed by which we have gone from a template warning to AN thread (10 minutes!) and then to block, particularly when the editor in question has attempted to understand why they were receiving warnings. GiantSnowman 20:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Tell me what I did wrong" was posted before several concerns on his talk page that he ignored. It's actually not obvious that he has any interest in learning. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indefinite isn't infinite. If the user can explain on his talk that he understands why he was blocked and how to be productive in the future, then I personally support unblocking. As an aside, can someone please undo his edits to Monster (R.E.M. album)? Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Their second edit was making a coded reference to chrischan and sonichu and the disruption around those topics, with them seemingly aware that those topics are "taboo" and not mentioned by name on wikipedia and with them also aware of the previous disruption in this topic area and its history of attracting trolls. How on earth would someone who has genuinely been here for an hour know about the history of disruption in this topic? How would they know that they are topics not to be mentioned by name? How would they know about the messy conflict between trolls, people adding poorly sourced rubbish and editors trying to enforce WP:BLP? I very strongly doubt that this is a genuine new user. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit I have no idea what any of that means myself. I'm certainly not defending those edits, we shouldn't be amking weird references to internal issues in articles themselves, but there are perfectly legitimate reasons a seemingly new user may be aware of such things. I'm just not seeing a justification for issuing an indef block fifteen minutes after they were informed that there ws a discussion here. I would expect to see severe disruption to justify something like that. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have agreed with you, until 86.23 connected the dots for me. This is a troll. We need to remove trolls from WP as soon as we can; if for no other reason than WP doesn’t know how to handle trolls. This isn’t biting a newbie. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Just Step Sideways Chrischan is the online name for the person who created sonichu, a web comic about a character which is a hybrid of sonic the hedgehog and Pikachu.
    The somethingawful forums noticed this webcomic in 2007ish, which started a harassment campaign against it's creator. This spread to Encyclopedia Dramatica, before a standalone site, Kiwi Farms (formerly known as the CWCki Forums), was created.
    There have been a number of attempts to create a Chrischan article on wikipedia over the years, and they've pretty much all ended the same way. The articles get flooded with trolls using the site to further the harassment campaign, a lot of good faith but clueless editors add a load of very poorly sourced content to the article, and a load of editors waste a load of time trying to enforce WP:BLP.
    The eventual consensus reached is that Chrischan isn't notable by wikipedia standards, most of the coverage of them (with the exception of one criminal case) is in very low quality sources and it's generally not a good idea to have an article on a low profile person who is best known for being the victim of online harassment (i.e. WP:AVOIDVICTIM). See [18] [19] for some relativley recent threads about this.
    All the titles where an article about them could be written have all been admin level create protected, and Special:AbuseFilter/1159 is used to track people adding content into other articles.
    Given the background here I do not believe that somebody who in their second edit essentially said "I want to mention a certain person here, but that's not allowed on wikipedia because it attracts the trolls" is a genuine, good faith newcomer. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RPP backlog[edit]

    There are 20 pending requests for page protection, including an ARBPIA edit war at Maldives. (It concerns a recently added statement about the government's response to the Israel–Hamas War.) –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I added one more article on the same issue: Israel–Maldives relations. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what's going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandni Mistry, but I think it could use the eyes of an admin. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Weird...ten unsigned votes by new accounts, all of which appear to be AI-written... Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this article's retention is just in the interest of AI entities Zanahary (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, Spicy just cleaned out a sock drawer! Schazjmd (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So I messed up.[edit]

