Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	0	13	13
TfD	0	0	0	11	11
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	1	8	9
RfD	0	0	21	49	70
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (32 out of 9047 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Lucky Ekeh 2024-12-17 20:17 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Leroy Cronin 2024-12-17 17:16 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT / This page has repeatedly been misused as a battleground by users with apparent undisclosed conflicts of interest ToBeFree Dmitry Rybolovlev 2024-12-17 15:40 2024-12-27 15:40 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Less Unless KMFDM 2024-12-17 11:23 2025-01-17 11:23 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: Wisconsin school shooter wearing the band's t-shirt, same as Columbine; as a GA article, there's little chance valid improvements to the article will happen in the next month from new users. Zanimum Longest Wikipedia Article 2024-12-17 10:24 indefinite edit,move per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 1#Longest Wikipedia Article Jay Ada and Abere 2024-12-17 08:57 2025-01-17 08:57 move Persistent vandalism The Bushranger Draft:Nicolas Atanes 2024-12-16 22:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Nicolas Atanes 2024-12-16 22:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD S-300 missile system 2024-12-16 21:35 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement -- ARBPIA and GSRUSUKR both affect portions of this article frequently subject to edit warring/disruption. Swatjester Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh) 2024-12-16 20:35 2025-06-16 20:35 create repeated attempts to recreate using version deemed by AfD to require improvement. Force to go through AfC. OwenX Ramzy Baroud 2024-12-16 20:33 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh) 2024-12-16 20:32 2025-06-16 20:32 move per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh) OwenX Template:If autoconfirmed 2024-12-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Nicolás Atanes 2024-12-16 15:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Malayalam 2024-12-16 13:41 2025-06-16 13:41 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User talk:Tourorguk 2024-12-15 22:42 indefinite move Oh oops I only meant to protect against moves Pppery User talk:JuxtaposedJacob 2024-12-15 18:46 2025-01-15 18:46 edit,move vandalism Widr Template:Year category name/AD year 2024-12-15 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Vimukthi Dushantha 2024-12-15 17:33 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Fall of Damascus 2024-12-15 10:45 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Daniel Case: Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/SCW&ISIL Protection Helper Bot Dennis Schröder 2024-12-15 04:12 2024-12-18 04:12 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba Republic TV 2024-12-15 02:02 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIND Johnuniq 1983 Hebron University attack 2024-12-15 01:04 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/AI Significa liberdade Cleveland Palestine Advocacy Community 2024-12-15 01:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/AI Significa liberdade Killing of Eliahu Amedi 2024-12-14 23:19 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:CT/AI Significa liberdade Sudan 2024-12-14 18:46 indefinite move Persistent disruptive editing; requested at WP:RfPP Fathoms Below Cheshire murders 2024-12-14 18:35 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Draft:Perth Panthers 2024-12-14 12:57 2025-06-14 12:57 move moved back to draft space, user created a cut and paste page BusterD Moshe Dayan 2024-12-14 06:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Bill Cowher 2024-12-14 02:35 2025-12-14 02:35 edit Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Churchill Connector 2024-12-13 23:55 2025-12-13 23:55 create Sock target Pppery Brianna Wu 2024-12-13 21:57 indefinite edit,move Reduction to ECP with agreement on protecting admin's talk page Anachronist

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

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

Page now archived at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_444#RFC%3A_The_Telegraph_on_trans_issues

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

Notified: User talk:S Marshall#Closure review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closer (Telegraph)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-participants (Telegraph)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I believe that RSP should say so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Note that this was originally a reply to Loki's comment above, starting with But that clearly would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Overturn Agree with the those who have argued that this should be reclosed properly. Even some of the editors who endorse the close recognize there's problems with wording of the close. The best way forward is to overturn the close and close it correctly. I realize this might seem like a waste of time, but when editors invest this much time into a review we might as well get it right. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse Its pretty clear from above that many agree with the close substance, like I do as well. It seems that the closer made a comment in the close that led to this discussion, but that doesnt lead me to question the substance of the close. I do not find the supervote nor involved arguments to be convincing either. If the source isnt generally reliable, which clearly it isnt from this and other discussions, then it starts to look more like a drop the stick or SOAP issue to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Jtbobwaysf: - regardless of the substance of the close, the controversial comment I suppose you are referring to was explictly referred to in the added RSN entry: ("In the 2024 RfC, The Telegraph's "unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked litter boxes in schools hoax" was discussed, and it was noted that the misrepresentations about this remain unretracted.) How do we solve this issue if the close is endorsed? starship.paint (RUN) 00:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

    The obvious place would be discussing it at RSP, to discuss how a summary should read. I don't think you'll find any support for including that quote in future, based on this discussion alone. Common sense can simply prevail here. CNC (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

    I don't question the substance either, but it is extremely bad for what's supposed to be a neutral summary that saves peoples' time to mislead its readers on such an important point. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

    I agree with CNC that this additional and unnecessary summary of the close should be trimmed over at RSP. The fact that we are discussing such far off theories (even if untrue) associated with this source should point to the validity of the close. Again I endorse, I am confident the additional comment can be struck without needing to re-run the discussion. Just do what is simple rather than making it complicated. I believe whoever closes this discussion can just find that the close comment as a matter of fact is incorrect (while the overall close is non-controversial), strike it, and thus subsequently remove the summary over at at RSP. Seems simple enough to me Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

    So now we've got the nominator at this close review who wants to overturn, and an uninvolved contributor who endorses, both giving exactly the same reasoning for their position.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

    Important to note that I dont agree that the closer was involved, so we disagree on a key policy issue. We can be clear from this review discussion as well as the original discussion that there is clearly no-consensus that the source is reliable, or anywhere close to reliable for that matter. This isnt a matter where this discussion is going to be overturned and then spontaneously the source will be viewed in the next discussion as reliable. So common sense means we would not need to overturn this to put it back to another discussion, as if the matter was undecided. We are only dealing with a close summary that was a bit off, but the close itself is correct. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

    I think that overturning that paragraph counts as overturning the close. It seems Jtbob feels like the biggest damages can be resolved without amending the close statement and that the summary isn't damaging enough to amend, the latter of which I definitely disagree with. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

    You're right that directly amending the close would be overturning. Hence for example I endorse the close as the correct outcome, but can understand overturning based on the summary. The reality is this RfC could be closed specifying that parts of the closing summary X, Y and Z, were inappropriate and/or inaccurate, while not directly overturning that RfC, only adding an additional summary to it, based on the discussion that has occurred here. Ie as a note to the top of that RfC, but not within it, thus not actually overturning the close itself. Sometimes it'd be nice to simply think outside the box to avoid a lot of legwork of re-closing such a long RfC. CNC (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

    I don't see how the additional summary would work. If it doesn't mention that the close's language on Rye College is inaccurate, then it won't really be effective. If it does, I feel like we'd need consensus that it's inaccurate. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

    Consensus based on the close of this RfC, attached above the previous. It would be the same concept as re-closing with the same result, without the extra hassle. A new concept you might say. CNC (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

    I feel like that would require the same level of consensus as a closure review. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

