Last month the RfC on SI's reliability at RSN (archived thread) was closed. Since then there have been concerns at WT:RSP (thread) that the wording of the close is too vague to provide meaningful understanding of the consensus when dealing with the source's reliability in discussions and/or listing at RSP.

The bolded text in the closure was I believe that the discussion establishes a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy, which really doesn't mean anything, while various parts of the close mentioned the source's area of expertise without mentioning which area this is. As Newslinger summarized, [s]ince the closing statement does not specify the topic areas (e.g. general topics vs. politics) or aspects (e.g. staff vs. contributors) of the source that the options apply to, it is up to us to interpret the closing statement and the rest of the RfC in a way that would fit the format of this list. It has been a month since the closer (Eggishorn) has been active, so me and other editors believe it is in the interest of the community that the close be reviewed and reworded to be clearer (or if need be overturned).

Concerns were brought up in the closer's talk page that the close had served as a WP:SUPERVOTE (thread), but I will not comment on that as a party to the Arbcom case. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, to be reclosed by a more active editor. Generally, if an editor wants to close a discussion they need to be available to clarify the close, and to address concerns about the close. As this close needs additional clarification and Eggishorn is not sufficiently active to provide it the close should be overturned on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "by a more active editor" sounds rather too much like nonsense to my ears; they were certainly active enough at the time of the close, and they replied on their talk page at the time. There is no requirement for closers to be indefinitely available afterwards: should we also overturn all closures made by editors which are since inactive, "on procedural grounds"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, editors are uncertain how to implement the close; in general, closers should be active long enough to address any timely requests for clarification that are made - I note that the closer agreed to provide such clarification a month ago, but due to inactivity has not been able to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  With all due respect, I'd restrict the critique to the substance of the close; I think that has merit. I share RandomCanadian's qualms about reading in an "activity requirement" to closing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You make a good point; my issue with the close is that it is too vague to be implemented - my references to activity were due to the belief that the vagueness could have been addressed through clarification by the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As an addition to BilledMammal's comment, I didn't bring the closure here because I wanted the close to favor my vote, but rather because we have waited a whole month for the closure to be clarified. Without that clarification the close is genuinely meaningless. What does use [...] with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy mean apart from "This is a source, which you can use. Sources are used in Wikipedia according to policies. Follow those policies when using this source." What policies? What was the consensus in the discussion regarding BLP sourcing policies affecting the source's use? MEDRS? Editorial oversight and WP:QS? It was clear in the discussion that there was disagreement among editors as to how those policies apply to SI. As the closer did not address those disagreements we all leave the discussion feeling like our perspective is backed by consensus, even if it is not. I think that SI is a QS outside its coverage of skepticism, so should I act in discussions regarding the source arguing that is the consensus? I mean after all is WP:V not existing sourcing and content policy? That is why clarification from the closer is needed and as he has not provided such clarification this closure review is necessary. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 19:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I do AGF that you didn't raise this in order to get your way on it; you weren't a major "partisan" in the ArbCom case. Sometimes, Wikipedia just doesn't provide an algorithmic formula for evaluating sources. As you note, "there was disagreement among editors as to how those policies apply to SI." There may, perhaps, not have been a consensus about it that a closer could elucidate without making a supervote. Let's see if such disagreements really do lead to ongoing problems, and we can always re-discuss the issue if need be. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've struck a sentence because I just learned from below that the user is someone who, under a previous username, was the subject of a finding and a reminder in the ArbCom case. This decreases somewhat my feelings of AGF regarding the exchange that follows. I don't want to re-litigate the case, or the exchange below, but I do think that there is quoting of the RfC close here that is presented out of context. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If there was no consensus for how the policies apply to SI then the close should have explicitly mentioned no consensus regarding each of those policies. Discussions at RSN are literally about how the policies apply to a source. How I see it the current close is just a way to end the discussion without actually judging consensus in the discussion. The fact that the closer mentioned strength of arguments without even outlining said arguments means we can't even critique how they evaluated points brought up in the discussion. It is about as substance-less a close as one can give in three paragraphs and does not clarify the consensus in the RfC at all, in my opinion. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The reference to "strength of arguments" was made in finding that there was a consensus against options 3 and 4. The close goes on to say: The discussion below as a whole makes it clear that usage of this source is subject to qualification in the same way that all sources are qualified. It is impossible to determine a priori whether a particular usage will be contextually acceptable or unaceptable but the discussion below endorses our existing general guidelines on source usage. That's a clear and affirmative statement of consensus that the usage is subject to evaluation on a case-by-case basis. It's not a finding that there was consensus to select some particular subset of policies and guidelines to evaluate this particular source, and it's not clear that a different closer would have discovered a consensus for such a special rule. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I see it as a clear and affirmative statement that PAGs on sources exist. That's really all it does.

  • The discussion below as a whole makes it clear that usage of this source is subject to qualification in the same way that all sources are qualified. - I'd be terribly surprised if this source was not subject to the same standards as all other sources on Wikipedia.
  • It is impossible to determine a priori whether a particular usage will be contextually acceptable or unaceptable [...] - Correct, but I'm not sure anyone assumed otherwise. There are wide topic areas (e.g. negative BLP coverage, MEDRS, etc.) where uses fall into a similar context and additional considerations apply but the scope of the RfC never was particular usages.
  • but the discussion below endorses our existing general guidelines on source usage - A finding otherwise would imply the RSN RfC has power to overturn guidelines such as WP:RS, which it does not nor did anyone make that point in the RfC.

  Additionally, no arguments were described in finding that consensus against 3 and 4. It is also a bit problematic to me that the close declined to make any distinction at all between marginal and general reliability (The dichotomy between Options 1 and 2, however, is more of an apparent divergence than an actual one.) when there is currently community consensus for the existence of that distinction. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Seems like the OP here (and other editors) is asking the closer to make a general binding ruling on when and where usage of the source is acceptable, when this is of course a matter of case by case like with any source (i.e. even such generally reliable sources like the BBC or press agencies like Reuters are not "100% use without any other consideration"; and of course with academic journals there's the subtle difference between primary sources like case studies and secondary ones). The closer correctly explained the reasons why they did not provide such a ruling (it would indeed appear to be a SUPERVOTE, as that was not the question that was asked at the RfC and many of the participants did not express a very detailed opinion on that), and I see no reason to overturn the close on those grounds. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll agree that the close seems somewhat unclear and could use with a rewording or additional clarification of its main holding (i.e. the source is acceptable for use on Wikipedia, but general considerations which apply to other sources similarly apply to it, including in BLP or other more complicated contexts [for ex., to take one from the discussion, when the source is reporting on a lawsuit it is involved in it is obviously not an independent source - but such obvious concerns apply to other sources as well: the NYT reporting on a lawsuit it is involved in would similarly not be an ideal source]), but on its merits the close seems a reasonable reading of the discussion and of policy, so hence the "endorse". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I appreciate the emphasis on generally reliable and on the notion that all sources depend on context, but this was a step too far.