    See my talk page. I wanted to restore some un-encyclopedic content to a user sandbox, but it is currently a redirect, so now said un-encyclopedic content is viewable as history in the redirect. Is this a problem? How would someone re-delete history without deleting the redirect? How do you restore a page to a user sandbox directly, should there be an active redirect page? I should know this after all these years, but it's amazing the number of knowledge gaps one can uncover... Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not an administrator here, but I use MediaWiki deployments regularly in my work so have experience with many of the administrator tools you'll have. Someone else may have a better solution for you specific to Wikipedia, but I think the best option is just to move the current redirect page to the user's sandbox without leaving a redirect, and then creating a new redirect to the target article at the original page. It may be possible to restore revisions for a re-created page that currently exists directly to a user sandbox, but it's something I've never had to do and you've got me curious so thanks! You've given me a project to experiment with on my test wiki over the next few days. Adam Black talkcontribs 01:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand what you're trying to do correctly, it's almost like a reverse histmerge. There's a way to do it right, but it's incredibly annoying. You can find it at WP:HMUNDO. Realistically, if it doesn't matter where the page history ends up then what Adam Black suggested is the easiest way. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In reverse order: If you want to move deleted page history that currently has content at its title, you have to move the current version out of the way, restore and move the deleted revisions, then move the current content back. You can't redelete the history without at least temporarily deleting the redirect - deletion is always of all revisions - but what you can do is delete the current version, restore the revisions you want to move to the sandbox, move those, then restore the revisions corresponding to the redirect (as documented at WP:HISTSPLIT). As to whether it's a problem, generally not, so long as it stays stuck behind the redirect; it could be problematic if there's copyvio or libel or such (in which case you shouldn't have offered to restore to a sandbox either, of course), or if it was deleted at afd (I haven't checked) and there are attempts to revert to the deleted version without improvement.
    Another option would have been to just email the latest revision to the user, like, y'know, they asked for; if the history was important, you can get a full xml dump through the api, like so. —Cryptic 02:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, boy, trying to follow the process described above has my mind tied up in knots. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly the kind of type 2 fun which I enjoy doing. If anyone ever needs some history untangled, hit me up.  — Scott talk 12:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll remember that if I ever need a histmerge/split. Merging has gotten easier in the last 20+ years, but splitting seems like it hasn't at all. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:PERM[edit]

    I feel like we need more active admins at WP:PERM. There are requests that have been sitting there since early May and requests that are just... open?. Could someone please look into this? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 11:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it's quite often backlogged. WP:PERM/NPR especially has been difficult to keep on top of lately because there are surges of applications when there are NPP backlog drives (and there have been four in the last year alone) or mass messages sent inviting people. – Joe (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also a very time consuming process that's easy to get burnt out from. I haven't dealt with nearly as many requests as you have and yet I find it difficult to consistently address requests the way I might deal with other tasks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing[edit]

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

    TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from removing all content in an article and replacing it with a redirect (commonly known as a blank-and-redirect, or BLAR). This topic ban will be suspended for a period of 12 months. This topic ban may be unsuspended and imposed onto TenPoundHammer if disruption by BLARing restarts, as determined by any of: (1) a consensus of administrators on WP:AE, (2) at least two arbitrators indicating "support" to unsuspend at WP:ARCA, with no opposition from other arbitrators indicated up to 48 hours after the second support, or (3) a majority of active arbitrators at WP:ARCA if there is opposition as indicated in condition 2. After 12 months, if it has not been imposed, the topic ban will be automatically lifted.

    For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

    Murder of Susana Morales[edit]

    I'm looking for an independent review of my actions and those of Fram, in relation to Murder of Susana Morales (later moved to Draft:Murder of Susana Morales and subsequently deleted). The article was created yesterday, and subsequently tagged as WP:G10 (attack page) by Fram. I looked at the article, and in my opinion it did not meet the strict requirements of G10, namely that it was not "intended purely to harass or intimidate a person", nor unsourced. Fram re-tagged it [20], which was reverted again by Bbb23. Fram left a query on my talk page asking why I asked declined the speedy, and I gave my reasons. At this point I had become busy with work, so did not have time to investigate further. Fram refused to accept my answers, and kept badgering me, finally calling my actions "shit" [21], when I pointed out that he could have removed the offending material from the article rather than retagging it.

    This morning, in response to a query on his own talk page, he accused me of gaslighting [22]. I have asked him to redact that comment, which I consider to be a personal attack, but so far he has refused to do so.

    See also discussions at User talk:Deepfriedokra#BLP draft, User talk:Bbb23#Now what? and User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Murder of Susana Morales.

    I would like an uninvolved admin or admins to consider the following two points:

    1. Whether my initial decision to decline the speedy can be considered reasonable?
    2. Fram's subsequent behaviour and comments about my actions.