    It wouldn't no. It would be another RfC closure, as this is an RfC. CNC (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't an RfC, and if it requires consensus here anyway I'd rather we just amend the original language than invent something untested and potentially confusing. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse except paragraph 3. S Marshall's interpretation of RSP is right. However, 'unashamed embrace' of the litter boxes hoax is an inaccurate summary of consensus. That incorrect phrasing was immediately being used in RSP for anyone looking-up the source. Rewriting that part might be the simplest way of resolving this, some editors have helpfully suggested alternative wording. I can believe the closer is usually good, I agree with much of what they say and know closing detail is tricky, but the summary currently doesn't do justice to the editors who spent time analysing the sources. It makes sense to bring up the further explanation added by the closer afterward, up into the main summary, so it's all easily accessible without further clicks, Tom B (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn The close was no doubt in good faith, however it is not well argued, and indeed it should not really be argued at all. It also isn't really a close.
  • It gives platform to the most flagrantly gender-critical tracts by anti-woke activists. This is irrelevant. Tracts by activists are opinion pieces, and whether they are the "most flagrant" or the "most Satanic" or the "most wonderful" they should not be cited for anything other than the opinion of their authors.
  • widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax - as remarked elsewhere the Telegraph pointed out that it was a hoax. The only factual error seems to have revolved around whether there was a cat identifying pupil, which to me seems irrelevant. The crux of the story is the, undisputed, unkind criticism of the child who thought such a thing would be silly.
  • We label a source as "generally reliable" when there's widespread consensus that the source can be trusted to publish fact and retract error. I think this is overegging the pudding. In general there is consensus among relatively few editors, which we believe would be widely shared.
  • We must say […] that the Daily Telegraph is generally reliable, except as regards trans issues and gender-critical views, where the Daily Telegraph's reliability is disputed. This is really not a close. It's a continuation of the RfC by other means.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC).

• Overturn - too much of the closer's own opinion on the issue in dispute was in the closing statement; not enough of the statement was spent summarizing the discussion and explaining how votes were weighed. Let someone else close it; no comment on how it should be closed. But a "no consensus" result at RSN (for a perennial source) should mean a 2 (yellow) listing at RSP. That's what "2" means: no consensus on reliability. "1" if there is consensus it's reliabile, "3" if there is consensus it's not, and otherwise, 2. Levivich (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. I did not participate in the discussion and have no interest in this dispute other than an interest in broadsheet newspapers generally. The close misrepresents consensus. For example, the close says that the Telegraph embraced the hoax. In reality, there is at least no consensus that the Telegraph embraced the hoax, and a lengthy argument about whether it did. Similarly, the close misrepresents and displays a failure to understand policy. For example, the close claims that a source is not "generally reliable" unless there is widespread consensus that it is. In reality, the policy WP:NEWSORG says that news reporting from well-established news outlets is "generally" reliable for statements of fact. If it is possible under that policy to dispute the "general" reliabilty of the Telegraph at all (and it is not obvious that it is possible to dispute it under the policy, if you accept that the Telegraph is "well-established" as a national daily quality broadsheet newspaper of record established in 1855, and one of at most five such newspapers still published in England), the policy must create a presumption that it is generally reliable and place the burden of proof on those who seek to rebut that presumption. Likewise the closer claims that WP:ONUS applies to disputes over the reliability of sources. In fact, WP:ONUS applies to the disputes about the inclusion of content in articles, which is a completely different matter concerned with the exclusion of verifiable content on grounds of "due weight" and similar issues. Likewise the closer claims that the question in the RfC was where does bias become unreliability? In reality, policy WP:BIASED says that reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. Finally, the closer misrepresents the effect of no consensus in a discussion where there are already policies, namely WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED. If there are policies, there is an existing site consensus. WP:DETCON says "consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" (my emphasis). That appears to mean viewed through the lens of the policy WP:NEWSORG. I think I should also point out that WP:RSP is not a policy or guideline, does not override the policy WP:NEWSORG, and should have been weighted accordingly. I think it could also be reasonably argued that no consensus is capable of meaning "no consensus to change the text of RSP", but I express no opinion about whether it does mean that. James500 (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NEWSORG isn't policy, and it doesn't say all newspapers are reliable unless there's consensus otherwise. We've rightly found parts of the British mainstream press, notably but not only the Daily Mail, properly unreliable in the past. The burden of proof doesn't lie where you say it does.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, upon closer inspection, I find that WP:NEWSORG is in fact a guideline, and not a policy. However, if WP:DETCON does not apply to guidelines, the effect would be to throw all guidelines out of the window. I am not aware that we have ever found a quality broadsheet print newspaper to be unreliable. The Daily Mail is a tabloid, and it is not, and as far as I am aware, never has been, quality press. It is not apparent that the Daily Mail is "well established" within the meaning of WP:NEWSORG. I think I should point out that NEWSORG makes a distiction between news sources being reliable and their being generally reliable. I am not saying that the Telegraph cannot be unreliable for a particular fact or statement, or even for a particular topic. I am saying that "generally reliable" means something different to that in NEWSORG. James500 (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, exactly so. The discussion we're analysing is about whether the Telegraph is unreliable for a particular topic, to whit, trans people. My position is that there's no consensus about whether it's reliable for that topic, and that WP:RSP should say so. Do you think there's a consensus it's reliable?—S Marshall T/C 11:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Even if all well-established broadsheet newspapers are presumed to be generally reliable until found otherwise, this requires that there be some mechanism by which such newspapers can be found otherwise (otherwise we would be saying they are always generally reliable regardless of any evidence to the contrary). That mechanism is a discussion at RSN, and this RFC was an example of such a discussion. It follows that it must be possible for that discussion to find that a well-established broadsheet newspaper is something other than generally reliable, either for all topics or for some subset of topics. Whether this discussion did establish that is the point of this discussion. Additionally, the reliability of a source can change over time - just because the Telegraph has a long history of being regarded as reliable does not imply anything about whether it is or is not reliable today. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am going to strike my !vote, since it appears that it might actually be unitelligible. I was not asserting that the newspaper was reliable on this topic, a matter on which I have no personal opinion. All that I objected to was to was certain reasoning and wording used in the closing statement and by the closer to produce a particular outcome. I did not mean to express any opinion on the outcome itself. James500 (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it was unintelligible. The close mispresents consensus. For example, the close says that the Telegraph embraced the hoax. In reality, there is at least no consensus that the Telegraph embraced the hoax, and a lengthy argument about whether it did. This on its own is a perfectly reasonable and widely shared opinion that argues for overturn, before any weighing of the second part of your comment.

  Your opinion about the relative weight of the status quo in the presumption of reliability in established news organisations should not have been read by anyone as an argument that the Telegraph was reliable. I think it was an important response, especially that you pointed out that no consensus is capable of meaning "no consensus to change the text of the RSP". It was certainly my understanding of the RfC, and the way that I framed my contribution to it, that the question was whether the evidence presented merited downgrading the Telegraph, and that positive arguments for its reliability were assumed. I'm sure some editors would have put those arguments had the discussion been framed in the way that some people in this review now interpret it. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  The question was "What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?". If the outcome of that discussion is "no consensus", how can an RSP entry saying "Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases" on trans issues be accurate or appropriate? This is a genuine question - I am trying to understand the arguments for that position because I currently do not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  The RSN RFC question was exceedingly clear, and is the standard question for RSN RFCs: What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues? The questions was not "should it be downgraded," or "should the RSP entry be changed", in which case, one could argue that no-consensus means no change. But since the question was "What is the reliability?" with the standard 4 options, no consensus on the reliability means Option 2, at least in my view. And that's true for all RSN "What is the reliability?" 4-question RFCs. Levivich (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is absolutely fair, but a reading of the discussion shows that the approach that was taken was "should it be downgraded", although I take your point that these were not the terms of the question at the RfC. I think a fair summation of the discussion would recognise this. Personally my involvement on the RfC was just to say that after the refutations of the RfC nomination, I didn't see that there was any case to answer for unreliability. I think if contributors had thought there were any need to make a positive case for reliability, rather than just refute the case for unreliability, they would have done so. If the RfC is re-opened with this point clarified, I'm sure they will. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree that is a fair summation of the RFC - from what I can tell the majority of people were answering the question that was asked. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  If you read Closer's statement at this review, you will find in his explanation: In other words, I decided to treat this as more like a content decision governed by WP:ONUS than a procedural one governed by AFD consensus. In doing this, I removed the first mover advantage that the "generally reliable" side expected and I think relied on.