  There is a problem with editors treating RSP as a rule, not just advice or guidance (we ought to make the disclaimer with a 72-point font so that even the blind could see it). Obviously Eggishorn is qualified and he was making a very difficult close, but even very experienced editors may fail and I think this was the case. That is to say, the problem was not the merits of his approach but the result and its practical implication. If we have another RSN discussion on Skeptical Inquirer, we would inevitably see quarreling of editors about the TRUE_MEANING™ of that close (and you know, whose truth is truer), because essentially telling people "look up WP:RS", to which the third paragraph boils down, doesn't help anyone if people have different understanding of how RS applies in practice and different set of outlets they are ready to consider RS. We shouldn't give a pretext for editors to create timesinks. The four-option template shouldn't end in a no-consensus result or without a clear result. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was pinged to the WT:RSP discussion that led here, and I expressed some concerns there: [1]. I recognize that the close had some significant shortcomings: one has to read most of the way through to get past "why I think I can make this close" to get to the actual description of consensus, and the closer has not been available to answer questions. I think the close, as written, amounts to a lot of need to evaluate the appropriateness of the source on a case-by-case basis. ("It is impossible to determine a priori whether a particular usage will be contextually acceptable or unacceptable...") Some editors, however, very much want a more specific prescription for when to use or not use the source. And there is a legitimate concern that editors who were dubious of the source during the ArbCom case may be looking for a close that better reaffirms their position. So, if some brave soul were to step forward and re-close the discussion, there will be a rock-and-hard-place dilemma of making the reading of consensus more specific but not too much more specific. I think it may be best to leave things as they are, for the time being, and see how "case-by-case" works out in practice over the months ahead. If it leads to a mess, then there could be a renewed discussion, based on that experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to update my comment to specify Endorse. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close per RandomCanadian. There is no compelling evidence that the close was flawed. That some editors, including the OP, would have preferred a different outcome from the RfC is clear, and seems to me at the heart of this request. I further endorse Tryptofish's suggestion that we leave things as they are and proceed in good faith with the "case-by-case" strategy. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. I'm a bit puzzled by the comment opening this thread. The statement in the close about a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer is informative, not vacuous: the close pointed out that options 3 and 4 of the standard set drew less support than options 1 and 2. I don't buy the procedural argument that a close is somehow devalued because the closer is taking a wiki-break; nor do I find the statement of the close unactionably vague. Rebooting the whole discussion just to get a line we could lazily plug into WP:RSP doesn't seem like a good use of anybody's time. XOR'easter (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  XOR'easter I agree with you that 3 and 4 gained less support than 1 and 2. I don't think anyone is disputing that fact. Option 2 is Marginally reliable for supporting statements of fact, or additional considerations apply. Which additional considerations apply in this case, backed by consensus, as specified in the close? Also, how can a close indicate support for two different options that are not equal (general and marginal reliability), in your opinion? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 19:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Or at least clarify. Needlessly vague and meandering, there is a big difference between option 1 and 2 and how we can use the source on the pedia. From what I can tell it did not address many of the concerns voiced in both the pro and con arguments. Specifically its use for BLP articles, other than stating we should follow our core policies. Which is unhelpful in this situation. Given the amount of discussion and overall participation paired with a whole arbcom case on the subject we need something with a more reasoned and thought out close. Anything else is honestly insulting to those who did participate and give their opinions since they seem to be largely ignored, that compounded with the closers refusal to answer any legitimate questions on it does not sit well for something so contentious. Also I don't think anyone is asking to reboot the discussion to be lazy and plug it into RSP, that is nonsense, what is being asked is someone to actually evaluate the discussion that already happened. Finally is a close cannot be deciphered, does not answer the question asked, or ignored the arguments it is flawed as it does not set out to do what a close of an RFC is meant to do, which is to interpret consensus on a topic. I honestly don't care which way it goes, but I do care that we actually have something to point to going forward, this close will not give any clarity as it can be used by either say to say "well see I am right!". PackMecEng (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse basically per RandomCanadian and XOR’easter. Pretty sure I can decipher it and although I can see others would have preferred a different outcome, that’s not a good reason to overturn it. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Doug Weller: Can you explain your understanding of the close? BilledMammal (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. There is compelling evidence that the close was flawed: that it didn't actually summarize whether or not there was a consensus for any particular option that was offered. If it were to simply say that there were no consensus between Option 1 and Option 2, or if it were to find consensus for Option 1 but also that it is considered a biased source, or some other consensus, then it would at least be capable of summarizing the discussion. If you look at a closing summary that doesn't actually address the RfC question at all, on the other hand, you've found a substantially flawed close. If somebody closed a deletion discussion with "there is a consensus to apply WP:Deletion policy to this article" it would be seen as patently ridiculous. As Ixtal notes above, closes are almost entirely meaningless without actually summarizing the discussion and ascertaining consensus on the RfC prompt. Failing to do so makes for a bad close. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Close seems reasonable given the RfC input; sometimes discussion results don't fit neatly into a dumbed-down WP:RSP-esque format, even though as Doug notes "others would have preferred a different outcome". Note that the OP here is the user formerly known as A. C. Santacruz. Alexbrn (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does OP’s former username matter? I don’t really see how this would affect the question of whether or not the close was a bad. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Because an innocent onlooker (like me, initially) might think this is a request from a new, uninvolved editor, rather than from the one who was maybe more partisan & involved than any other in that RfC and its environs. Alexbrn (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me rephrase: what does the editor have to do with the substance of the arguments regarding why the close was bad? You seem to be listing the editor's former username as a way to support your endorsement, which feels odd from a policy standpoint. We don't tent to discard arguments just beacause of the person making them. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    "You seem to be listing the editor's former username as a way to support your endorsement" ← No. But knowing who is writing something is useful context that can inform understanding. How, you decide. Alexbrn (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And how does it inform your understanding in this case? I'm struggling to see why the user's former username is relevant; would you be willing to help me understand? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not answering for Alexbrn, but I'll point to my own comment above, where I struck something I wrote before I found out about this (thanks, Alexbrn, for pointing it out). The username, per se, is not relevant for me, but it's very relevant to find that I have to take "I didn't bring the closure here because I wanted the close to favor my vote" with some, well, skepticism. There was definitely some history going back to the ArbCom case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Tryptofish and Alexbrn, I did mention in my initial comment on this thread I was a party to the case and openly disclose the renaming at the start of my user page. While I would hope you look at the close objectively and in isolation when judging it during review, I can see how one would wish to consider their personal bias against me an important component of the close in-and-of-itself and seek to return to the battleground behaviour that was characteristic of the dispute. I just don't think it makes for a strong argument in or is beneficial to the review, is all. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not have a personal bias against you, and I was never a party to battleground behavior. Indeed, it was you who pinged me to ask that I initiate the discussion here; you also noted that it might have been problematic for you to initiate it: [2]. It's really a simple thing: if you had been more transparent about who you were, I wouldn't have felt misled. (I shouldn't have to research your user page to find it out. I just assumed this was someone else, whom I had not seen in the ArbCom case, and I just figured that this person might have made an opening statement at the case.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please WP:AGF. I also note that I consider the close too vague to understand which position it favours. BilledMammal (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Of the four options on offer "It is overwhelmingly clear by both the number and strength of arguments that the discussion participants rejected the latter two options". So, somewhere in the area of Option 1 or 2. I don't think it's reasonable, or even possible, given the discussion, for the closer to have decided on precisely 1 or 2. Alexbrn (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alexbrn, Given your reading of the close how would you summarize it? PackMecEng (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't. That's rather the point of "sometimes discussion results don't fit neatly into a dumbed-down WP:RSP-esque format". Ultimately, there's no prohibition on using the source, but it should be used in a WP:PAG-aware manner. That the enthusiasts at WP:RSP have invented non-policy concepts like WP:GREL, and like arguing about colour schemes and icons, should no be allowed to backwash into closers' abilities to write non-simplistic closes, not on editors' abilities to intrepret them WP:CLUEfully. Alexbrn (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See that is the issue, if the statement of the close is that we should follow policy it has no value. Obviously we follow policy, that is why we have it. Every source is subject to that. Lets ignore RSP for the moment, that is not relevant to this discussion, and focus on what we are supposed to do with the information that close provided. Given your summation, it seems less than helpful, and certainly less than required given the sheer amount of information covered in the RFC itself. That is the core issue at play here, while we do not need a simple consensus is on option 1 or 2, we do need more information that accurately summarizes community consensus and the best way to apply that which, I am afraid, this close clearly lacks. PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We can't ignore RSP because the RfC was explicitly framed to place SI in an RSP category (WP:GREL, WP:MREL etc.). It doesn't fit. I don't have any difficulty understanding the consensus that we "use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy", even if it doesn't fit into an RSP box. Alexbrn (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did... anybody in the discussion actually argue that it doesn't fit into either some RSP box and/or that it was between two RSP boxes? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There were some "x, maybe y" type comments. But once a RfC has got going with people selecting from a menu of four options, !voting with an option that's not "on the menu" is a way to get that !vote ignored; so people don't. As I said at the time, the RfC was a bad idea. The way it was done compounded the problem: sources like SI, and the issues around it, really do not fit into a "four option" template rooted in discussion of news sources, so as ScottishFinnishRadish observed this kind of general RfC was not appropriate. Alexbrn (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was trying to not take part in this, because as I also observed, We don't need the same group of people having the same discussion again. I think the result should be overturned specifically because there are concerns and questions about the close that were not addressed, and remain unaddressed due to the inactivity of the closer. I can't say if the problem with the close is also based on what the closer stated, because we haven't gotten to the point of getting clarification. Because of that, we're left to interpret the close as written, which simply isn't great. I also think Mhawk10's statement above, If somebody closed a deletion discussion with "there is a consensus to apply WP:Deletion policy to this article" it would be seen as patently ridiculous. is fairly spot on. It's unfortunate that the close didn't actually address the RFC, because what we'll be left with is even more discussions among the same group of editors about the same things over and over again.

