Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	9	38	47
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	0	4	4
RfD	0	0	4	35	39
AfD	0	0	0	22	22

• 20 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 5 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 157 sockpuppet investigations
• 6 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 5 requests for RD1 redaction
• 6 elapsed requested moves
• 1 Pages at move review
• 19 requested closures
• 163 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 27 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (31 out of 7766 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Draft:Palani Baba 2024-05-29 21:25 2024-11-29 21:25 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo 2024 Gaza freedom flotilla 2024-05-29 21:17 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA Ymblanter Suraj Mal 2024-05-29 20:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry by WP:LTA; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare History of the chair 2024-05-29 19:57 2024-08-20 04:53 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ymblanter Template:Sources exist 2024-05-29 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-29 05:35 indefinite edit Currently on the main page and the article has only just been moved; just avoiding that we'll create a redirect. Schwede66 Rakon 2024-05-29 03:34 2025-05-29 03:34 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Hamas war crimes 2024-05-28 22:07 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Irene Tracey 2024-05-28 21:23 2024-11-28 21:23 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA Ymblanter Bill Shields 2024-05-28 19:39 2024-06-28 19:39 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Rosguill Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) 2024-05-28 13:40 2025-03-12 13:45 move Persistent disruptive editing; requested at WP:RfPP 2 weeks for RM discussion to run its course Robertsky 25 May 2024 Kharkiv missile strikes 2024-05-28 13:08 indefinite edit,move WP:RUSUKR Robertsky Draft:Palestinian civilian involvement in the October 7th attacks 2024-05-28 12:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Anti-BDS laws 2024-05-28 01:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Ceasefire proposal for Israel–Hamas war (May 5) 2024-05-28 01:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Tel al-Sultan airstikes 2024-05-28 01:11 indefinite edit Move warring: Move requests only from this point on El C Human wave attack 2024-05-27 22:16 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Tel al-Sultan 2024-05-27 22:10 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Karla Sofía Gascón 2024-05-27 21:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/GG; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Tel al-Sultan airstrikes 2024-05-27 21:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Asian News International 2024-05-27 21:10 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Tel al-Sultan massacre 2024-05-27 21:10 indefinite edit Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Rujm el-Hiri 2024-05-27 11:06 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Far-right politics in Israel 2024-05-27 04:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Twitter Files 2024-05-27 04:05 2025-05-27 04:05 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case History of the Jews in Gaza City 2024-05-27 02:45 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Izno Accusations of United States complicity in Israeli war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-27 02:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish List of equipment of the Pakistan Army 2024-05-26 20:58 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:IPA Ymblanter Wars of the Deccan Sultanates 2024-05-26 14:11 indefinite move Move warring Ivanvector Meritt North 2024-05-26 14:00 2024-06-02 14:00 edit,move persistent removal of AFD template while AFD discussion is open Bearcat User talk:46.35.177.94 2024-05-26 13:51 2026-03-29 00:00 edit,move Persistent block evasion: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian

RfC closure review request at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14

Closure review

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)

Uninvolved (COVID19)

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

• I don't recall ever editing that article so I think I'm uninvolved. Will strike if mistaken. The closure looks entirely reasonable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

What does it even mean to "strike down" a consensus? In this case, that consensus is a documented statement that the lab leak theory shouldn't be mentioned. Does "striking it down" mean removing the consensus statement because it's used to preempt discussion/proposals? Or does it mean finding consensus to talk about the lab leak in the article? If the former, given the way documented past consensus serves to limit present discussion (for good reason, in many cases), I'd think we'd need affirmative consensus to retain it, and not just default to it with no consensus. If the latter, it's worded oddly and it's hard to see that RfC as yielding a clear result. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my reading of the discussion would be that it's attempting the former. —Sirdog (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd say any other editor in good standing reviewing that discussion could reasonably find the same result. I am unconvinced by the challenger that the close is fundamentally flawed. —Sirdog (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn This seems to be a clear supervote and WAY outside what reliable sources state. At this point, any restriction on this viable theory is political in nature and feels very much like the last vestiges of clinging to "no, I can't possibly be wrong". Buffs (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Although I don't agree with the restriction, the close is with what could be considered reasonable given the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  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)