    Thanks. Voice of Clam (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll repeat what I said on my talk page.
    The article was ~700 words, ~550 words are about the suspect. ~365 words are under the heading Perpetrator with a criminal infobox listing the suspect as having committed the crimes. It wasn't a few instances where [you] forgot to specify that it was alleged, it was almost every single case. Again, read WP:BLP, which states Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. We don't move it to draft space to clean it up, we remove it immediately. These violations are egregious, which is why I warned you. When 80% of an article is egregious BLP violations and BLPCRIME violations targeting a living person who is not a public figure, that is an attack article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, that was written in response to the article creator, and the warning was to the author, not VoC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    in User talk:Voice of Clam#Murder of Susana Morales, they gave as their defense on why they reinstated the BLP violations: "I was too busy at the time. You were quite capable of removing the violations yourself." I had removed the violations, Voice of Clam reinstated them, so I consider this statement gaslighting, and I don't see how this description of their behaviour is a personal attack. Some scrutiny of the reinstatements of the severe BLP violations by Voice of Clam and Bbb23, and the block threats by Bbb23 and Deepfriedokra while completely disregarding our BLP policy (and its exemption for edit warring), seems warranted now that we are here anyway. Fram (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any article describing an unconvicted living individual as a murderer is as unequivocal a violation of WP:BLP policy as could possibly be imagined. Arguing the toss over exactly how this gross violation of policy should have been removed from sight (as WP:BLP policy absolutely demands) seems to me to be little more than pointless Wikilawyering. How about people getting back to doing something more useful, like finding better ways to stop such dross from getting into Wikipedia in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with SFR and ATG. Blatant BLP violations such as this should be deleted on sight, that's more important than the minutiae of which speedy deletion category should be applied. Reinserting the text, which accuses someone of a crime in Wikivoice despite there being no conviction, back into the page is definitely not the answer.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of little superscripted numbers in brackets don't mean that an article is sourced, and certainly not "well sourced" as you claimed in your edit summary. Three quarters of that article stated various accusations against a living person - mostly unrelated to the crime that was the article's purported subject - as fact, when the supposed sources did nothing of the sort. —Cryptic 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the after-the-fact discussion on SFR's talk page yesterday, and thought:
    1. While I disagree with VoC, and think the article should have been deleted, I can see how they might have thought it didn't meet the letter of G10. So not entirely unreasonable. However, if they were going to deal with it and not delete it, they should have removed 2/3 of the article, revdel'd that, and moved it to draft space. If they didn't have time for that, they probably should have left it for another admin.
    2. We have a hard time dealing with high benefit/high cost editors like Fram. I'm not sure just looking at a benefit/cost ratio is enough, ling term. But in a case like this, where Fram is right on the important underlying BLP issue, it's going to be hard to do anything about their being a dick so often. The most important thing here is that the article was a BLP nightmare; I can't imagine anyone sanctioning Fram in this particular case. If it helps any, Fram's use of the word "gaslighting" was incorrect. But so many people misuse that word...
    Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you describe someone stating "you could have done X" when they know damn well you have done X and they are the one that has undone it? It sure feels like the kind of psychological manipulation and distortion described by "gaslighting", though a one-off and not a pattern. Fram (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Part of the problem is that out of my whole comment, this is what you choose to dispute.) Gaslightling means purposefully trying to get someone to doubt their own sanity. VoC obviously meant "you could have deleted the BLP problems without blanking the whole rest of the article". Only a fool would think they were actually trying to trick you into thinking maybe you hadn't blanked the whole thing with your {{db}}. You're not a fool. Therefore, you don't actually think you were being gaslit. You just thought the accusation sounded cool. When you claim this feels like "psychological manipulation" you are intentionally lying. You should stop that. It's beneath you. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, with a sprinkle of AGF, possibly Fram either misunderstood the definition of gaslighting or interpreted the conversation differently than you did. My telepathic senses are on the fritz today, so I guess I can't tell what Fram was thinking about at the time. Must be allergies. From every encounter I've had with Fram, he tries to do the right thing but can be rude while doing it. Intentionally lying about what he was thinking is not something I've seen; usually it's the opposite and we get more of the raw, unfiltered Fram than is necessary. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate getting dragged into these things, but I don't have the self-control to let someone be wrong on the internet, especially when I think I'm being misread. If you re-read what I said, I'm not saying he lied when he used the term gaslighting. As you and I have now both said, that's a commonly misused term. But in his reply to me, Fram doubled down and specifically claimed he felt he was being "psychologically manipulated." Come on; that's bullshit. I will do my best to let this go now. -Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article text and sourcing are pretty severe BLP violations. The wording of G10 is very specific, and inflexible enough that it probably doesn't apply to this case. I still would have opted for summary deletion, but changed the rationale to cite WP:BLPDEL instead of G10. BLPDEL unquestionably applies to that article, since every version of the history is a severe BLP violation and repairing it would be impossible without rewriting the article from scratch. I also would have taken a look at the author to see if there was any disciplinary action that needed to be taken (it looks like he hasn't been notified about WP:NEWBLPBAN so I'll go take care of that). As usual, Fram can be prickly but he's not wrong. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like SFR took care of the DS notification already. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    G10 should just be expanded to cover BLPDEL situations since it's effectively the same thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already there. It's the text of the criterion on WP:CSD that's controlling, not the short one-line summary that appears there or in the dropdown menu. It starts Main page: Wikipedia:Attack page ¶ Examples of "attack pages" may include: ... and leaves the non-example specifics to be defined in WP:Attack page, which states in its first line or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Incorporating these situations is almost the entire reason we have a separate G10 rather than leaving it as a variant of G3 and relying on WP:Vandalism#Page creation, illegitimate's articles written to disparage the subject. —Cryptic 16:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Textbook WP:BLPCRIME violation, deletion was the right outcome. —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think VOC and BBB got too focused on speedy deletion procedure and paid too little attention to how their actions restored a bunch of BLP vio to mainspace. I'd love to see them acknowledge those moves as errors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) The first part of what you say is right as far as I'm concerned. Usually, when I decline a speedy tag because it has already been declined I just remove the tag, but because of the nature of G10 (blanking the article "as a courtesy"), if I'd just removed the tag, the article would have been blank. The only "error" I'll acknowledge is I didn't do the work to figure out that the article was a BLP violation because you'd have to go through it to reach that conclusion. If I had it to do all over again, I would have done nothing because the whole thing is too messy for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statement by Deepfriedokra Had the CSD not been declined twice, I'd've deleted the thing. I saw it had been declined twice and my brain locked up. I could not act. Deleting it would have been the least bad choice, and I should have deleted it.
    To @Fram: I offer my sincere apologies for the perceived threat. That was not my intent. I apologize for my ill-chosen words and their effect.
    To @Voice of Clam: If I cannot bring myself to honor a CSD tag, I leave it alone. I leave it to be reviewed by an admin less squeamish than I or with clearer perception than I have at that moment. It is regrettable that such content was restored.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question for Bbb23. Hi Bbb23. Did you suggest that Fram be blocked for edit-warring, rather than removing egregious BLP violations. ——Serial Number 54129 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that was a weird discussion on my Talk page. I responded to Dfo (the OP at my Talk page) who noted that Fram had tagged the page yet again, and my comment was "Block Fram?". It was then Dfo who talked about edit-warring. If I had blocked Fram, which, btw, I did not do and would not have done, it would not have been for edit-warring. I've answered your question, even though it was pretty loaded.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My dear fellow—! In an emergency, I must marry civility to bluntness if at the expense of neutrality. But thank you for giving me what I'm accepting as a straight answer  :) ——Serial Number 54129 19:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – June 2024[edit]