  Reading the whole close, in my eyes it's basically saying, "There is no consensus on the reliability of SI. Most respondents believed it was reliable for WP:PARITY use, and in areas of its expertise. Many respondents expressed concerns about the use of SI to make controversial statements about BLPs and for statements on medical topics. Opinions sourced to SI should always be attributed. Editors are reminded to familiarize themselves with WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:PARITY, and WP:FRINGE when using SI as a source." The close, however, dodges the specifics by going with Various commenters made clear statements about use cases they saw as not acceptable - areas outside the source's area of expertise or opinion usages or specific articles later thrown into question.

  Basically, a question was asked via RFC, there was no consensus on the answer, so saying I believe that the discussion establishes a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy. is a cop-out that doesn't respect the responses that dozens of editors gave to a specific question because it ignores the actual question being responded to.

  I don't actually generally edit in the areas where SI is used, and my attention was drawn to it because of the BLPN threads that have popped up around it, so the close doesn't much bother me one way or another. I'd love to go to every article where we're sourcing negative information on BLPs to yellow journalism from a source that clearly doesn't have consensus as being generally reliable, but it's not really worth the time of having another RFC with the same people about the same source. And that's the biggest problem with the close as it stands, it's just passing the buck and setting up yet another one of those clusterfuck discussions with diminishing returns, as uninvolved editors don't really seem to give a shit. We got the most participation we're going to see on the topic in that RFC, and it was summarily ignored in the close, and any further discussions are going to be back to the same group of editors with the same opinions divided down the middle.

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That sums it up pretty well. In the not to distant future I will add an RSP entry to reflect the findings of this talk. We can point to this discussion as well as the RFC, since this discussion is a reasonable clarification on the subject since the closer is no longer active. PackMecEng (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be quite a bad idea for someone who participated in the RFC to do that. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that seems ill-advised. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of people participated, its fine. Any of you are welcome to do it as well. PackMecEng (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So anybody remember earlier this year when Steven Crowder did a video of himself editing Wikipedia and accusing us of a left-wing bias because we reverted his edits? Well, guess what. We have the famed libertarian personality John Stossel doing the same late in April, meaning the same crap all over again. Also, there's this and this. I fear a similar situation of unconstructive edits will result. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 01:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He’s been deliberately engaging in climate denial for decades, and has been wrong about virtually every social, environmental, and political issue he’s ever defended and promoted. Yet, his biography makes him sound like a reasonable fellow who may have had a bad hair day once in the last thirty years. This is what whitewashing and historical revisionism looks like. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Stossel: "Conservatives don’t have as much time to tweet or argue on the web. Leftists do. And they love doing it. This helps them take over the media, universities, and now, Wikipedia." Apparently there is some time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you mean tweeting and arguing on the web is the way to get an academic career in the US? Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In all serious, this is a projective rhetorical tactic to make lefts seem like these taxpayer-money sucking lazy bums who never worked a hard job in their life. It's obviously BS to anyone who's worked a darn jobs in their life, not to mention assumes the people "not working" are choosing to, not because companies have a profit incentive to keep a swath of a town or city's population unemployed to increase bargaining power, or that employment discrimination for not having an address or looking like a dirty homeless man is a thing. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 16:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas Oh, and also these classics from Stossels that have infected the population: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] (this one where he said sanctions weren't the reason Cuba is in the state that it is in), CRT hysteria. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 16:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what is it you want administrators to do here? Obviously some more eyes on Stossel's article would be good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um... to do something about the edits Stossel did, which he filmed himself doing in his video? 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 21:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first video you linked is 1 hour and 40 minutes long. It's a lot to ask to trawl through all that. I think you'll need to be more specific about what edits/articles/users are problematic here. Colin M (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's actually this one I just brought up those other videos to indicate how unreliable is when it comes to reporting on other issues 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 21:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To backtrack a bit here, are there specific user accounts or specific edits that are posing a problem? The "situation" with Crowder, as I recall, was that he made like a dozen insanely POV edits (which were quickly reverted for being insanely POV), and then he made like a dozen other edits that were neutral grammar fixes (which there was no need to revert).jp×g 16:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two edits, made a month ago, which were both reverted. Is this something that requires administrative involvement? jp×g 17:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the edits other people probably will or have made as a result of the publicity of the edits by Stossel's video on "Wikipedia bias". That's where admins may have to get involved somehow, but all I'm doing here is informing the necessary parties, and letting the admins decide. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 23:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That shouldn't really be a problem. It's been 3 weeks since the video has come out, so if there were issues to be had, then they'd already have surfaced. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion on economic bias with GPT-3

Inspired in part by the conversation above, and having read that there are (apparently publicly unregistered) experiments underway to try to expand Wikipedia articles using GPT-3 and similar very large language models, I had the following discussion with OpenAI's "text-davinci-002" system using the default settings at the open https://beta.openai.com/playground page. I suggest it and the implications are of interest to administrators.

My question to administrators is, do we need to take some kind of measures in preparation for or response to editing motivated by such shallow motivations? 2600:387:C:6C37:0:0:0:3 (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some years back, BDD discussed GPT-3 during his election questions and responses.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps such a credulous stance is less than warranted given the research from Georgetown showing GPT-3 is exceptionally effective at manipulating readers on Twitter. 2600:387:C:6C30:0:0:0:7 (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That link is very interesting. In history the same was true for TV advertising at first in Japan when broadcasts started. It took some years for the general population to acquire the unconscious skeptical approach most people in developed countries have to TV adds. The same may be true for artificial intelligence. Eventually people will wise up to it, but the first several decades or so people will buy into it en masse. For wikipedia, this is a serious problem; I don't think being a luddite is the answer though. What could happen instead is for the WMF to run their own artificial intelligence programs; the programs would be designed to catch other artificial intelligence being used on Wikipedia and ban the accounts unless they are authorized. Like the current game of whack-a-mole, except more expensive for the WMF since people are free but software and hardware are expensive.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many people still to this day lack the cognitive capacity to resist the persuasion of advertising. Businesses and nonprofits alike use advertising to bend the minds of the viewers of their ads to their will. If you really want to get a better idea of the deep history involved, you must realize that the deepest and widest social network is email, and the earliest version of email was ticker tape.

I see that you are a religious person in a dispute here concerning abortion. I have strong feelings about the subject which I think I best not share because I wish to communicate with administrators about the imminent AI threat to the precarious balance of Wikipedia's neutrality and bias. Please don't take this as a personal affront, but I would like to know your opinion of Professor David Kipping's calculation that there is a 43% chance we are in a simulation. Do you find it persuasive? 2600:387:C:6C30:0:0:0:7 (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope springs eternal. 96.74.65.118 (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting that, 96, it made me feel better. 2600, you're not the only one who has to hold that tongue. I'm concerned about getting in trouble with WP:NOTFORUM, so I have to hold my tongue too, and may not feel comfortable making future responses. I hope you understand if it seems like I'm ghosting you in the future, it is just me trying to stay acceptable.

If email goes south, we can go back to ticker tape. If Wikipedia goes south, I have several sets of print encyclopedias I can continue using anyway. Others will use similar coping strategies. Maybe Wikipedia will be supplanted by something grander, but it will go south, leaving people to rely on Wikipedia instead.

As for simulation or not, the question is not framed the greatest, and the best answer I can give to you is "both/and" although even that is off. The video presents a logical thought experiment, but the question is framed a particular way that isn't quite right.