  Closer saw that GREL side expected that the status quo had weight, and didn't feel that they had to make a positive case for general reliability. Meaning if this RfC is closed no consensus, why wouldn't we have another RfC straight away containing the positive case for Telegraph's reliability as part of the Option 1 case? As closer says, GREL-supporters relied on this argument being assumed last time, so this would be new evidence in the discussion.

  The remedy here seems to me to re-open the RfC under discussion to allow that case to be made (and rebutted) now, and then close with those arguments explicitly considered. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would concur with this perception. In the absence of a legitimate case for unreliability (ie, the presented evidence was roundly and comprehensively debunked) there was no positive case to make.

  This RFC discussion in practice proceeded very much like "is there a consensus that the catgirl story was a hoax, and thus that the Telegraph is unreliable", and the consensus was quite clearly no it was not a hoax (especially if reading only votes that went beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT), and any fair reading of the evidence was no it was not a hoax. The case was so poorly made, what else was there to do? Yet the closer insisted on still describing it as a hoax, and proceeded to downgrade the source citing that as a basis, unilaterally widening the subject beyond that stated in the RFC in the process. Void if removed (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't think it was unintelligible either; seemed well-reasoned to me. Levivich (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse except paragraph 3. A no consensus close is well within closer's discretion, and it would be hard to envision this being closed any other way. S Marshall is one of our most experienced and competent closers. His summaries tend to be more colorful than others ("willing warrior in the war on wokery"), but we can accommodate a variety of closing styles. I think the "unashamed embrace" part is more than just color, and since so much of the discussion was spent supporting or debunking that assertion, I don't think SM got it right that there's consensus on that point. I would be fine with reclose with the same overall result as a second choice, and I think most of our experienced closers (including SM, if so directed) could manage a close that's more dispassionate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think it would be surprising if whoever closes this directed me to reword the close giving the same result. I think that would be a distinctly unconventional outcome for an RfC close review, but I suppose I'd comply if so asked.—S Marshall T/C 13:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  It won't happen. Just a vote of confidence in your skills and nature. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, thank you. Thanks to the kind words of quite a few people including yourself, I'm reassured that in general and despite a few exceptions, I do seem to enjoy the community's confidence as a closer (whether or not there's consensus to overturn this particular close, which isn't for me to judge).—S Marshall T/C 14:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  As someone who thinks you got this one wrong, I also respect your overall closing ability and experience. The ones I've seen are overall very good. Accurately determining consensus is really hard, even for the most experienced editors. Anyone who closes enough contentious discussions is bound to make a mistake once in a while, and I don't think it has any impact on the community's overall trust in your judgement. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. As you might see, I'm very confused by the structure of this survey and discussion, and would not be surprised if this endorsement gets relocated to a more appropriate location within it. This closure was more than reasonable and well thought out. Frankly, I would endorse S Marshall's closures all the way out to the edges of the Universes and back, but that's just me. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Note: Moved from the "Subpage" section. How do you think the format can be improved? This kind of sectioning has been the default recommended by the closure review template for a little more than 8 months now.
  Are there any comments you'd like to make on the reasonings of the editors who opened this discussion? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know about this format – it seems the more subsections there are, the more confusing it gets. My endorsement comment is complete, thank you. Perhaps my confusion should be taken cum grano salis since I have spent no time at all on this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the same arguably applies to your entire comment then. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps. If I had to defend the rest of my words, I would begin by using "irrefutable". I've seen far too many great closures by Marshall, and much of what I've learned about closing I've learned from him. I don't think you'll be able to make me understand what motivates such a statement... arguably :>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  So his closes are so great in general that no matter the arguments made about this specific one, it should be maintained? Not sure Wikipedia should work that way, and very much hope whoever closes this review gives no weight to this !vote whatsoever. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not at all. I just disagree with non-endorsements herein. This closure should be endorsed not because the closer is correct, but because the close is correct. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think you can disagree with an argument if you haven't even spent enough time to read the subheadings. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I will endeavor to persevere. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Participants (Telegraph)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Overturn, and reclose. The closer did not take into account, or at a minimum failed to explain how they took into account, the number of !votes (primarily on the "unreliable/deprecate" side, but also a few on the reliable side) that were based solely on "I don't like it" or "it's biased thus by default unreliable" standpoints. That fact alone should merit overturning the close, since the closer did not take the strength of those arguments into account and down-weight them accordingly. However, the closer also admits on their talk page that they basically supervoted. They didn't assess the community's belief, and especially Chess's refutation, of the claims regarding the "cat" hoax/"litterbox" hoax. They assessed, without explaining how they felt the community came to that consensus, that it was blatant misinformation, and they based their close in large part on the fact that, since the source published information about that, all arguments for unreliability must be accurate. In fact, Chess and other users (including myself), refuted the fact that it was a "hoax" published by the Telegraph - the Telegraph published what others were saying about it, and cited their sources accordingly when they did report the views/opinions of others. However, the closer did not take into account any of these arguments made. Lastly, there was a clear turn of the discussion after Chess and others discussed and refuted the claims at length during the discussion. Before Chess's comments and the ensuing discussions, there were people claiming that the evidence presented at the start was grounds for unreliability on its own. Many of these people admitted that Chess's refutation was valid, and that their arguments were much less strong. But even more damning for this close, after Chess's refutations and the ensuing discussions had been discussed, there were virtually no !votes for unreliable/deprecate that were actually based on the evidence presented at the beginning. The vast majority, if not all, of the !votes after the discussions were based on the improper arguments such as "I don't like it" or "It's biased thus unreliable", which were not properly weighted by the closer. Ultimately, I thank the closer for making an attempt, but it is clear that the close failed in three primary ways: It did not evaluate the strength of the arguments, it did not evaluate the "turn of the tide" after the opening arguments were largely refuted, and the closer injected their personal opinion as to the "cat/litterbox" hoax into their evaluation. For these reasons, the close should be overturned. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. The close is not close to a faithful conclusion of the discussion. The issues with this close are in the third and fourth paragraphs. In the third, the close takes as a fact The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax. Any reading whatsoever of the discussion will show that the idea that the Telegraph promoted some version of the litterbox hoax is contested, with many editors subscribing to refutations of this point.
  The next paragraph goes on to assert that On trans issues, Wikipedians simply do not have this level of confidence in the Daily Telegraph. The only argument referenced to this point has been the litterbox one. Editors who took issue with the third paragraph therefore found the fourth, which finds that reliability is disputed, to be invalid. However, the closer clarifies on talk that Fourth paragraph is independent of the third.
  The assessment that reliability is disputed was therefore not given any justification in the close itself, so closer expanded the close. The expansion provides but one reason why to give weight to the argument that the Telegraph is not generally reliable on trans issues: Although some members of the community have confidence that the Daily Telegraph is reliable on trans issues, this view is strongly disputed by significant numbers. In other words, closer is counting votes. Except closer tells me on talk that the point is not to count votes, and I didn't, but to weigh arguments, which I did.
  Closer has shown no evidence of weighing arguments (except in the case of the litterbox hoax claim, in which closer showed no evidence of weighing arguments fairly). Closer claims both not to have counted votes, but also bases their close of "Reliability disputed" on the claim that the view that the Telegraph is reliable "is strongly disputed by significant numbers". If closer is not willing to revert, close should be overturned as closer won't give a consistent account of what the reason is for the close. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support close because I think it's a perfectly reasonable close despite me thinking very negatively of The Telegraph. My emotions want it deprecated, but I know that this is the best we can get. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Overturn - first I would like to thank S Marshall for their effort in closing such a large RfC, as they have done so many times before. Unfortunately despite that, I share the concerns of Berchanhimez and Samuelshraga particularly regarding the litterbox issue, it was far more disputed by editors than what the original and extended closures portrayed. Since this was a significant and prominent part of the close, that causes the entire closure to fall into doubt. starship.paint (RUN) 12:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Kind of overturn I agree with the closing in that when we have such a clear 1 or 3 split we can't just say no consensus so no change. Certainly such a gap means on this topic we need to use caution. I also agree that the closing was not a summary of the arguments and for that reason the closing statement either needs to be changed to align with a true summary of the discussion or another editor should close the discussion. That the source was biased seemed to have consensus but how much did not have a consensus. The closing suggests there was agreement on how biased the source was. I also agree that some of the language used in that part of the closing appeared to be expressing an opinion rather than summarizing the discussion. Since much of the discussion centered on the litter box hoax it is important to get that part of the close correct. I think all would agree that there was a clear dispute regarding if the source was just reporting or if they were embracing. As such the claim that the statement, "The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax" is clearly inaccurate. I don't have a strong view on the involved claim but I'm not sure I view that as disqualifying in this case. Springee (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn
  The close expansion includes: Towards the end of this, the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. I don’t see this in the discussion.
  Also, there is no mention of the general disparity between those who supported Option 1, who generally discussed the question of whether the Telegraph is reliable on transgender matters - which is what the RfC was supposed to be about - and those who supported Option 3, who mostly said we should not use the Telegraph on transgender matters because it is biased – which is not what the RfC was supposed to be about.
  On the contrary, the closing comment summarises the attitude of those who preferred Option 3, It is a willing warrior in the war on wokery. It gives platform to the most flagrantly gender-critical tracts by anti-woke activists.without making the obvious conclusion that such views are irrelevant to an RfC on reliability. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn, the weighting and evaluation of the arguments was done poorly, and the tone of the original close leaves much to be desired. Unfortunately, some of the summaries of the arguments (like the cat story) was either done poorly, or added onto through the closers own arguments trending towards a supervote. Lastly, whether or not the closer is clearly involved, there is definitely a strong appearance of involvement, which is enough IMO. FortunateSons (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support closer, oppose close. It's a real stretch to accuse S Marshall of being involved for having an opinion on a related matter (or even on this matter). We're not robots nor should we pretend to be - and I have previously seen S Marshall demonstrate high competence in separating personal views from the principles at hand in a discussion. However, I do agree that the close rationale erred in endorsing a point that had been thoroughly rebutted in the discussion, and in taking a bold interpretation of WP:ONUS. It is not clear to me that the policy on onus with respect to article content should automatically apply to discussions of general reliability. This is a point that could potentially be argued in the abstract, but in this specific case, when our starting point is a previous RfC finding general reliability, then the onus should very much be on bringing new evidence, and the focus of the close should be on whether or not that evidence has been successfully rebutted - not on whether there was a dispute. If there's no consensus that the new charges are valid, then they should be considered unproven, and the status quo should remain. Proving unreliability should be hard, as a countermeasure to the chilling effect of a downgrade. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. The closer was WP:INVOLVED with respect to The Telegraph's reliability in the context of political topics, as their comment from April 2024 shows. And the sort of involvement does somewhat show in the close; the close does not faithfully represent the consensus attained on key points, and it doesn't appear to attempt to summarize what the arguments on each side were. Instead, the close reads much more as if it were a !vote in the RfC, where the closer inserts his own analysis of the source (It is a willing warrior in the war on wokery) and appears to give definitive weight to one questionable interpretation of The Telegraph's reporting (unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax) as if it were to have reflected the broad consensus of the discussion.
  Because the closure should represent the discussion faithfully, and this closing summary is more of an argument than an attempt to do so, it should be overturned. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• SMarshall was not INVOLVED. I'm not going to express an opinion about the close as a whole as I fear I would fail to avoid the relitigation that multiple editors here are doing) but I see absolutely no evidence that SMarshall was INVOLVED within the meaning of that policy and so that allegation should not be factored into the assessment of the close. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn - the finding that there was no consensus the Telegraph is not reliable, but the source should still be considered "not generally reliable" (in some unspecified way) is unreasonable. It is probably better to vacate it entirely rather than modify it to a pure "no consensus" close. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Overturn. Two distinct issues here:
  1. Imbalance and inaccuracy in the summary. Rather than fairly sum up both sides of the discussion, the close is weighted towards the unreliability perspective to an extent that does not reflect the genuine course of discussion. Vigorously contested assertions (e.g. the notion of The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax) are treated as fact. At times S Marshall appears to be carrying on the argument in his own close (e.g. Towards the end of this, the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. And if the Telegraph has published a correction, then the "generally reliable" camp hasn't unearthed it.)
  2. The, um, let's call it "novel" interpretation of ONUS such that a supposedly "no consensus" close somehow ends up in effect a consensus to downgrade? I don't have much to add to what Barnards has already said: (1) ONUS is geared towards discussions about whether to include specific things like an image or a certain paragraph in an article, not broad discussions about the reliability of a source; and (2) there's an existing RfC finding consensus for general reliability, so that should be the assumed baseline we're working from.
• S Marshall made an odd comment about the decision to adopt this interpretation: In doing this, I removed the first mover advantage that the "generally reliable" side expected and I think relied on. The part about editors advocating for reliability "relying on" a supposed first-mover advantage comes across to me as if he is taking the view these editors are abusing or at least leaning on procedure to get a preferred result. This does not seem to be a fair characterisation to me.
• I don't see how S Marshall is INVOLVED, though. – Teratix ₵ 16:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support close. It was a very reasoned, balanced close. I would have preferred a "generally unreliable" close, but I accept that S Marshall made a good faith effort to close this RfC in a balanced and impartial manner. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn, and reclose per Berchanhimez. S. Marshall deserves some credit for stepping in where angels fear to tread, but a no-consensus outcome doesn't justify changes to the status quo. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• endorse close. I think the language used could have appeared to be more neutral, but it is clear that there is no consensus on the telegraphs reliability on this topic. That some people seem to think consensus is needed to confirm there is no consensus seems nonsensical, unless we all do a close that could never be decided. I don't think the close is perfect but it's certainly good enough and every editor involved could probably be more useful spending time elsewhere. For transparency's sake I voted option 3 on the RFC and was deemed a SPA. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn The assumption that people saying that mistakes happen were conceding that the specific example brought up was actually a mistake was not supported. That leaves a fundamentally damaged evaluation of the wider consensus as to whether there were mistakes in this area, which is a key aspect of changing the assumed reliability of this source. The result is an artificially strong consensus not supported by the arguments. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. The only policy-based reason S Marshall's close was based on is whether or not The Daily Telegraph endorsed the Litter boxes in schools hoax. The conclusion S Marshall reached is that The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax is discussed at great length. This is a WP:SUPERVOTE because it sides with Loki's original claim without any explanation. One of the central disputes of the RfC was whether or not the "Litter boxes in schools hoax" encompassed a student merely identifying as a cat, which is the falsehood The Telegraph supposedly said. The assumption that these were equivalent made it impossible to reach any other conclusion than Option 2 or 3, which I will show below.
  S Marshall's only mention of specific Option 1 arguments is that the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. This misses the point, which is that The Telegraph promoting a blatant hoax is not equivalent to getting a detail in a story wrong. S Marshall did not address this in this point in their close because of the aforementioned SUPERVOTE, which assumed equivalence between kids using litter boxes and kids identifying as cats. If the equivalence was treated as a disputed point, the concession that the article is misleading matters much less, since it is no longer a concession that The Telegraph promoted a blatant hoax.
  Closers are also supposed to disregard votes not based on policy per WP:DISCARD, and not judge on headcount. S Marshall's close does not obey this. Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, but S Marshall says Although some members of the community have confidence that the Daily Telegraph is reliable on trans issues, this view is strongly disputed by significant numbers. as an explanation of their decision. [1] The close also makes references to the controversy over homophobia, transgender breast milk, and other factors, but does not explain how those subpoints helped reach a decision. If the closer does not analyze a point I will assume it did not play a part in the decision.
  To summarize, the close began by assuming that Option 3 was correct on the most significant part of the discussion, and then judged the entire rest of the RfC on those grounds. This assumption should not have been made and a proper close would fairly summarize the dispute over whether implying a student identified as a cat is equivalent to saying students are using litter boxes in schools. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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