• That's the whole discussion? I was expecting it to be longer when I clicked through. At this point, the close note plus this AN thread combined seem like they are far longer than the actual RfC. The whole thing seems really weird to me, frankly -- why do we have a box proclaiming itself to be "current consensus" if all the stuff in it is four years old? jp×g🗯️ 14:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• I would probably have closed it differently. The reference to WP:NOTCENSORED is quite a compelling policy-based argument that wasn't rebutted for example. It's also worth remembering NOTAVOTE is an essay, not a guideline or policy, although the ROUGHCONSENSUS guideline does say "Consensus is not determined by counting heads". However the fact I would have come to a different conclusion isn't sufficient reason to overturn the close; for that we'd need to demonstrate the conclusion the closer came to is unreasonable, and I don't think it is. WaggersTALK 14:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Well, this is byzantine. Overturn. If there is no consensus about whether a consensus exists, then no consensus exists, and the statement saying a consensus exists should be removed as wrong. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• 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. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 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. 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. 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. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• (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 (t • c) 13:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Involved (COVID19)

• Comment by Closer: While I personally would like to have seen the RfC close in favor of the RfC proposal , I ultimately closed it as "no consensus" (not as "a consensus against" as, I believe, the challenger thinks occurred).
  As I read it, the challenge seems to spin on four assertions advanced by the challenger which I summarize here to the best of my understanding:

• A belief that (a) ROUGHCONSENSUS is a synonym for Referendum, and, (b) consensus was achieved by process of majority vote.
  In their request for review on my Talk page, the challenger invoked WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to repeatedly demand the RfC be treated as a referendum or plebiscite and reversed on the apparent basis that the "count" [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)

This response by the closer is further astray:

• First the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus, see WP:NHC.
• Second the closer talks about a nonsensical duty to provide textual analysis of sources. This is laughable. The closer failed to notice there was an RS mentioned in the RFC (and ignored the sub-article as well) and stated these omissions in the close. The closer argued that a lack of RS in the RFC was a justification for the close, and failed to understand that #34 was an RS.
• Third, in responding to this review the closer is confused of even the subject of the RFC. "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." is the exact text in the article at the time of the RFC that is being discussed in this RFC. I was discussing the text of the article, and even put it in quotes. I am confused if the closer even read the RFC at this point. I have never made an argument that any geopolitical blah blah must be taken in to account. Where is this coming from? You will find this exact text quoted verbatim here in the article at the time of the RFC.
• Forth the AGF issues are simply me pointing out that the closer has chosen solely himself to paint this in some sort of personal issue, and continues to not understand the content that was being discussed (see #3). Note I have always been civil to this closer as well as everyone in the RFC, this argument is baseless, a strawman, and an odd response.
• Fifth, RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy nor RFC policy, it is the closer that applies the policy to the arguments offered by the participants. In this RFC we are simply discussing if the RS support the text in bold (that the closer seems to be confused is my words), if due weight should be given to wikilink (a link that is prohibited under consensus #14), and if the consensus #14 on the article was appropriate given the text in bold and the current state of RS.

Seems the closer failed to grasp the RFC and still hasnt bothered to review it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

"the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus" I'll just note again, here, that this is a furiously repeated statement based on a false premise. As I have explained many times, there was no consensus to ignore. That's why the RfC closed as "no consensus" (versus "consensus for" or "consensus against"). I appreciate your view that your "count" [sic] [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)

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)

What exactly do you mean by reality? Can you explain what you meant by that? FailedMusician (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

We could start here, but this is only a beginning... Buffs (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean it's very clear the actual state-of-the-world does not support a proscription such as #14 and this RfC should have resulted in a consensus to strike it, in my opinion (indeed, #14 should never have been put in place to begin with). And had I been a participant in the discussion, I would have sided with the strike camp. But I wasn't a participant, I was the closer, and for me to close this as "a consensus to strike" when only a bare majority of participants - advancing virtually no cogent policy arguments - supported that would constitute a SUPERVOTE and be out of compliance with our WP:CONSENSUS policy. Suppressing my innate knowledge of the external world beyond WP and deciding on no set of facts beyond what was contained in the RfC, it was clear there was no consensus (as undesirable of an outcome as that is). Chetsford (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not concur with your assessment. Majority opinion, professional opinions, WP consensus within the article, general consensus on the RfC, and a host of other options all show clearly that this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded. This is exactly the kind of reason we have and should use WP:IAR. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

"this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded" - I agree with this
"This is exactly the kind of reason we have and should use WP:IAR." - I disagree with this. Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment by SmolBrane: In the close, you(Chetsford) stated that “First, several editors in the oppose camp note that consensus can't occur implicitly in this case (the opposite of what we usually observe in WP:EDITCON), since #14 established a clear consensus and the mere presence of content against consensus that may have gone unnoticed doesn't overturn it.”