It isn't a new question, but instead is a modernized version of a similar divide hundreds of years ago. I can think of a historical figure who straddled it by eclectically switching between the most moderate positions on each of the two sides. Inferring from what I've read on Wikipedia, there is a tendency to avoid the extremes here too.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a continuation of an earlier ANI discussion here and the behavior seems to be ongoing. Not sure if it requires attention, but I thought worth of documentation. I had originally left a note in an archive and another editor told me that was a faux paux, so I create a new section here. Seems bloodofox doesnt follow the WP:BRD process and simply keeps reverting regardless if content is disputed by multiple editors, is subject of RFC, etc. In this case the user continues reverting the same JP Sears article to add and re-add disputed content, the latter removed by Some of everything

• 16:35, 5 April 2022
• 05:19, 7 April 2022
• 16:11, 13 April 2022‎
• 21:05, 14 May 2022
• 16:00, 16 May 2022
• 21:31, 16 May 2022

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, this user again. Note that this user's sole purpose (and sole activities) on the above article is to remove and/or to lobby to remove WP:RS that is 'critical' of the article's subject (an anti-vaxxer/MAGA/conspiritualitist comedian). A drive-by editor removed a well-sourced item and Jtbobways jumped at the chance to remove well-sourced content (as usual). Typical. Jtbobways is one of a few embedded editors there whose sole purpose on the article is to attempt to scrub the article—they do nothing else there but attempt to get that section deleted. You might ask the user to provide their own revert diffs. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf, I'll weigh in on the talk page, where this belongs--if you're not sure it requires attention, don't post here please. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, originally I was adding the repeated content to the archive, and then another editor said I couldnt edit the archive but I had already notified a different editor. So thought it best to put it here. Apologies if it was incorrect protocol. Issue here seems to be that bloodofox brings his political ideologies to his edits and continues his battle on this ANI area even, referring to MAGA, etc. Its all off topic and part of some crusade. It seems the patten of behavior is a problem, at least to me. Maybe others support it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel you have enough evidence to bring a case for action against some editor in to some noticeboard you should do so. However, I don't see how it's appropriate to list alleged wrong doings of an editor somewhere on-wiki just to document it if it's not part of an active case or one you shortly intend to bring. Keep it on your personal devices or don't keep it at all. This is something rightfully forbidden if it's done on a user page or user sub page, such pages are only allowed as a short term thing while an editor is preparing to bring a case in the immediate future. Any attempt to keep a record of an editor's alleged misbehaviour long term is rightfully be deleted as an attack page, and the editor involved potentially sanctioned. (Exceptions are sometimes made for banned editors to assist others in recognising them etc.) So it's no more acceptable to open a thread nor to edit an AN archive [24] just to document alleged wrong doings. Again keep it on your personal devices or don't keep it at all. Nil Einne (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war continues:

• Revert as of 16:18, 18 May 2022
• Continuing aspersions as of 16:21, 18 May 2022
• Revert as of 16:54, 18 May 2022

This is about a pattern of behavior and my intent was to continue the prior ANI, maybe I have done that the wrong way? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curious that you have no comment on the edits of user Some of everything, though, [25] and [26]. It reflects poorly when someone steps in to make reversions but does not participate in the talk page discussions. Zaathras (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of everything at this point in time also looks like lite WP:TE. However, I haven't noticed the same degree of long term pattern of behavior that I have seen with bloodofox, nor I have I seen the same degree of aspersions. Maybe Some of everything is an editor that got looped in by the RfC or by this ANI? I myself have crossed the line in the past when dealing with WP:OWN behavior of other editors that are trying to promote a POV, so I tend to AGF on this until I see a long term pattern. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently lost my autopatrolled and new page reviewer user rights because I created a few pages that didn't meet notability. I would to be able to review pages again and I promise to be more careful when I create future articles.Vincelord (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a total of 3 days since it was revoked. What have you done in the mean time to establish that you understand the criteria? PRAXIDICAE💕 14:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do? Should I create a few pages and see if they meet criteria? I'm not sure what else I can do. Vincelord (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'd oppose restoring said rights, you've been here long enough to know our policies and every article you've created this year has been unsourced and most of them are BLPs and required someone else to come clean up behind you. [27][28][29][30]. You've had a whopping one article in 2022 that you created with a source, though it's a dubious one. After a decade of editing here, surely you should know better. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ever appeal again at a later date? I should of least gotten a waring before losing my reviewer rights. I felt I was helping W0ikipedia by creating those pages just as I help by reviewing and correcting other users pages. Vincelord (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can but I don't understand how you've got 83,000 edits in 11 years but don't understand this basic policy or core principles...PRAXIDICAE💕 14:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why should you have got a warning on autopatrolled? That right is specifically for those article creators who need zero oversight of their content to be confident that it is suitable for the project. You shouldn't need warnings. Additionally, you've still not explained why you (who must know better) created four articles without sources this year alone, and why you thought adding articles without sources was helping Wikipedia? Until you can answer those, I oppose any return of NPP rights as well. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not to kick you while you're down but since we're here about your edits, how do you not have a single edit summary in your last 500 edits?! PRAXIDICAE💕 15:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you on everything you said. I love Wikipedia and never meant to violate any rules. I am guilty of creating pages before references could be found. To be honest I wanted to be the first to create those pages. I can promise I will never create any more articles without sources or with poor sources. As for why there are no edit summaries, Most of my edits are so minor I felt it really wasn't needed. I still feel I can be a good page reviewer. But if it's not to be I'll be content to just edit pages as I've been doing for 11 years. Vincelord (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you losing by not having these other than publishing poorly sourced articles yourself? You've reviewed a total of 5 pages since NPR in its current form was introduced. If you're referring to AFC, well, you've also got no AFC reviews afaict. You've got several pending changes reviews but nothing in nearly two years, but I'm not here to debate those merits. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's so important about these rights anyway? I've been editing Wikipedia for about 15 years and have never felt the need to request extra rights concerning passing judgement over other editors or avoiding such judgement myself. Just edit, without worrying about what rights you have. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Phil Bridger, user rights are not necessary unless you plan to actively use them. I've been an active admin on Wikipedia for well over a decade, and an active editor for many years before that, and I don't have the autopatrolled right. I've never needed it, and have no interest in granting it to myself. I never saw the point. --Jayron32 14:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Vincelord, you need to show it not say it. I suggest you come back when you can show at least six months of contributions with no sourcing problems and no BLP issues, and good edit summaries. Until then, you should not be reviewing new pages. And it does not hamper you in the slightest to have your own contribitions reviewed by others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse removal of rights per WP:1SOURCE. NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note While there are no formal rules, the general principle for any sanction is that, absence of badly placed sanctions that were entirely unjustified, 6 months is the standard amount of time necessary to wait for an appeal. While there is some wiggle room on that, 3 days is certainly not long enough to establish that behavior has changed. Give us multiple months of good editing, and it may be worthwhile to ask for an appeal. --Jayron32 12:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jayron32 I have seen numerous appeals made on a smaller timeframe, especially for non indefs. Beyond that, my interpretation of Vince's request was that he felt the sanction was unwarranted, and so an immediate appeal was logical in that regard. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not what they said. They said, and I quote "I recently lost my autopatrolled and new page reviewer user rights because I created a few pages that didn't meet notability. I would to be able to review pages again and I promise to be more careful when I create future articles." That doesn't sound like they are challenging the validity of the sanction, indeed they confirm they understand the reason for the sanction. Also, yes, the six month time frame is not written in stone, but at no point would three days be a reasonable amount of time to establish a pattern of changed behavior. Such time frames are almost universally measured in months, not days. 6 months is not a hard limit, just a convenient and common one. 3 days is stupidly short, and not nearly enough time to establish that a sanctioned user has learned from their mistakes and is behaving correctly. --Jayron32 13:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right that their initial post was of that nature - I think I'd mentally aggregated all their comments, but obviously it's the original post that should be able to warrant that, not any (that that point hypothetical) later posts. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As per the others – ask again in 3-6 months once you've shown a pattern of good edits. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am off to bed but noticed that RfPP is getting backed up. Also FWIW AIV has been pretty busy tonight. Anyone up and about might want to keep an eye on that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Balchandra Upendra

This account is specifically created to deleting articles on Wikipedia. Might be the sock of 103.78.151.95, User:Hemantha, User:Nanpofira, 49.204.132.64, User:Whiteguru. Requesting if anyone could find the master sock.2409:4050:2D96:ABC9:9C9F:BE48:65E3:A7EF (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a couple. Vaidehi Taman seems pretty notable. On the other hand, Indian Achievers Award isn't much different than it was when created by a sock and if others agree it can be speedy deleted. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: The 2409 IP and the mentioned articles are likely related to the sockmasters and UPEing mentioned in this other recent AN report. It is possible that the Upendra account is related to a rival UPE enterprise, but I haven't waded deeply enough in this swamp to be sure. Abecedare (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare I think User:Oshwah may be in a better position as he'll have some CU data. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:NationIndia - legal threats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaxServer (talk • contribs) 17:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If any experienced closers are feeling brave, the RFC at Talk:Azov Battalion#RFC designation of Azov "Battalion" as neo-Nazi in lede has been sitting at Wikipedia:Closure requests for 8 days now and could really use a close (ideally a panel close).