• Overturn close. It is clear from this edit[2] that the closer had a POV that should have been declared. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Whatever the criticisms of the body of the closure may be, and there seem to be some, the closure is tainted because the closer did not declare a POV (whether that POV was "correct" or not). Xxanthippe (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC).

• Overturn (Option 5, but I would be happy with 2 too). Reading the original discussion, I thought that the accusations about inaccurate reporting of "litter boxes in schools" had been well argued against. In their initial statement, the closer appears not to consider these arguments, but simply labels the Telegraph's statements as misrepresentations. At the least the closer should have addressed these prominent arguments and explained why they did not agree with them. This implies to me an insufficiently in-depth analysis. The closer's revised statement says a little more on this topic, but I was shocked that the decisive step of their reasoning is an obvious non-sequitor: "The 'generally reliable' camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading." This seems almost flippant; Wikipedia should be able to do better than this in analysing the evidence and arguments. JMCHutchinson (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse and overturn (I did 'participate' in the RFC although I didn't comment on the reliability of the Telegraph in this RFC, but I did comment on a previous RFC that the Telegraph was unreliable on this specific issue). The close that 'there is no consensus on the reliability of the Telegraph on transgender issue' (or WP:MREL), is IMO the correct reading of the discussion (so I endorse it). However, with apologies to an editor I respect, I do think the reasoning in getting there is flawed. The close doesn't engage with all the arguments and rebuttals in the discussion, dissatisfaction with which has lead to this review (not helped with how the RSP was updated). Given this is now the third RFC on the matter in a short space of time, a close that satisfies all involved (even if it doesn't agree with them) is sorely needed. I do wonder if the RSP had simply been updated with the plain "In regards to transgender issues the reliability of The Daily Telegraph is disputed.", without the additional details then we wouldn't be here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. I appreciate the sincere attempt on such a divided issue, but I believe that such a contentious non-consensus warranted a more conservative close, both in resolution and in wording.
  As others have noted, the close turned largely on one story, the notorious "cat" drama. That the closer refers to a story that categorically was not a "widely debunked litterbox hoax" in such terms does not inspire confidence that the arguments have been properly weighed. A story featuring elements of otherkin in schools is not automatically a "litterbox hoax". The incident in question happened, and absolutely nobody denies that. The school acknowledged it and reviewed its processes in the aftermath. I wrote out a transcript of the recording here for anyone still for some reason curious about this debacle. I won't rehash the arguments yet again but I don't think any fair weighting of the refutations can support a close describing this as a "debunked litterbox hoax" when there has been no hoax, no litterbox, and no debunking.
  As for the specific wording, as I raised on talk, the closer needlessly inserted the text "and gender critical views" into the closing statement, widening the unreliability notice beyond what was suggested. This was not part of the original RFC, and no evidence was presented either way as to the reliability of The Telegraph for "gender critical views".
  Editors may have personal opinions on how separable "gender critical views" are from trans issues or what the closer even means by "gender critical views", but that is a discussion in an of itself, and one which simply did not take place and whose outcome should not be assumed like this. This unsolicited addition is unwise in an already polarised RFC, and if this is overturned I would suggest a future closer stick to the wording of the RFC only and leave this particular can of worms unopened. Void if removed (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support close, this is a very tough debate to find any resolution for and I think that S Marshall's decision is a pretty fair and balanced choice. S Marshall highlighted the key aspect of the debate which is a general agreement on the bias of the Telegraph but a disagreement on how much that bias affects the paper's journalistic integrity. Saying that when dealing with the subject of trans people the Telegraph should be used carefully seems like a reasonable precaution. (I voted for option 2 on the basis that reviewing a number of the linked articles showed a fairly strong bias on the topic, my primary concerns being their deliberate misrepresentation and laundering of sources. If I was working on material related to the subject, I would want to cite more neutral and nuanced sources that had clarity and more journalistic integrity.) Gnisacc (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per JoeJShmo, The Wordsmith, Berchanhimez, Samuelshraga, Teratix, Chess, Void if removed, etc. The close is frankly an inadequate and inaccurate summary of the discussion. Others have already noted multiple issues with the "litterbox hoax" paragraph, which treats one side of a hotly disputed point as fact and proceeds from there. Almost no weight is given to the rebuttals, which disputed not only whether the Telegraph "embraced" the story, but whether the story was an instance of the hoax and whether it even was a hoax at all. I do not believe the original text supports the bizarre claim that these users were "reduced" to arguing that the Telegraph is "allowed to make mistakes". The next paragraph that summarizes the rest of the RfC is equally bizarre. It devotes no attention to the handful of journal articles which were held up multiple times as evidence of the Telegraph’s supposed "unreliability", but in actuality explored only the source’s bias. It highlights a single brief comment one user made about Julie Bindel (whose "platforming" as an opinion columnist would indicate bias, not reliability) but fails to mention more significant points of debate such as the Thoughtful Therapists issue, which was brought up in the RfC's opening statement and rebutted at length by multiple users. And it elides the well-reasoned rebuttals by simply saying that "there was discussion", while neglecting to evaluate the relative merits of those discussions. I do not have confidence that the close properly engaged with the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments being made on both sides. Rather, the close seems to treat the fact that the source's reliability was vociferously disputed as justification enough. Astaire (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - The close was a reasonable read of the discussion and came to a very narrow decision. All of the arguments for overturning focus entirely on process wonkery & nitpicking word choice in order to try and unravel the close by tugging on a loose thread. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I brought this here because the closer refused to amend his egregious word choice on his user talk page and insisted that he came to it after weighing all arguments. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  "egregious," please, let's not be hyperbolic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, so you think that unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked [conspiracy theory] in place of saying A teacher at Rye College, a state secondary in East Sussex, was recorded telling a pupil who refused to accept her classmate was a cat that she was despicable., of which all they got wrong was that the cat was a rhetorical device, the latter being consensus, is a mostly fair and accurate representation of the discussion. I do not see how one could arrive at that conclusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. Look, I'm not going to lose sleep over some minor changes to the wording per the OP's concerns, if that's the ultimate result here, but for my part, I think this was a mostly reasonable summary of the results of the discussion. Did I feel there was a bit of unnecessary color commentary with pointed observations about the source frame as objective facts? Yeah, I did get some twinges about that while reading the close, and I think it's worth S Marshal taking that into consideration in the future. But I rather suspect that, rather than this being a case of the closer trying to interject unnecessary personal perspective into the result, it was a conscious rhetorical method for acknowledging the understandable and unavoidable emotional subtext of the dispute. I get the feeling that S Marshal recognized that there was really only one way to close this discussion under existing policy and consensus of the discussion itself, but was uncomfortable doing so without paying some recognition to the circumstances under which some editors have come to dislike the source. So he called the spade for the spade in a way that would make the Telegraph skeptics at least marginally less likely to feel that their sentiments had been dismissed wholesale.
  But any caveats not withstanding, I think S Marshal did an adequate job with this close, given the complexity of the issues and the highly divisive nature of the discussion. Personally I would have been marginally more supportive of a straight "no consensus" result as opposed to "reliability disputed", but this a fraught area, and we have to start finding a way to come together on these issues (or at least reigning in the constant relitigation of habitual issues. In that light, I think we could have gotten a lot worse here. I understand the quibbles, and I came close to casting a different !vote here, but considering all factors, I don't think S Marshal's something-for-everyone approach here was arbitrary, unintentional, or ill-advised.
  Further, I think there's more to be gained by just embracing an overall reasonable close than by micromanaging every last sentence into a form that is most pleasing to the majority, even if I was a part of that majority and even if I feel that the result would be more ideal. For the benefit of procedural efficiency and community harmony, I think we need to start leaning back towards the traditional tendency of just letting the initial close stay, warts and all, so long as it does not obviously and massively misrepresent the actual consensus. I don't love every syllable of S Marshal's close, but I still think that it was a well-executed one made under difficult circumstances, in the final analysis, and I don't blame him for trying to pay some lip service to the concerns of the minority. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think most Overturners here are objecting mainly to the colourful commentary. I have no problem with the willing warrior in the war on wokery or even the gives platform to the most flagrantly gender-critical tracts by anti-woke activists comments in the close. The narrow overturners object to unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax because it clearly misrepresents as consensus what was only one side of a very prominent part of the discussion. The broad overturners think that given that practically all of the RfC nomination's accusations were directly misrepresented and were not, on any examination, evidence of unreliability, the arguments for unreliability were entirely without weight and should have been discounted (in this context, the question of whether they feel that feel that their sentiments had been dismissed wholesale is immaterial, as long as the dismissal is explained).