The presence of content against the formal RfC consensus for six months on a high traffic article (8k views per day!) SHOULD overturn the two year old RfC. That's the whole point of implicit consensus—not to mention that this was the long-standing stable state of the article. TarnishedPath made the same error “Arguing that the content has been in the article for a while is putting the cart before the horse.” Why would we undo a six-month old undisputed edit here? We should not presume that the bold edit went 'unnoticed'--this is not a valid exception w/r/t WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Implicit consensus has a great deal of weight on a contentious article with 2,200 watchers. The RfC establishing consensus #14 from May 2020 is very old in COVID-terms, and this RfC only had three keep !votes, which means only three individuals wanted to revise the article to a retroactive state—a situation that should require more opposers to stray from the current stable and long-standing state.

Aquillion made a similar error “Sometimes things fall through the cracks even on high-traffic articles”. Bold edits are not “falling through the cracks”, This is again a lack of understanding of policy, and the collaborative nature of the project. Those !votes(Aquillion and TarnishedPath) likely should have been discarded.

Both Crossroads and IOHANNVSVERVS made strong arguments in favor of striking, based on new sourcing and WP:NOTCENSORED respectively. Ortizesp and Lights and Freedom also made strong cases in relation to coverage by sources.

The closer evidently erred “since no actual examples of RS were presented by those making this argument”. As Jtbobwaysf points out, there were three inline citations supporting the sentence about the lab leak. The closer did not correctly assess the policy-based arguments made by the supporters, nor the RSes involved. The current stable state of the article should have had more deference by the closer in light of the comments that were provided. The closer also commented about WP:MEDRS which was mentioned in the May 2020 RfC, not this one, so that stipulation was inappropriate. SmolBrane (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The "stable state" argument is laughable and HORRIBLE circular logic. The article is stable, therefore we shouldn't change our restrictions. But the reason it cannot be updated is BECAUSE of the restrictions. No restrictions like these should be enacted and held in place when they are demonstrably not in alignment with our five pillars, specifically, NPOV (and with that RS) + no firm rules. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence and I think you misunderstand my position; the lab leak theory was mentioned and linked to for six months prior to this RfC, despite the consensus 14 not being formally overturned. SmolBrane (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was concurring with you :-) Buffs (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please note that the template link (above) "Discussion with closer" is linking to the user's mainspace talk page however the user recently archived their talk page, could another editor please assist to link to the correct archive link which is User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

   Fixed, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

I went ahead and reverted your WP:SUPERVOTE that goes against the RFC result, and the emerging consensus here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't the closer, so it wasn't a WP:SUPERVOTE. As for the rest, I do not see the same consensus. People here appear to be much more concerned about debating process rather than doing the correct thing by deprecating a "rule" that is clearly not being followed and a clear consensus on both Wikipedia and IRL. The idea that we should stick to restrictions imposed a few months after COVID hit vs what we know now four years later is absurd. WP:IAR could easily fix this and so could anyone with half a brain that isn't fixated on procedural hurdles.

All that said, I was bold. It was reverted (I hold no ill will against anyone for such an action). Time to discuss. Buffs (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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?

• 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)

  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)

  They appear to be a mutation of the FAQ header sections that articles like Gamergate and R&I do have. However those are used to explain commonly asked questions and are more informative.
  The statement in question is from a talk page consensus (this May 2020 RFC). But how it's stated has led to an RFC on whether to remove a statement from a talk page, which is just bureaucracy. An RFC on text to be included would have been a better solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  A good question for this closure is why the bureaucracy was weighted more heavily than the editing. Deferring to editing consensus would be preferable given that an RfC for mainspace content never occurred(to your point). SmolBrane (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Probably because that's how the RFC question was raised. If someone edited content in, was reverted and following discusion the content was kept then the statement would de facto be struck down. This seems a more sensible approach than an RFC about removing the statement from the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  This RfC was not about removing the talk page statement, it was whether or not the statement was "still valid". Perhaps this is central to the issue. SmolBrane (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  But that is still an RFC about a talk page statement, my point was the framing of the consensus blocks is the cause of such odd discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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
   • US Department of Energy: "Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic"
   • FBI: "Covid-19 'most likely' originated in a 'Chinese government-controlled lab'"
   • US National Intelligence: "All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident"
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:
   • US public opinion: "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 "...more than a quarter think the pandemic leaked from a Chinese lab"
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)

@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)

I redacted the personal attack. 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. 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. Buffs (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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. 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 ☎ 21:56, 29 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. Alpha3031 (t • 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. CMD (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. 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.
  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)

  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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 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. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 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. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  @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)

  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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

Notified: Talk:Donald Trump, Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  Can't mention the article is too long is a weird thing for a consensus. Moxy🍁 00:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  [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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Block request