The disagreement has been dominating discussion on that page for well over two months now, spilling well beyond the RFC (see eg multiple further threads on the talk page archives), and getting in the way of other work on the page. An authoritative close (even if only on the central issue, whether a lede description of Azov Battalion as neo-nazi in Wikipedia voice is compatible with WP:NPOV) would therefore be appreciated.

Volunteers to make the close should ideally make themselves known in relevant section at Wikipedia:Closure requests. -- Jheald (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request also made at WP:NPOVN -- Jheald (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Y Close has been claimed. Jheald (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians looking for help from administrators

There are now 10 requests for administrator help, 8 of which have to do with File issues. PseudoSkull has asked for the help. Many of the requests have been sitting there for days. I know so little about these issues that I don't even know if PS is going about this in the right way. Regardless, could an admin with expertise in this area address the requests? I'm tired of seeing such a high number. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is within the current system of automatically lowering the resolution of the images, then hiding the higher resolution of the image. I don't know if some court case forced WP to do that, or if it decided it on its own. The only thing I want to do with these files is I want the files transferred to Wikimedia Commons but the system doesn't allow me to do that if there are revisions hidden. I have good reason to believe that the files are in the public domain in the United States for various reasons depending on the file. I specified the reason each time. (And if anyone can provide evidence contrary to my position that they're in the public domain, I'm willing to consider that evidence.)

I think that if Wikipedia is going to host fair use files (which I'm already against), and beyond that to delete higher resolution versions of those files (which again, I wouldn't do if I were running this site either)—that Wikipedia ought to create a straightforward way to specifically target administrators for help on undeleting a revision and then moving it to Commons afterwards if need be. I don't know if such a functionality currently exists, better than the {{adminhelp}} template I was using. But if there isn't, having something like a specific undelete template for it, or even a button for it, might save a lot of time and concern. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be a good idea to make a specific template/process for something that in most cases shouldn't happen (if a bot has reduced the resolution, then it's fair use and can't be moved to Commons). If you think these have been incorrectly labelled as under copyright, wouldn't it be easier to get the original file from the source, which should be noted in all the descriptions, and upload it to Commons directly? – Joe (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I took a look, most of these look malformed. For example File talk:Down Rio Grande Way poster.jpg; what is an uninvolved administrator supposed to do there? It seems like maybe they are challenging a deletion from years ago - and in batch. They should open a WP:DRV or WP:AN discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Not challenging a past deletion, but requesting unhiding of a revision. The example you gave in File:Down Rio Grande Way poster.jpg includes revision history on the page, where it shows the 1 January 2019 revision shadowed out. @Joe Roe: Probably a majority of film posters released before 1964 or even before 1978 have no copyright to speak of, either because they didn't include a notice (75% of the ones I've seen at least), or they didn't renew the copyright on the poster itself...If they ever registered one in the first place. It's apparently something production companies didn't care so much about keeping a copyright on (for an understandable reason; the huge piece of paper was going to be virtually useless within a year). So realistically, probably a majority of the film posters we have listed as "fair use" are not even respecting a copyright that exists to begin with. And there are thousands of film posters incorrectly listed as fair use in such a way. I've only marked a tiny minute amount of those (just 10!), which is why I think there ought to be a better system for this. If they're free, they just ought to be marked as free and treated as free. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PseudoSkull "unhiding a revision" is reversing a revision deletion. Normally I'd refer you do the deleting admin, but in this example they are no longer on the project. A "I need admin help" template is the wrong way to go about challenging that deletion though, and especially if you want thousands of undeletions. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: The ultimate result in an ideal world would probably be thousands of film posters from between 1927 and 1963/1977 with undeleted revisions, yes. But, the reality is that this isn't something that can be done in some kind of bulk action, because each file has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The main questions to ask are: Does this poster have a copyright notice? (Which by the way is harder to determine if the poster's quality is obfuscated in Wikipedia to begin with) And if so, was the poster's copyright ever registered? If so, was it renewed? These are not questions that a bot can generally answer on the fly. I know it's like a 0.2% chance that a poster would have a notice and be renewed anyway, but it'd have to be checked just in case if it was published after 1926. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So for example on File:Down Rio Grande Way poster.jpg (2019-01-02T01:46:50 ) version; there is some very small text on the bottom of the image, however the resolution is insufficient to read it. The original uploader asserted that the "copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the film". The uploader did not specify a production date. Regarding your "admin help" templates - what exactly do you want admins to help with? If it is "undelete a revision" that's not the best way to go about this. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Re "wouldn't it be easier to get the original file from the source, which should be noted in all the descriptions, and upload it to Commons directly?" In some cases this would work, but the one that Xaosflux mentioned actually doesn't give a link source. The "source" section implies I actually need to go license the poster from Columbia Pictures or something to get a higher quality copy, which shouldn't be necessary because Wikipedia already has the high res scan, just in the hidden revisions. A quick Google search for that particular poster doesn't come up with any results that aren't copied from this lowres Wikipedia image version. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The better version shows 5 pieces of fine print on the bottom of the poster, but still cannot be read at all. So copyright cannot be determined from this image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For this kind of help, (unhiding hidden revisions) please ask at WP:REFUND. But please give reasoning for why copyright does not apply or is expired. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett and Xaosflux: There does not appear to be any record for a copyright renewal for any film posters from Columbia Pictures in 1942, including this film. I checked "Artwork and photographs" and "Commercial prints and labels" from 1969 and 1970. How to check copyright renewals from this time: year of publication + 27 to get 1969, year of publication + 28 to get 1970. This was required to maintain a copyright on any publication in 1942. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PseudoSkull OK, so what "help" do you need from admins (which is not your contesting of revision deletions) right now? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of 'Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1098#User:Basrasaab and IPs (likely the same_person) not following Wikipedia policies on honorifics and_WP:V'. Started doing the same thing - addition of unsourced content, non-notable relatives and disregard for WP:NCIN, as soon as their 1 week block is over [31] [32] [33], [34], [35]. Pinging @Deepfriedokra:, I believe protection of Jagat Singh (Sant) and Sawan Singh have expired. Also pinging Lightbluerain. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More disruption and unsourced additions [36] [37] [38]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for Gurinder Singh also needed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war continues [39], [40]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Basrasaab blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Thanks. Will it be possible to semi-protect Jagat Singh (Sant) and Sawan Singh, since we have seen this user using IPs to do the same thing before. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to wait for actual problems. Will watch. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Basrasaab block evading / edit warring at Jagat Singh (Sant) ([41], [42], [43]) and Sawan Singh ([44], [45], [46]). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are. You. Kiddin. Me. /64 blocked. SP 1 month. Bloody waits till I'm asleep to pull this sh stuff.😵 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of Ivanvector are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Ivanvector for his long service as a functionary.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team

In a hypothetical situation, there could be two editors, one who tries to use the talk page and the other who reverts and stays off the talk page. If the individual using the talk page wants to invoke Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, where would the count begin for the seven days? Do the seven days stated in Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus start from the last talk page comment where the other individual is pinged and won't respond, or do they start from seven days after the last revert?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever is longest. It is not a count down. If you have to ask it has not been long enough, or maybe its just time for both to stop editing on that article/subject. Jeepday (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Asking a "hypothetical" when it's not is bad form. Quick review of contributions shows this question is related to a very specific content dispute. Seek a third opinion or start an RfC. In fact, WP:NOTSILENCE seems to have been met already and no timeframe of inaction by the other editor invalidates their concerns or prevents them from re-stating them if you add the edit back in.Slywriter (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, where are you reading any mandatory seven day waiting period? Wikipedia:Silence and consensus makes no mention of such a rule, it merely notes that if no one disagrees with you, then no one disagrees with you. The functional text of that page is the phrase "until disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)" Being reverted is sufficient to establish that consensus is in doubt. If you're just asking as a general idea "how long is long enough to wait after I ping someone or notify them on their talk page that their input is needed?", I generally check a person's contribs list. If they have been active sufficiently, and aren't responding over a couple of days of active editing, I assume they had the chance to read any necessary comments. Depending on the depth of the dispute, pinging may not be as useful as directly leaving a message on their user talk page. Best practice is to make sure they've been given a legitimate chance to respond. If the others choose not to do so, then proceed. If they come back and say "hey, wait a minute..." then self-revert and give them a chance to discuss. Also, per Slywriter, there is no time limit on objections; you don't get to say "you missed your opportunity because you didn't respond fast enough" as though you get to ignore objections. Once people dispute something, take it seriously no matter when it happens. --Jayron32 16:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Silence and consensus is only an essay, and a rather questionable one. And it doesn't seem to mention a time period. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepday and Johnbod, thank you for explaining.