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

    Administrator changes

    readded Graham Beards
    removed

    Bureaucrat changes

    removed

    Oversight changes

    removed Dreamy Jazz

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous


    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Partial Unblock Request[edit]

    After placing a request to be unblocked on my user page, I was instructed by User:331dot to start a community discussion by going to WP:AN and request its removal.

    • I acknowledge my past involvement in problematic COI editing.
    • I now believe in regaining trust and commit to ceasing any further problematic COI editing.
    • Since my partial block, I have authored 20 new articles, all of which have been reviewed and accepted by my peers for inclusion in the main article space.
    • I have also contributed to 28 articles through the Edit Request process since my block.
    • Upon unblocking, my intention is to contribute to Wikipedia by assisting with the backlog of AfC and edit requests.
    • My dedication lies in making Wikipedia the best encyclopedia globally.

    Greg Henderson (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy link to pblock discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Greghenderson2006, you specify problematic COI editing: what type of COI editing do you consider to not be problematic? Schazjmd (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Schazjmd, any COI editing would be problematic per WP:COI. This request is based on my recent pldege to refrain from any further COI editing, as well as on the recent articles and upates I have made. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Greg, didn't you make essentially the same promise six months back and then break it? Abecedare (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I made a mistake and I am fully committed to upholding my pledge this time. I have taken this expereince as a learning opputnity and am determined to demonstrate conistency moving forward. The recent articles I have written provide evidence of my committemnt. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's what you said last time too! And you have had the following COI related declaration and commitment on your userpage for a long time:

      I have a conflict of interest and paid-contribution disclosures in some of my Wikipedia articles. I intend to follow best practices by asking for help, sticking to neutral language, and having other editors review my work.

      If those previous commitments weren't upheld, I am not sure why we should just take your word for it this time instead of sustaining the pblock to ensure that all your edits to articlespace are in fact reviewed. Abecedare (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]