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

• 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.
• 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...
• 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 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.
• further explanation of how incredibly stupid the claims are
• I'll acknowledge I was being needless provocative... but no apology or striking of comments

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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 ^{talk • contribs} 20:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed! SmolBrane (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2024 (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. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 29 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" (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)

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 ^{talk • contribs} 21:43, 29 May 2024 (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."[16] Bob K31416 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2024 (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—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)

Conventional progression was waived when "FUCK YOU" were declared. SmolBrane (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2024 (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 "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)

RfC closure review request at Talk:Israel#RfC:_Apartheid_in_Lead

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

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

Notified: User_talk:JDiala#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion_2

Reasoning: The closure was made by the same user who initiated the RfC and !voted in it. Per Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Closure_procedure the closure should be done by an uninvolved editor.

Non-participant

• Comment Three editors opposed, five supported as proposed, and one supported an alternative; I don't think this is clear enough for an involved editor to close - and as a general rule, if anyone objects to an involved close then it probably isn't as uncontroversial as the closer believes. BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse 1 editor opposed, 2 said Bad RFC and six supported. I commented that I would rather wait but had I !voted, I would have supported. The Bad RFC comments should have been addressed in the close. But the outcome was anyway clearcut. Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Commenting that you would rather wait makes you involved FWIW. Feel free to remove this response if you move your comment to the other section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment This does not look like it should have been closed by an involved editor, especially an involved editor "inclined to keep the original wording proposed" (their own wording). It is very odd that the close reads "Since no reliable sources have been presented to substantiate that the inclusion of the phrase "amounts to" corresponds to a substantive distinction", given zero sources were presented in the RfC until a week after the RfC opened, when two sources were included in the comments which both used "amounts to". A number of sources were later included in a comment almost a month after the RfC opened, but that comment does not seem to comment on this wording issue either way, meaning the only sources presented both use "amounts to". In addition to the in appropriate opening mentioned above, "I think it's time for us to have this discussion" suggests there was not a discussion about creating this RfC prior, which may have helped shape a better opening. CMD (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think this is the right place to discuss the RfC itself. If it's indeed so uncontroversial, the closure should be overturned and then an uninvolved editor would re-close it and no one would argue with that.