Slywriter, I've never started an RfC or a third opinion. I have voted in RfCs and once was rather active at AfD, but to the best of my memory have never participated in a TO process. I am not sure these or similar formal processes in general would resolve such a situation because an editor can just refuse to agree to an RfC or TO. The form of resolution I've seen in the past is where after enough time, a third party steps in and the disagreement is resolved in what ever direction the third party says. Once earlier I asked a general question which also pertained to a specific situation, and did not get reprimanded for that. I have come across the pattern of one person discussing and the other person reverting from time to time over the years, not merely in the present context or topic, and not necessarily involving me. This isn't a concern I have about just one specific article. If I state that something exists in the abstract, I hope that does not get understood to indicate that it doesn't also (possibly) exist in the concrete.

Jayron32, I remember someone stating that seven days was a safely long enough period to assume WP:SILENCE, but sure enough that isn't on the WP:SILENCE page. I can't remember the context, maybe it was an inference from PROD which is formally set at seven days. I've wondered about the general idea too; thank you for explaining about the several days. I would like to acknowledge disputes seriously, but wonder how to do it without a talk page discussion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you would say an RfC isn't binding. They establish community consensus and any editor editing against that consensus will be looked at poorly by the community(and admins). My concern with presenting a hypothetical when actual controversy exists is the specific facts may have an impact on the guidance given including directing to a notice board better suited to handle the matter, along with concern that the community giving advice on such hypothetical would lead to you pointing to this AN thread as confirming your position and being used to forestall another editor's concerns by saying AN supported my position, when the community hasn't actually weighed in on the specifics. With all that said, an editor repeatedly reverting without engaging in meaningful discussion could be a behavioral issue as listed in disruptive editing Slywriter (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For RfCs, can't an editor just refuse to give consent to an RfC to keep it from being held in the first place (in a lower traffic talk page)? And if I were to go ahead with an RfC without consent, I'm concerned that would count as tendentious.

"...AN thread as confirming your position..."--I actually went and did that once, but I forget what the topic was. It didn't make a difference in the outcome though. So that is a reasonable concern. I did not intend on doing that this time around in any of the articles (spanning more than one topic) with on-going or recently stale disputes I can think of--for a variety of reasons that I don't need to get into here. Johnbod's comment about WP:SILENCE being questionable rings a bell. By asking an abstract question about WP:SILENCE which relates to concrete problems, I am able to get a handle on the questionable aspect of WP:SILENCE--before I decide what to do.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to participate in the RfC would almost certainly constitute WP:SILENT being met and unless you started an utterly frivilous one, the community would never take a good faith RfC as disruptive editing. As for low traffic pages (and really all RfCs), a neutral notice about the RfC can be shared with related projects to encourage wider participation. Additionally, some editors are signed up to recieve RfC notifications.Slywriter (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining; I understood it wrongly.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphyllumlover's behavior

While Epiphyllumlover was not kind enough to notify me of this discussion on my Talk page, some IP (thankfully) did.

Epiphyllumlover's Talk page WP:BLUDGEONING has gotten to the point that I have seriously considered asking for a topic ban, but I don't have experience with those. That behavior makes it a horrible waste of time to even engage with an editor who clearly cares more about pushing their POV that Abortion is not safe rather than improving articles. Others have said that as well: [47]

This behavior has been occurring on the talk page of the Abortion article for almost three years now, but they have now carried it over the the Roe v Wade article, which is what this "hypothetical" discussion is about.

Even after an RfC [48] was started on the subject (safety and Aborion), and it was closed with 12 arguing yes and Epiphyllumlover and one other arguing no, Epiphyllumlover stated that they would be ok with closing the RfC if we agreed to Epiphyllumlover's 15 conditions.[49].

After the RfC [50]was closed by the initiator, (15 February 2022) Epiphyllumlover has continued to harass the initiator (User:NightHeron) that this was an improper close:

2022-03-21 "My rationale for unreverting is that the RfC was closed by the opener. In order to account for this unorthodox procedure, belated comments should not be penalized by reverting, but should instead be discussed separately from the RfC."

2022-04-20 "I am concerned about taking it to RfC given the circumstances of the last one: an overly broad and vague question, respondents who appear to come to the RfC from a single noticeboard, and you both opened and closed the RfC instead of waiting for an independent closer."

2022-05-05 "The recent RfC did not follow the rule against self-closing, so it shouldn't be considered binding...."

This continuous type of behavior has led me clearly understand that this editor is not interested in discussion, only attempting to get content they want into articles (at least in the Abortion space, I haven't seen their contributions elsewhere).---Avatar317^(talk) 22:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the abortion talk page, Epiphyllumlover is exhibiting textbook WP:IDHT, wikilawyering about the RfC close for months despite consensus clearly against them (to be clear, if I were to close that RfC I would give the "no" arguments essentially zero weight since their arguments are not based on any guidelines/policies). I think Epiphyllumlover is very close to an abortion topic ban. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I didn't even go to the main Abortion page (didn't seem likely that WP:SILENCE would ever be valid there), which is far worse conduct than the smaller page in the same topic area that I suspected the hypothetical was about. Mostly disappointed in wasting good-faith discussion of RfCs with someone who clearly knows about them and is looking to wiki-lawyer their beliefs into article space, however sympathetic to those views I may be.

Side note, can the archive box of the talk page be modified to show the archive pages? It was very difficult to find the February RfC, ended up using page history.Slywriter (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is here [51]; I don't know how to modify the sidebox, but the archives are also listed at the very top above where the archive search box is. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two more examples of Epiphyllumlover WP:BLUDGEONing, WP:BADGERing and WP:SEALIONing the process here and here. Both are pages are about the abortion question. I've been trying to assume good faith for several days now, but he continues to repeat the same things over and over so so much. I haven't had a chance to review his other behavior but I have felt for a couple of days now that his inquiries into WP:SILENCE are because he is hoping that I will drop the stick by giving up and being silent so that he can make the undue edits that he has been planning all this time. He appears to be a WP:SPA and since he hasn't been editing on the mainspace of the page I have been hesitant to bring this issue to the noticeboard. I too think a topic ban is worth considering in this matter. Thank you to the other editors for standing up. Kire1975 (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kire1975, I dropped the matter after my May 17 comment on the 2022 abortion rights protests page because I realized it would not be accepted. I am still not sure if the other editors will accept my proposed sentence, reject it, or change it on the Dobbs page, regardless of me being topic-banned. Possibly what happens with the text depends on whether there are any future, similar incidents or not.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The matter Epiphyllumlover was not dropped from the 2022 abortion rights protests page. It was copied and moved to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization page where your proposal was "rejected" by the evidence more than half a dozen times yet he just comes back repeating the same unreliable and unverifiable things over and over and over and over again. His failure (or refusal) to acknowledge this part is indicative of his bad faith behavior that needs to be addressed by the topic ban. Kire1975 (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted it at 2022 abortion rights at 03:24, 16 May 2022 and then at Dobbs at 04:12, 16 May 2022, before anyone had commented at 2022 abortion rights. The first response at Dobbs was at 04:47, 16 May 2022, it was advice that maybe the content should be at 2022 abortion rights. The editor must have been unaware that I had already posted it at 2022 abortion rights. Then later you weighed in against it at 2022 abortion rights. Later still, at 15:38, 17 May 2022, another editor at 2022 abortion rights said this was a discussion for the Dobbs page, not this one. Following that, I dropped the issue on the 2022 abortion rights and discussed it on Dobbs only. When I discussed it on Dobbs, I wrote a comment starting, "Whichever article it goes in..." on 18:31, 17 May 2022.