  Whether you stay endorsing the close or not aside, I don't appreciate the idea that this is about micromanaging every last sentence into a form that is most pleasing to the majority, it seems like a baseless minimisation of actual concerns that directly concern what you think close reviews should be about: that the close if allowed to stand would obviously and massively misrepresent the actual consensus. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse: I don't want to spend too long saying things which have already been said, but I know in recent discussions and here some users have opined that anyone saying ~"I'd just be using the same rationale as X, let me just say 'per X'" should be discounted and people should be required to be repetitive, so with apologies to whichever panel of three admins has to close this discussion (to avoid it being challenged) for making it longer ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ : both the "involved" argument and the argument that the close was a supervote are unconvincing. The "involvement" is not only tangential (as amply discussed above), but in the other direction, so unless the implication is that another closer would've found outright consensus that the source was unreliable(?), the argument doesn't make sense. In turn, as many users have noted above, while closing this as either "option 1 because I know option 2 voters really meant option 1" or "option 3 because I know option 2 voters really meant option 3" (as some people want) would've been a supervote, "there was no consensus →means→ close as no consensus" is just reading the arguments (and "no consensus →means→ no consensus" is just following WP:MREL).
  It is unsurprising that much discussion here is relitigating the same points as the RFC, as if saying "actually they were never wrong, it was proven they were never wrong, by me saying they weren't wrong" several more times will make it true. Indeed, re the suggestions below about ways to align how closes should occur and be reacted to vs how closes are actually reacted to, and the issues with those suggestions (e.g.: mandating multiple people volunteer to find time to close discussions would mean discussions go unclosed for even longer, potentially until stale, wasting/filibustering the effort), the other obvious possibility is to write down in the guidelines that all closures are only "prospective, non-finalized" closures until sustained by an AN discussion where the participants relitigate positions a second time: while I'm not sure that would be the best option, it seems like it could be the easiest one to get people on board with because it's how we see many people already operate... -sche (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  If you say "per X" and X's original claims have been proven inaccurate/misleading, and you don't address that fact, then your !vote will be downweighted accordingly - just as the initial claims should be downweighted when a refutation that enjoys broad support from those actually discussing the topic (rather than drive by !voting) would. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse close - As has now become clear after further discussion here, while some people had issue with some of the wording of the close, the ultimate outcome of it being a "no consensus" seems to be agreed upon here and is a good reading of the original discussion, since there simply was no consensus on the topic, so the close to no consensus and marking it MREL for transgender issues is the appropriate outcome. Raladic (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• At least amend the third and fourth paragraphs to reflect the actual consensus. In cases where there are comparable numbers of good-faith !votes, finding in favor of either of them (or splitting the difference) should necessitate a close summary mentioning why a given argument did not prevail. The close should summarize the reasoning of any significant minority/non-plurality, but should also make it clear what the major arguments against that reasoning were and how they were weighted. In cases where the closer finds consensus that does not align with a non-trivial majority of good-faith !votes, it is particularly imperative they explain why arguments in the majority camp were downweighted.
  In this close, only a rationale of Option 3 !voters is presented at any length, and it is implied there was consensus agreement with this rationale. However, the close does not address the various refutations of that rationale that, necessarily, were strong and numerous enough to result in Option 3 not gaining consensus. This is especially problematic given that there was a solid majority against Option3/4. Even if we count every "Option 1/2" !vote toward Option 2 and count every "Option 2/3" and "Option 4" !vote towards Option 3, we still have roughly 60 Option 1 to 49 Option 3 (and ~16 Option 2). A more charitable accounting (for example, assigning any "Option 1 or maybe 2" !votes, like my own, to "Option 1") yields a more lopsided result, and splitting the options into 1/2 vs 3/4 reveals something approaching a 60% supermajority ~75 1/2 to 49 3/4 (and that's still counting all "2/3" !votes toward Option 3). Any finding against Option 1 should thus expand on why this wasn't enough for consensus (which could be perfectly reasonable if the strength of the !votes just wasn't there--but that still should be explained!), meanwhile any finding for Option 3 would absolutely need to demonstrate a very substantial imbalance in argument strength. JoelleJay (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that there was not consensus for Option 3, but the closer did not claim there was. Meanwhile, you've missed the obvious reason why there wasn't consensus for Option 1: by your own count, there were 60 Option 1 voters but 65 voters who were against it. Since there wasn't a consensus for any option, there was no consensus, which has special meaning at WP:RSP and isn't just "status quo wins". Loki (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  I’m interested, since you seem to want to vote count, for you to do a few things. First, split the proportion up into “before the refutation” and “after the refutation” to examine how the discussion evolved over time. Second, count up how many of the 65 votes on the “against it” side were based solely on bias, or did not address the refutation of the claims at all. Thirdly, count up how many people agreed with the refutation after it was posted versus disagreed - without assuming what anyone who didn’t comment directly on why would’ve said.

  If you do this, rather than trying to shoehorn the vote count to your favor, you will see why many people are arguing there actually was a consensus present. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  What "refutation"?