Also, per WP:RFC an RfC should "include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". In this case it was anything but, and it makes the initiator particularly unsuitable for closing the discussion. Alaexis_¿question? 19:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close I don't think it's really in that good of a form to close just about anything that you yourself started, if for no other reason than avoiding any appearance of impropriety. Would it hurt that much to have an uninvolved editor re-close this? No opinion as to the merits of the closure, though I'd say the calls of "bad RFC" need an address as to their merits. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• The toughest thing about this isn't the involved close (though it's baffling that anyone would think doing so is a good idea in such a contentious topic area), but the poor turnout. It looks like this is a frequent proposal on the page, and it usually draws heavy participation. For this subject, I'd expect high turnout. For example, this formal RfC from a year ago drew 49 participants. But here there were only a handful of !votes. If you look at the discussion, however, you see that there were several participants who did not boldtext !vote, including at least one who explicitly opposed, a couple who argued to wait for an ICJ ruling, and a couple who wanted to discuss alternative wording. IMO when you see shocking low turnout with a few people agreeing with the initiator, a few others saying it's a bad RfC, and several in the discussion section saying things to the effect of "let's step back a sec", it's probably a bad RfC. So as long as we're not merely counting boldtext votes and actually looking at the discussion and its context, I'd probably just say vacate, don't re-close, and start a new discussion to find wording options. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  If editors didn't want this outcome, all they needed to do was !vote. Not doing so suggests they don't care that much (my position, in fact), not that its a bad RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's not true. In high-traffic controversial articles, there's a pretty steady flow of proposals (usually from newish users) that don't attract much attention because they're problematic on their face. If a small number of people voice agreement and a small number of people voice problems with the proposal, the combination of which is far lower than you might expect for a serious proposal, it's not closed as consensus for anything (unless said newish user closes their own RfC, of course). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not seen one of those on the Israel page, show me one. Selfstudier (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn Putting aside the number and content of votes/RfC premise/etc, I'd think it'd be fairly obvious to not have involved editors (especially the opener themselves) closing RfCs in such a contentious topic area (especially given the current kerfuffle at WP:AE), but apparently not. Concur with EggRoll. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn as an insufficiently advertised RfC with an involved close. A subject this contentious should be widely publicized to get uninvolved input and then posted at WP:Closure requests. Right now, most of the participants are the usual PIA editors who, to put it generously, have a history of always voting in a way that benefits their "side" in the conflict. The discussion section also indicates that some participants may have been using OR to determine content by trying to define "race" and "apartheid" and then apply their own conclusions about those definitions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn and throw out the RfC. It seems clear that this was a poorly attended RfC. Perhaps that was because a previous RfC was closed just 5 months back [17]? That might explain why this seems like a very sparsely attended RfC given the nature of the question. The closer should be trouted for even thinking it was appropriate to close their own, RfC in a clearly contentious topic area. Springee (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Six months, actually (it was closed on December 1st). Six months is a long time, and substantive developments have taken place in the intervening time period including credible allegations (ICC, ICJ) of genocide and crimes against humanity by the state in question. More than enough to warrant revisiting the issue. JDiala (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This is really emphasizing why you shouldn't have been the one to close this discussion; you are too involved to neutrally assess questions of whether your own RfC was appropriate. I strongly encourage you to recognize that doing so was inappropriate and to withdraw it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the premise that significant international ongoing legal proceedings by reputable international courts in recent months potentially warrants revisiting questions of including international crimes against humanity in the lead? JDiala (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't, and I'm not the intended responder here, but the question of whether it was worth revisiting by opening a new RfC (what you're addressing in this comment) and the question of whether it was appropriate for you to subsequently close said RfC (what this review is addressing) are two separate items. Let's not try to change the topic. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue at hand in this particular discussion is Springee's claim that re-opening the RfC closed six months ago was inappropriate. JDiala (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Tbh, the principal issue is you as opener, also closing and consensus is against you on that one, unfortunately. I think you are right that the policy should stipulate that as being a no-no and save future trouble. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn from a reading of the RfC, the editor in question appears to have suitably summarised the community's consensus at that point. However, as in involved editor and the editor who opened the RfC I would argue their closing is quite inappropriate. Additionally at the very minimum, as a contentious topic, I think this should have been advertised in some other forum. For example, I see no attempt to engage editors from WP:WikiProject Israel, WP:WikiProject Palestine or elsewhere. I would be interested to know if any editor in the thread attempted to engage interested editors outside of the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Black (talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn for a re-closure by an uninvolved editor. Certainly the opener of an RFC would be one of the worst people to judge a bad RFC argument. starship.paint (RUN) 12:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn Especially with a relatively small number of participants in a fraught topic it is not appropriate for the closer to be a person who opened the RfC and who subsequently !voted in it. Concur with Starship paint that the RfC should be closed by a non-involved admin although I suggest some re-listing would be good to develop an opportunity for a more clear consensus to emerge. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close (this should done at the same time by an admin) - while everyone agrees that the RfC initiator cannot close it, this should not be used as an excuse to overturn the unanimous result of an RfC that has been open for five weeks. M.Bitton (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn Also, there's a compelling argument for a procedural close since there had just been a RFC on the subject a few months ago and the RFC statement wasn't brief or neutral. Nemov (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think a procedural close would make sense, for the reasons you say. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree. While I don't think an involved party should close the RFC I think, instead, it should be re-opened to allow some additional time for consensus to form. Or, as a second choice, it should be assessed by a neutral and non-involved admin and re-closed on whatever merits that admin identifies. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  The RFC statement isn't neutral. Given the time that has passed a consensus shouldn't be created from a malformed RFC. Nemov (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  No-one raised that as an issue until now. If one is going to procedurally close something one does it early on not when it is at review. Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  There's two votes for bad RFC. Pointing how it was bad now and mentioning other reasons that it was bad are perfectly reasonable especially when very few people commented on it. Nemov (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Overturn per about a dozen people above. Never should have been closed in this manner. Buffs (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Participant

• Comment I am the closer. It seemed like there were five yes votes, two Bad RfC votes and one alternative suggestion. The alternative was effectively a yes vote but with a slight disagreement on the precise wording (they wanted to include the words "amounts to") but which agreed in principle. Among the two Bad RfC votes, there were just procedural complaints that the RfC was started too quickly as a past similar one concluded a few months earlier. These votes failed to cite any policy to justify their position. The previous RfC pertained to human rights language generically, but did not specifically discuss the issue of apartheid which was the point of my RfC. Therefore, I felt the Bad RfC complaint entirely meritless. The current RfC was also stagnant for a while. In light of these reasons, I decided to close despite being an involved editor per the guidelines in WP:RFCEND. I thought the WP:CONSENSUS undeniable in this case.