This and subsequent comments of mine on Dobbs were on the basis that I was indifferent to which article it eventually went in. I was instead feeling out the best wording and sources in a dialectic manner; I thought your 02:15, 18 May 2022 post was especially helpful. You seem to think that me testing out possible sources equates me advocating adding it to a specific article; rather I was looking for criticism to guide the writing of the sentence.

I advocated adding it to the Dobbs article during one comment following this, on , on 22:56, 18 May 2022, because another editor made a sentence which seemed similar in its general topic. But I did not press the issue after you rejected it. I tried to get a good, unobjectionable text, and found a local TV news source and another letter written by officials. I asked, "Can you accept this text?" looking to see if you approved it as a a suitable wikitext. I understood that even if you liked it, it might not go on the Dobbs article for other reasons. Now that I think about it, maybe the best place for adding a carefully worded, Wikipedia-compliant and referenced sentence is neither article, but instead April 8 or 2022.

If discussing this topic was really such a problem, I wouldn't have been given the sort of advice I was given from two separate editors thinking independently on two separate talk pages. Instead of saying it belonged somewhere else, they would have told me it has no place anywhere, sitewide.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again with an extraordinarily detailed, selectively edited, wall of text. Making it about whether I liked it and other editors approved of it and not that a story that cannot be verified by reliable, independent sources has no place on wikipedia is just another demonstration of the premise that you intend to wear us all out until we are silent long enough for you to post your civil pov. Kire1975 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter we are commenting about was partly verified and partly not verified.

The specific group's existence and exactly which events should be attributed to it are not verified. I did not understand this at first, but after others (including you) looked over the sources I understood it.

That there was an incident of arson and graffiti in Madison, Wisconsin on May 8 was verified by reliable and independent sources; likewise it is verifiable that specific public officials made comments about it. At least some of the comments or letters from public officials were reported by independent sources; although I have not checked the reliability of articles about the public letters against the list of disallowed sources.

I accept that it still may be WP:UNDUE to place a mention of the May 8 incident on either Dobbs or 2022 abortion protests. Before (or "if", given that it seems I will soon be topic banned) I put a line about the incident onto May 8,2022, I will ask on the respective talk pages if others think this has a place on wikipedia, or if it is unverifiable. The incident is already described at Wisconsin Family Council. I will not badger people about it if they disagree and say it has no place on the website. I will also be good to the Dobbs talk page by not using it as a sandbox for writing things which pertain to another article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say you dropped the discussion on the protest page and that it may be undue on the Dobbs page here, but you haven't given any indication of that on the talk pages. Kire1975 (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding me.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the Talk:Abortion page:

Section 'respond' not found

It seems an incredibly poor idea to disrupt a talk page to try and get an employer to reveal themselves. For starters, it seems likely most of the time it won't work. Even if someone is really paying people to comment, most will be smart enough to avoid that page like the plague, not because they're on to anyone, but for the simple reason if you're going to pay someone secretly you want to minimise connections to yourself. But also, frankly people making undisclosed payments to editors just comment must be very rare by itself. But one of the paid editors contacting some other random person other of the blue asking for payment to comment sounds like the sort of thing so rare that you're probably more likely to win lotto. Far more likely such an editor is either making crap up with some dumb scheme to get paid or is trolling. Either way, and this gets to the heart of the issue, your wasting other editors time by disrupting a talk page. I mean even if the implausible scenario really is true that an editor being paid to comment really did contact you to ask for payment and you actually have a decent chance of getting the employer to reveal themselves, it still seems that disrupting a taLk page is simply not worth it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By now, I don't think this particular employer was serious about minimizing connections with the employee. It seems to me the employer enjoyed weighing in on talk pages and felt good having an ally. The employee was more of a buddy being paid to be around and supportive rather than as a pawn in some sort of article domination scheme.

Now I know, don't I? Editors on this particular talk page were motivated and willing to carry on longer sorts of conversations. In general I did not expect the editors I personally talked with most of the time on the talk page to implement the changes I proposed directly. Yet I thought that somehow they might be able to modify it on their own anyway, or might become willing to compromise if another editor would just join me out-of-the-blue. The latter was something I hoped for but generally didn't happen.

The paid editor contacted me first off-wiki in response to a paid gig offer (also off-wiki) I had put out; which was to see if he could translate something from English into his native language for me. (The translation was unrelated to the topic here.) During the interview I asked him about his experience and he said he had prior experience on wikipedia. He shared his username so I could verify his experience in translating. I checked his edit history and was underwelmed because it was a bunch of talk page comments which he copy-pasted into Wikipedia. He lacked the skills to do the extensive sort of translation I was looking for, so I never hired him. Rather than do serious translating, he was interested in the same sort of employment situation from me. I saved a screenshot of the messaging conversation with the employee if you need to verify it somehow, but would need to censor it slightly to protect the identities of the guilty because of my concern about retaliation. I would also need to share it in a private way somehow, such as via one of the chat relays.

The typical conversational pattern on the Abortion talk page went like this: 1. Another poster starts it, maybe with some discussion before I come around. 2. Me being supportive of the other poster 3. Others challenging me 4. Me trying to argue or compromise one way or the other, or find sources others will accept. 5. The others appear friendly, though in disagreement, so I continue discussion. 6. The others seem to get tired of it, and start raising what seems to be extra issues (from my perspective) and would also cite various policy or essay pages against me, with tone darkening. 7. Lastly, I continue trying to make dialog but then give up, or an RfC is started which would not end in my favor. To get the employer/employee to show up, I needed it to both get to an RfC and at least be somewhat close in the voting, or for it to be the sort of conversation which had multiple editors on both sides with a larger number of newer people weighing in. (So when the phase of the discussion got to #5, my hopes would be raised.) The article and talk page was never on my watch list, so I would drop in from time to time; sometimes there was a gap between the initial poster raising a concern and my attempt to support it somehow. So as you can imagine this took a lot more time than I would originally anticipate.

I also spent time running the various other editors on the page through a tool, looking for relationships. The tool showed me that all editor interaction replacements could be explained by other editors coming to the page from a particular noticeboard, but not any other sockpuppet relationships aside from who the sockmaster to the employee was. I am new to identifying socks, so there was a learning curve and it took more time than it would for someone who was experienced in that sort of thing.

I was afraid of reporting it directly because the employee has my real name, and I was concerned about revenge. I hoped that I could both identify the sockmaster/employer and find a second employee. That way I would be able to report the second employee along with the employer without fear of retaliation. Now it seems likely there wasn't a second employee to be found. I felt like my time was wasted since neither turned up on the page again. On the other hand, I feel like I learned how use the editor interaction tool to find socks, so I gained some experience at least for the time and effort.

As I learned what the expectations were for dialog, I made sure to avoid actually starting the talk page discussions myself because I thought that would be disruptive or tendentious. Instead tried to support things others started in the hopes that the initial poster and I could work together. Yet typically the initial poster would not continue responding, which meant it didn't work. If you go through the talk page archives, you will see that I tended weigh in on other's conversations rather than arbitrarily re-opening identical issues to ones already in the archive.--An exception to this was on occasions where I had found new research/sources for others to consider and thought that others might use it on the article.

Even for the list of 15 changes (which was as an offer in exchange for agreeing to end an RfC early), I hoped that the other editor would select certain ones and make them as a compromise. I thought with a larger list of changes, the likelihood that some of the items in the list would be acceptable as compromises would be larger. If you look through the list, you will see that most of them are rather small, so a compromise was not an unrealistic hope. At the same time I hoped the RfC would continue for my sock investigation, but when it was obvious there was no interest in compromise, I did not insist on keeping the RfC open indefinitely, but instead to follow the normal rule; the RfC was kept open for longer than the rule would have required anyway.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming ("The typical conversational pattern on the Abortion talk page went like this:...") that you have also behaved in another tendentious way exactly as I would characterize but didn't state above: you understand that your preferred statements are against the consensus for the article, so you wait (and hope) that new editors, unfamiliar with the previous discussions, reasoning, and consensus, will come to the talk page and bring up the same issue again. When that invariably happens, and those new editors are explained the reasoning, they stop discussing, but you never do...you try to continue the same failed discussions, over and over...**AND** (to my recollection) this pattern of your behavior has been going on for almost three years now (on the Talk:Abortion page), not ONLY in this one year recently. ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. I disagree with your statement that I was looking for unfamiliar visitors. I don't think the more transient editors left the page because of the superior explanations so much as other factors. There are many reasons to leave, one being that sometimes multiple days passed between when they posted and when I responded; they might have thought there was no one around who agreed. If they really thought the explanations were superior, they would have indicated as much.