  Also, obviously all the things you are saying are simply not how closing discussions works. The closer can evaluate the arguments but they are under no obligation to pretend that an argument that you happened to find particularly convincing was objectively strong. Loki (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Closers are expected to determine consensus based on the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

  In this context, a good close will need to give little to no weight to !votes that argued the Telegraph endorsed the litter boxes in schools hoax (as this was disproved by the articles provided in support of it, and thus is not a quality argument), and little to no weight to !votes that argued that it should be considered unreliable on grounds of bias (as this is contradicted by policy). BilledMammal (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Whether or not it "was disproved" is a matter for the closer to decide. The closer decided it was not disproved. All you are saying is that you disagree with the closer. Loki (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  This case is unusually clear cut. You said "this source endorses this hoax", and provided an article where the source said "this is a hoax". It is not possible for a reasonable close to say that it was not disproved. BilledMammal (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  If I say that a source endorses the conspiracy theory that the moon landings were faked, and the source says "There's a common conspiracy theory that the moon landings were faked, which is not true. However, look at this evidence that the 1969 moon landing was filmed on a sound stage in California.", is that or is that not "endorsing the conspiracy theory"? Loki (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Obviously not. It's called presenting all sides of a story. Otherwise, we'd only hear half the story. You may think that hoaxes are never newsworthy - what would the news report on if not saying "it's a hoax, but look at the evidence that the other side uses to try and convince you it's not a hoax"? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  It could, depending on the specifics. However, it's a false equivalence.

  What the Telegraph said after calling it a hoax was say that people do identify as animals. This is true, and nobody in the RfC claimed otherwise. BilledMammal (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, but they said this specific student identified as an animal at this specific school with the support of the administration, all of which is false and which fulfills all the pillars of the hoax except for the literal litter boxes. Loki (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Everyone, regardless of your views regarding this, it is clear that (maybe a little less than) half of the RfC participants agreed with Chess's refutation against that incident being an endorsement of the litterbox hoax. Let's accept that and move on without directly arguing the RfC again. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) The issue is you proved none of that:

  • they said this specific student identified as an animal - based on your mistaken understanding of presuppositions
  • with the support of the administration - based on your definition of "support" (which you extend to "calling students despicable" - in other words "telling students off for bullying")
  • all of which is false - The school said one thing, parents said another, and the Ofsted report declined to comment
  • fulfills all the pillars of the hoax - based on your definition of the pillars

  For a closer to say that your close was not disproved they would need to say that every one of these four claims was true. No reasonable close can do that. Aaron Liu does make a good point, and so I will step back from this discussion now, but I felt it was important to make this point clear. BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that no reasonable person who reviews all the facts could conclude Loki's claimd (there's a freakin' TAPE RECORDING OF THE TEACHER calling the girl "dispicable" for not accepting a cat identity, FFS! How much more evidence is needed here?!).

  I suppose the real question here is, what happens when a large MINORITY of Wikipe#ians all assert something that is objectively false, in lock step with each other? (Which does not have to be in bad faith, and I do not say that it is, here). I'm not sure the mechanisms exist to deal with this effectively, which is a dangerous precedent, and expect more of it, and not only on this topic from this POV, either. 73.2.86.132 (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  It was later clarified that the recorder brought up the scenario of a student identifying as a cat for her rhetorical devices.
  If that happens, the WMF and checkusers first see if sockpuppetry or states are involved. If not, then we simply assert that "something" is true, since the scenario of them all being wrong at that specific time is unlikely and we have WP:NOTTRUTH. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think if you really wanted to step back you wouldn't have insisted on getting the last word, but regardless I think that this argument is going in circles enough that I'm not even bothering to read your comment fully. Loki (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  by your own count, there were 60 Option 1 voters but 65 voters who were against it.That's not true -- a significant portion of the 16 "2" !votes included in the 65 were "1 or 2", which clearly are not "against Option 1". 67 people considered Option 1 to be acceptable, at most 61 did not. Whether that warrants "NC, therefore Option 2" should actually be explained by the close in a way that accurately summarizes what the arguments were and how they were weighed; this is not achieved by repeating a major contention from Option 3 as if it had consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn per @JoeJShmo—and maybe we need some language in policy discouraging NACs on RfC’s of certain length or impact. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  This should be posted in the Participants section. Parabolist (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Parabolist: WP:Be bold. I've moved it to the correct place. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn per Red-tailed hawk.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Telegraph)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Just thought I'd point out that the (now-reverted) new entry on RSP has already been used to justify content removal with unwarranted stridency: [3]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personally, I think at minimum the removal of "and gender critical views" from the note, else what's the point in having a per topic discussion if a closer can unilaterally widen it?

For example, this is a story in The Telegraph about a social worker who won an employment tribunal on the grounds of her gender-critical views. There seems to be no exaggeration or inaccuracy. It also does not mention the word "trans" at all. It is entirely a story about the legal protection of those views, and the discriminatory acts of the council and regulatory body. It is a notable legal case (ie, the first time a regulatory body has been found to have committed unlawful discrimination) and as such not given undue prominence.

As written, this would come under the purview of this note, because the note has been expanded beyond anything discussed in the RFC. Why? Void if removed (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether is should come under the close, a single accurate story (assuming it is, I haven't looked) is not at all incompatible with a finding of MREL or even GUNREL. Neither category is saying that all stories (in the relevant topic area) are inaccurate, heck even the Daily Mail gets things right at times. At the most basic level GUNREL means they are generally unreliable, MREL means they are sometimes unreliable - often enough that they are not generally reliable but not often enough that they are generally unreliable. In the same way generally reliable doesn't mean infallible. Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The point is that this is a story that is not a "trans issue", it is a "gender critical views" issue. The RFC was "unreliable on trans issues". If people wanted this to be part of the RFC, it should have been part of the RFC. Adding it in in the close without it being raised in the RFC and with no discussion is a WP:SUPERVOTE. Void if removed (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

That is nonsense, Gender critical, or its original non-whitewashed term TERF, which even has it in the name, is a trans issue and whether specifically called out or not, it's implicitly covered under the topic.

There is no change in scope, so the accusation of a supervote for this is arbitrary, but simply WP:COMPETENCY is assumed on an obviously linked subtopic that the closer simply chose to call out. Raladic (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

And all of that is of course extensively disputed (including the crack about "whitewashed") and none of this was discussed in the RFC, and your framing of the issues in this particular POV exemplifies the problem with closing in this way. ("call out"? is that the role of closer?).

To make this clear, consider a hypothetical RFC brought claiming that "Pink News is unreliable on gender-critical views", which plays out as a mirror opposite of the Telegraph one.

Ie, where the Telegraph is claimed to present trans issues in a biased and misleading way, and overly focuses on trans people in a negative light, inflating non-stories into breathless ragebait, the inverse claim is made that Pink News behaves the same about people with "gender critical views". Lets say that the arguments all play out exactly the same, in the same proportions and a closer decides it is a no-consensus result.

Do you think it would be defensible to say that the reliability of Pink News was therefore disputed on "gender-critical views and trans issues"?

These are distinct subjects with some overlap, and with a huge amount of conflict where they meet and even what terms mean, but here the POV of the closer has widened the scope of the close beyond the question that was asked. Void if removed (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Just simply no, it is consensus on Wikipedia (and as such the wider world, since we simply summarize the RS) that Gender critical views are a subtopic of transgender issues, as is very clear from the lead of Gender critical, so there is simply no leap here.

There is also no crack about whitewashing, again, we discuss this in Gender-critical feminism#Terminology, so I simply re-stated the consensus on Wikipedia on the issue.