I am admittedly a less experienced editor than many here, still with fewer than 2,000 edits. It is possible that despite the exceptions outlined in WP:RFCEND there is still a cultural taboo of closing your own RfC which I was not aware of. My judgement was made on the basis of the written policy. JDiala (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I felt the Bad RfC complaint entirely meritless An editor who opened an RfC is not well placed to determine if the RfC is improper - and looking at the statement, at a minimum it violated WP:RFCNEUTRAL, as the statement argued for the change. BilledMammal (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The 2 Bad RFC voters did not raise the neutrality of the RFC wording, and neither did anyone else so that's irrelevant. Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFCEND clearly outlines cases where involved editors can close RfCs. JDiala (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the statement argued for the change, the OP's mistake was not to separate the 3rd and 4th sentences of the statement and put them in the "survey" section, where they belonged. That's not a big deal, and either editor who claimed "bad RFC" could have (should have) specifically asked the OP to do that. When I was an inexperienced editor, I made a similar mistake as an OP for an RFC, and another editor kindly fixed it for me. I endorse the closure. NightHeron (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

(Please note: I am uninvolved; this thread started in the "uninvolved" section.) NightHeron (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I commented in the RFC and opposed the original wording, so the outcome is not unanimous. If editors really insist on the original wording, could we at least change it to active voice instead of passive voice? Instead of “It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid, against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials.” change it to “Human rights organizations and the United Nations accuse Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid, against the Palestinian people.”? I didn’t vote in the voting section and wanted to wait for the ICJ ruling because I don’t really understand the situation and wanted to follow the court ruling and still have questions. Amnesty International released a report about the apartheid in 2022… does that mean the situation wasn’t apartheid before but then amounted to or became apartheid later? West Bank is governed separately by the Palestinian Authority and Israel, so aren’t the respective governing regions supposed to be separate? Aren’t there currently internationally illegal settlements with a growing minority of violent extremist Israeli settlers as well as a number of violent Palestinians in the West Bank? So aren’t the two populations separated also because they are violent towards each other and not simply due to Israelis trying to exert a system of racial superiority? Wanted to hear both Israeli and Palestinian sides and the ICJ ruling of the situation rather than human rights organizations whose jobs are to focus on the human rights abuses rather than address these other questions.Wafflefrites (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You did not vote. My impression was that you were just opining, not formally getting involved in the vote. An Option C was provided for alternatives. Waiting for the ICJ outcome would be one such alternate. Not clear if the ICJ decision would happen within the lifecycle of a single RfC though. JDiala (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Things get a bit fudged in practice, but an RfC is not a vote. CMD (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment A Editors here are bringing up things like the RfC's turnout and the "advertising" of it. The policy basis for taking these aspects into consideration is unclear. We are not told that we are responsible for marketing these things nor that there is a large minimum threshold of voters. JDiala (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CONLEVEL covers this. An unadvertised RFC with fewer than a quarter of the respondents of an RFC six months ago isn't going to supercede the much larger discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

My reading of WP:CONLEVEL is that local consensus (e.g., on an article) can't override consensus on a larger scale (e.g., for a WP-level policy decision). Not interpreting it as meaning two RfCs on the same issue done at different times require the later RfC to have >= as many participants as the prior one to override. JDiala (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Unadvertised? Aren't all RFCs advertised in the same way? And this one was on the main Israel page, pretty good advertisement if you ask me. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

RFCs can be advertised beyond the template at appropriate noticeboards and wikiprojects. The amount of notification varies significantly between RFCs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment B Reading through the comments here, and how viscerally incensed many editors seem to be at this (is "trouted" even a word @Springee:...), it is clear that many consider it highly inappropriate for involved editors to close RfCs in all semi-contentious areas, even those with seemingly indisputable outcomes by a vote tally. This is understandable in some ways. Neutrality concerns are legitimate. But I'd strongly suggest communicating this in WP:RFCEND so new editors are less confused. JDiala (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  wp:Trout. Springee (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Semi-contentious? CMD (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• One of the bad RFC votes, requesting a better RfC and/or overturning the close. For the long list of reasons listed above, a new close (and better: a new RfC) is more appropriate than this. While the question of when the best time for the new RFC would be (now vs. after the ICJ decides) are valid concerns, this 5 person “consensus” is IMO insufficient for this case based on the arguments made above. FortunateSons (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

1RR appeal by Marcelus (restored)

I would like to ask the community to remove or reduce the 1RR restriction imposed on me. I received 0RR on March 7, 2023 ([18]), this restriction was reduced to 1RR on July 3, 2023 ([19]), for appreciating my trouble-free editing history. On September 27, however, after my 2nd revert on the Povilas Plechavičius article, I received 0RR again ([20]). It was once again reduced to 1RR on November 29, 2023 ([21]).