By "new" I meant new for the time being. They could be either new to the article and talk page, or have been past commenters or editors. Some of the discussion topics I participated in were new ones, which despite the extensive history of the page, never had a consensus position.

Many of the regular discussion comments in the talk page archives over the years show a diverse group of opinions, even among editors who are savvy with wikipedia, and I thought some would come back if there was a meaningful discussion; I was pleasantly surprised when it happened. Some of the consensus positions came out of rather dynamic discussions ranging from 90%–10% to roughly 40%–60%. It isn't unrealistic to expect that the result may come out different sometimes, especially for issues where the balance was closer to even. Especially when I saw posts from others I thought there might be a possibility things could come out different.

"pattern of your behavior has been going on for almost three years now"--I disagree that my behavior pattern is the same. I became more active on the talk page in August 2021 after learning about the paid commenter earlier that summer; my longest commenting gap since then was a little over a month. Other gaps were one or two weeks. Before that I was not as significant in the discussions, and there were longer gaps in between my periods of participation on the page. The longest gaps were from September 19, 2019‎ to January 3, 2020 and from November 1 2020 to August 8, 2021. Although I'm not sure it makes any difference, your longest commenting gap during this time was from January 30, 2020‎ to June 12, 2020‎. So your largest gap was between five and six months, while my largest gap was between nine and ten months. If I am not topic banned, which seems doubtful, I will not continue the same pattern on the talk page that you've seen from August 2021 through May 6, 2022; that was me trying to bring out the sock, to figure out who the employer was, and if there were any other employees.

One of the more significant changes in the dynamics on the page during the last three years was that Doc James stopped posting in 2020. His expertise was helpful and he was respected as an authority; this left a social vacuum that has not been filled yet. It would be good if another member of the medical profession editing under his or her own name stepped up to take his place.

I went back over the edit history for the main article page. Some derivation or movement of my edits from January 2020‎ and from June 2020‎ were accepted by the other editors, but my edits in August 2021 were reverted. Since then I have at times proposed text on the talk page. Earlier, in June and July 2019‎, I made two edits, both reverted. I always stated things nicely towards others in my edit summaries, assumed good faith, and did not use all caps to emphasize words.

Do you think the IP editor predicted what your and my responses would be if the IP editor brought us together here? I don't think you like it any more than I do. You and I are both vulnerable to become topics of amusement, and there are better things to do & be. The IP editor from the same geographic location commented in a discussion on the talk page from May 3, 2022 to May 7, 2022; you may interact with the IP editor again and you'll get to decide what to do I guess.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A recent comment by Epiphyllumlover on their talk page reveals their misunderstanding of topic bans and their unfortunate attitude toward the project: "That topic banning is done for censorship is a rather open secret on Wikipedia." [52] NightHeron (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was before any of us posted on this noticeboard, and in response to someone else who brought it up on a different talk page before posting on my talk page. I was being friendly by agreeing with another person; not trying to fuel the fire.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I see a similar reverted talk page comment from anyone, I will be better and definitely not link to it in an edit summary so as to not draw attention to it.[53] It looks like you were offering to help someone evade their topic ban because they agree with your politics. Kire1975 (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a saying that misery loves company. Emotional contagion is the closest article I could find for it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you commiserating with here? Kire1975 (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor 2600..., who seemed friendly--I've never knowingly interacted with the IP editor prior to what you see above.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to remind editors about posting revision deletion or suppression requests on either this noticeboard or WP:ANI. Since these two noticeboards are highly visible to the community, it is vital to not post any requests for RD/OS here. This is especially important for privacy-related requests. I have seen a few RD requests that did require suppression. Please see Wikipedia:Revision deletion#How to request Revision Deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for oversight on how to request revision deletion and suppression, respectively. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was blocked as a vandalism only account. It only added/removed random commas here and there.

Many have been reverted, but many remain. I know some of you have mass revert scripts, and this is a case where they would be useful.

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. There are several variations of a mass-rollback script, including User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Frost pinged me about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mobyjaws56. It's not a typical socking or UPE case because they've been open about declaring their COI. Our policies around declared COI editing isn't my area of expertise, however. Could I ask another admin who is better versed in that area to take a look at the SPI (and the related unblock request at User talk:2001:8004:1400:4E6C:3D07:CA95:EDD1:FD9E)? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented, asking for either account to comment. If they don't do so within a few days, I think the correct response would be an indef of the newer account and an indef pblock of the older one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Moved to Congenital portosystemic shunt.

Hello, As a part of the editor team for the article Portosystemic shunt that we have published in French and English, We want to change the title from Portosystemic shunt to Congenital Portosystemic shunt for more precise. However, we could only change the body content. That's why I am contacting you for your help to change the title of this article to have more precise information and better understanding.I have attached the link to the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portosystemic_shunt. Thank you in advance for your help. Yours sincerely, Nguyen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanacpss (talk • contribs) 08:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested me that I start an RfC on Meta to initiate a global ban on a long-term problem user. So I spent some time creating an RfC but when I tried to save it, I was told that my action was blocked by "abuse 23". In case it was the references to "child pornography" in the RfC, I removed that phrase and tried again. Same result. I tried to save a copy in my user space. Same result. When I went to the talk page of a Meta admin to seek help, I discovered that I had been blocked by an abuse filter, so I was unable to even ask for assistance.

If anyone here is also an admin on Meta, can you please start the RfC for me? I was able to place a copy of the draft in User:B. disruptus/draft Rfc for Meta. Thank you. B. disruptus (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible the images in the RFC were triggering the filter? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. I have no way of knowing what I was doing wrong or fixing it. All I was told was "abuse 23". No link for more information. No help at all. B. disruptus (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin there, but I'm thinking the images might been the culprit. You might need to comment on your talk page on Meta to request an unblock and explain this as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I see you unblocked me on Meta. Thanks. Can you please copy the RfC over to Meta for me? B. disruptus (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While locking those accounts might have merit, I don't think that erasing and banning some cartoons serves the encyclopedia. Everything Wikipedians do everyday is illegal in some country (North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, etc.).

Larry Sanger cried wolf about cartoons, we had this discussion years ago, and most images deleted due to his criticism have been reinstated. See Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this isn't your only WMF-projects account? Perhaps if you try posting with a more established account you won't run in to that issue there. If not, someone else may proxy your request for you, perhaps you can write up your proposed RfC on your usertalk here and ask. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could post a section here, then post a request at meta:RFH to ask as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the problem is not being "established" enough, since an editor with no other edits anywhere was able to start this RfC without any problem. Why don't you tell me what's tripping the filter and I can fix it? B. disruptus (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The filter is huge, and you will likely hit it again - however that filter has some exemptions for users with longer edit histories over there. That's why I suggested a workaround, post the whole thing to a usertalk section here, then post at RFH asking someone to copy it for you. I don't want to be the one copying it, but I won't go mark such a request at notdone either. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What would the global ban accomplish? Sock puppetry is already disallowed, and as far as I know, a global ban doesn't necessarily mean the files will be deleted.

I completely support deleting sock-uploaded images by default, unless another editor in good standing wants to take responsibility for the upload (not for the copyright, obviously), and also believe Commons should not be Deviant Art. Most of the user's uploads are their own creepy underwear-and-spankings drawn images formatted as e.g. fake video games, mixed in with stills from old comics on the same theme. Talking strictly on "scope" grounds, there might be an argument to keep some of the latter, as with any stills from old comics, but let someone else upload them if they're useful.

PS: This discussion should probably happen on Commons. The files aren't hosted on Wikipedia.

PPS: Maybe a proposed ban for, among other things, sockpuppetry, is not best proposed by a brand new account seemingly created just to seek said ban. If there's something to be gained from it (per what I wrote above), I'd probably support it, but still. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to have the deletion discussion here. I just want to start the RfC as I was advised to do when I brought the isse up on Jimbo's talk page. You agree that Midnight68 is a problem, but you don't want to address it if you don't like the look of the user reporting the problem? B. disruptus (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

? That's inaccurate and not a reply to anything I said. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading quickly. Apologies. B. disruptus (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]