I received 0RR for waging the editing wars. Since then, I have changed my style of working and communicating with other editors. I avoid making reverts, in complicated situations I initiate discussion. Except for this one case on Povilas Plechavičius, I have not had any problems related to reverts. My revert to Povilas Plechavičius was due to my misinterpretation of the revert (I restored the deleted content with the addition of sources, responding to the objections of the user who removed the content under the pretext of a lack of sources), and not out of bad faith.

After another five months of trouble-free editing, I would ask that the sanction be removed or reduced.

This is the second attempt to process this issue, the previous one (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#1RR appeal by Marcelus (restored)) did not attract the attention of any admin, and was also spammed by users who do not like me.Marcelus (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed your discussion link. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

In what way, exactly, is this 1RR a problem? I basically act like I'm under 1RR most of the time myself. If I revert somebody and they revert back, I take it up on the talk page. That's all 1RR requires you to do. So, if I can manage to work productively with that kind of self-imposed restriction, what do you want to be doing but are unable to because the same restriction has been externally imposed? RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with RoySmith. After many years of editing, I now voluntarily try very hard to restrict myself to 1RR. If I have made an edit, and someone reverts, unless there is a violation of policy involved, I let it go. I've expressed my opinion of the edit, and if no one else thinks I'm right, I have other things to do. Donald Albury 19:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

unless there is a violation of policy involved is a pretty big "unless." Levivich (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith, @Donald Albury: I also try not to revert, and plan to continue doing so. It's just uncomfortable to be under 1RR which acts blindly, even good will and policy-based revert can result with a complete ban for me. I think I'm proven myself to be a trustworthy editor who avoids conflicts, and don't think there should be any special restrictions imposed on me. Marcelus (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I also personally try to stick to 1RR. But restrictions are not free: they take community time to monitor. If you (generic you) feel that editors in general would be better off only reverting once, WT:EW is the place to have that discussion—not by restricting individual editors one-by-one. There are places in Wikipedia where being "unrestricted" matters, such eligibility for a WP:Clean start or participating in certain (voluntary) admin recall procedures. And finally, wanting to be unrestricted is a perfectly valid reason to appeal a sanction even if you don't want to engage in the behavior your are restricted from. There is a big difference between being forced (not) to do X and choosing (not) to do X.

That being said, I am not familiar with this editor's case, so I am not going to leave a !vote on the sanction appeal itself. But I oppose using any reasoning not specific to this editor's case to deny the appeal (such as 1RR is a good thing in general, it is not a massive burden, etc.). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster you make a valid point. But I think on any request to have a sanction lifted, the onus is on the sanctionee to explain why it will be to the benefit of the project to do so. We're all WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. If the sanction is impairing their ability to further that goal, then lifting it makes sense. All I'm asking is that they explain how it is an imposition, and how lifting it will help them further our joint goal. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• While it might be good that many editors abide by a 1RR guideline themselves, the difference here is that living under a mandatory 1RR restriction means that an editor can be brought to ANI or an admin's attention if mistakes or errors happen as described by the editor. I think that is what is being appealed here, not the ability to do multiple reversions but the burden of feeling like any misstep could mean further restrictions or a return to a noticeboard that I'm positive no editor likes being summoned to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced removing the 1RR is the best thing to do, but if another admin feels it is justified, I'm not going to object. RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you, that's exactly my point. Marcelus (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

A case of archiving

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

---

It seems like a discussion section at AN, Are these "/current_consensus" pages even real?, was prematurely archived diff. I'm bringing this up because me an some others responded to an invitation to comment here and I was waiting to see what administrators would say to these comments. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the bot archiving on here sometimes seems poorly timed or random -- I think it has something to do with the timestamps in the top level section(?) jp×g🗯️ 21:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a bot. I'm guessing Starship.paint saw the closure of the level-2 section and thought that was all there was. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

My apologies to @Bob K31416: and everyone else affected. It was my mistake. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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

user harrassment

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

---

i am new to this website and in good faith created a real article about a person that im a fan of... however, it got deleted and upon inquiry my so called 'mentor' User:I_dream_of_horses literally didnt do anything. i consider her spamming on my wall as harrassment, false advertisement and frankly a flat out lie. i since deleted her post. just make sure that user doesnt get to exploit her position as a 'mentor' any more than she already has. that one is not a mentor, its a fucking internet police officer who is blatantly abusing her given status. also make sure that (ab)user is blocked for me, since i somehow cant block them myself!!! JohnnyCesh (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked this person indefinitely. Zero chance that someone like this is going to work out in a collaborative environment. No sense letting them be a jerk to other editors before they're blocked. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@JohnnyCesh Looking at your interactions with other users ([22] [23] [24]), you might have wanted to read WP:BOOMERANG before calling for anybody to be blocked over harassment. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) (updated after reporting editor blocked, 19:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC))

<ec>You weren't harassed, you were welcomed. It's not "your wall." You are not entitled to make demands like that. And you're blocked for personal attacks and truly remarkable hostility toward other editors who were acting in good faith. Since I don't think there's much possibility of that changing based on the above, it's an indefinite block. This is a collaborative project, not a forum for attacks on everybody who crosses your path. Acroterion (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

They also lifted the photo directly off the actor's talent agency's website. Same resolution as well. So it's either a copyright violation, or clear COI. Either way I tagged it as a copyvio on commons as the license is clearly not correct. Canterbury Tail talk 19:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the editor's draft [25] and it appears to be a good faith attempt to create an article after a decent amount of work. It doesn't seem to be the work of a troll or vandal. I wonder if things would have ended up better if the response here was to deescalate. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

How? Their reactions to a welcome message and to offers of help were completely hostile, and their report here was worse. We don't need to waste volunteer time and patience with people who act like that. There is a time and place for de-escalation, but this wasn't one of them. A tolerable draft doesn't offset abuse. Acroterion (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Update: Now indeffed at dewiki, too. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the de.wp block is a full on solipsism block (email/talk page revoked), and for the same reasons as they got blocked here ("Violation of WP:NPA"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I locked him globally now ("Cross-wiki abuse: harsh rants to almost everybody, obviously not suitable for a collaborative project like Wikipedia"). Regards --Schniggendiller talk 20:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Help needed at CCI

Your input to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#GrahamBould would be appreciated. There are potential copyright problems in revisions dating back to 2006-2009. One article has been dealt with (resulting in the deletion of 1251 revisions spanning 18 years); 102 1722 articles left to go... The copyright issues with that one article were found by chance. How to deal with this systematically with the remaining 102 1722 articles is beyond me. Renerpho (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: The list just got a lot longer. Renerpho (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

For something this complicated, I'd think legal would want to help a bit. Catching complicated copyright issues is a lot to ask of volunteers. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: You're probably right. Do you have a suggestion where I may bring this up? (This is the first time I brought something to CCI, and I don't know where to reach "legal".) Renerpho (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Renerpho: Looks like you can send requests to legalwikimedia.org. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 21:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hako33

• Hako33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of footballers with 400 or more La Liga appearances (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user @Hako33: is stubborn and reverted the edits in the "List of footballers with 400 or more La Liga appearances" article without explaining the reason. I hope one of the administrators will find a solution with him. --Mishary94 (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You've both been edit-warring for the past week and neither of you have used the article talk page, why is that? Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You also failed to notify the user of this discussion on their talk page. A ping is insufficient. This is very clearly noted at the top of this page. Another editor had to notify them for you. It might be worth taking note of what it says at WP:BOOMERANG. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 23:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, you've both been blocked from that article for a week. Neither of you were explaining what you were doing or discussing on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I explained to him why I changed the photo, but he rejected it without explaining the reason. He tried to ignore me, so I ignored him several times, but it seemed that this problem would take a long time, so I turned to this page. --Mishary94 (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

There was nothing at Talk:List of footballers with 400 or more La Liga appearances. That's where it should be discussed and if they were ignoring then you use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before edit warring and coming here. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

"They did it, so I did it too" is rarely a valid justification for anything in life. It certainly isn't accepted as a reason for edit warring on Wikipedia. You have over ten thousand edits over 9 and a half years. You should be more familiar with Wikipedia policy than that. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 00:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think they were. See User talk:Mishary94#May 2021. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think, it is unfair to block me because it is not my mistake. He tries to impose his opinion without inviting me to discuss the topic on the talk page. Hako33 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hako33, you were edit-warring as much as Mishary was, and you're just as capable of starting a talk page discussion. Take responsibility for your actions. Schazjmd (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

In the end you have blocked both of us but you kept his edit Hako33 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

An administrator did that. Also, see Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION. Schazjmd (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I was wating for you to invite me to discuss the topic on the talk page but you preferred to report me. Hako33 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Were you incapable of starting a talk page discussion yourself? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

He started the war. Hako33 (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a 6 year old grandchild that knows "they started it" is not a valid argument. And I see that there is still no discussion at Talk:List of footballers with 400 or more La Liga appearances. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm, an article which should probably be a category, and which has no inline sources and is only sourced to two databases which don't agree with each other. Sounds like a candidate for deletion to me. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)