Picking on words that were included in the close doesn't change the fact. Raladic (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

But WP:NOTSOURCE so, no. And given these are exactly the arguments the closer has presumed the conclusion to, based on no evidence, and the many, many protracted discussions on talk there, it would be much simpler not to have needlessly expanded the close to include this completely undiscussed POV, for no good reason. Void if removed (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe that this is much less damaging than "unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for clarity

Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policies and guidelines aren't the only kind of consensus out there. RSP's consensus is not overridden by any broader consensus, thus it stands. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what that's arguing for, it remains true that no arguer or new closer would have any obligation to be compatible with its idiosyncracies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The word you're looking for with "idiosyncrasies" is "consensus". Aaron Liu (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Option 4 per my !vote above. Option 2 is against current policy and would require changing WP:RSP or establishing a specific carve-out for this case, neither of which are palatable. Pinguinn 🐧 11:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4, if that wasn't obvious yet. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 5. Astaire (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 5. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 5. James500 (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This user has struck his overturn !vote.—S Marshall T/C 07:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 5 or Option 2 (preference in that order) Buffs (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1/2. I think it probable that after properly weighing the votes consensus on reliability may be found, but failing that, I believe option 2 is warranted here, and every RfC should be determined on a case by case basis. JoeJShmo^💌 21:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 5 except with a bit more direction as suggested by CoffeeCrumbs > Option 4 or Option 2. JoelleJay (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Could we be more specific about this "a bit more direction", please?

  This is a 36,000-word review of my close, so this close review is longer than Hamlet. It's also longer than MacBeth and The Tempest put together. (In comparison, the original discussion was 60,000 words or so. In total we've got a full novel's worth of text that we're proposing someone else evaluates.) Obviously, it remains my hope and expectation that the closer of this discussion will see that there isn't a consensus at this close review. But there's an unpleasant possibility that they will see it as consensus to overturn, and if they do, then I hope they will at least see that to revert my close as per option 5 and then give the new closer no guidance at all would be appallingly wasteful.

  So in that event, we definitely do need to provide this "a bit more direction" that JoelleJay and CoffeeCrumbs advocate. What should it say?—S Marshall T/C 14:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  The "particular guidance" would be to take into account the refutations to the nomination statement. Berchan's comment above expounds on this.
  I read the "no guidance" option as "leave it up to the closer what to overturn to". Aaron Liu (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Me too. Levivich (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yep. The fact that S Marshall clearly views this as the least desirable option has no bearing on the fact that in the absence of a consensus otherwise, overturning would mean just that, and no more. And despite his framing of the question here, that seems to be where a lot of the overturn support is leading.

The crack about how many words have been spilt on this is disingenuous - it's not the fault of the Overturn supporters that S Marshall misrepresented the discussion so blatantly, any more than it is the fault of Chess and others at the RfC that there were so many false representations of the cited evidence in the RfC's proposal. There are a lot of bad arguments to dissect, it takes a fair number of words to do it. Personally, I'd blame the editors who clearly are here to right great wrongs by downgrading sources that disfavour their POV. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely true that someone is making blatant misrepresentations to right a great wrong, although we differ about who it is.—S Marshall T/C 23:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

In case you thought I was saying you are here to WP:RGW, let me clarify that I don't make that accusation. I do think that of various Endorse and Option 3 supports here and at the RfC, based entirely on the content of their contributions (happy to bring specific examples if anyone demands them). My criticisms of your close have nothing to do with your motivations, I won't rehash those criticisms here, I think they speak for themselves.

But you're welcome to think whatever you wish about why I'm here. If you've written me off as acting in bad faith, that might explain why I find your responses to my criticisms so unsatisfying. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Part 2

For !voters of Option 2, could you also clarify how "no consensus, defaulting to no change" should work based on the status quo at RSP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An unrelated, modest proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been trying to think of the way to address this - you say you have to pay particular attention when someone changes their mind after being persuaded by a convincing point - that is exactly what happened in this discussion, yet you not only ignored it in your close, you actually found the opposite to have happened. You took those not commenting on the refutations to be claiming that they were wrong, you viewed those arguments to be "stronger" than those refuting the original claims (when the discussion makes clear it was considered opposite by a clear majority of those commenting on the refutations, rather than ignoring them), and you then impressed your personal opinion of the claims onto the close. You seem to be trying to claim that you ignored the refutations and their support because the editors supporting that view were passionate - that's absurd. Just because someone is passionate and/or points out and asks for others to address a comment that a significant plurality of editors not only addressed but agreed with (and in quite a few cases, changed their !vote after reading) does not make it bludgeoning, and even if it was bludgeoning, it does not make their opinions null and void. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  The credibility of people like S. Marshall should be the least of our concerns here. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t have any opinion on the Telegraph RFC specifically as I didn’t participate nor have I read it - just giving my 2¢ on the proposal regarding large RFCs in CTOPs and such. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  We have many credible non-admin closers, so I don't think this is something we should "hunt down". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Also not a fan of panel closes. It's anecdotal, but I think the ratio of bad-closes/all-closes is worse for panel closes than individual closes. At the very least, anybody thinking about mandating panel closes in any situation should first gather some data about whether panel closes are any less likely to be wrong, challenged, or overturned, than non-panel closes. My impression is that Wikipedia has a lot of non-panel closes -- like dozens or hundreds or thousands, depending on the time scale -- and like less than 1% are wrong/challenged/overturned. Whereas Wikipedia has very few panel closes -- like single digits, maybe a dozen or two dozen in the last like 5 or 10 years? -- and a huge proportion of them (like half) are wrong, challenged, and/or overturned. But my anecdotal impressions aren't data; data would be useful. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Any idea where to start looking to gather that data? Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not useful data to have. People don't even ask for panel closes unless it's really super-contentious, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that more panel closes get challenged or overturned (which I don't know if it's true, but it does seem likely to me).—S Marshall T/C 19:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

For individual closes, maybe Legobot's contribs, and/or the page history of WP:CR, to gather a list of RfCs/discussions. But then after that I don't know, seems like a difficult task to calculate the total number of closed discussions vs. how many of them were challenged (AN archives will find some official close reviews, but that wouldn't include those that never went past the closer's talk page).

As for panel closes, I don't even know... probably manually plucking them out of the gathered list of RFCs/discussions.

Overall it strikes me as something that would basically have to be done manually and would take many hours. For a single year, it's maybe doable, but that would leave a tiny sample size of panel closes (maybe low single digits). For this reason, the efficacy of panel closes may never be fully understood. Levivich (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

One place to start might be extracting RFC closes from {{archive top}} and {{discussion top}} and checking for more than one signature/timestamp/userpage wikilink. That would reduce a lot of the noise and manual work. I've also thought about having the bot add an RFC tracking template when it removes the current RFC template after the 30 days expiration, that would improve data collection going forward. But on this issue specifically, I think admin or panel would be better than just mandating a panel. I'd also endorse creating a group or userright flag for experienced non-admins who the community trusts to close controversial discussions, and S Marshall would absolutely have a place on that list. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Subpage?

At the time of typing we're just over 30,000 words. I'm minded to move it to its own subpage?—S Marshall T/C 13:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the relevant discussion has already run its course, and now it's mostly people just venting their personal dislikes of each side at one another. Probably better to just shut down the side discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's worth adding that I read much of the discussion, researched some of the references given by the proposer, came the conclusion that they did not support what was claimed, saw that the inaccuracies had already been pointed out by other editors and decided not to contribute.

I'm now very confused. Since the allegations against the Telegraph were shown to be incorrect, I can't see how I could have added to the discussion according to Wikipedia practice, which is (or is supposed to be) don't simply repeat what has already been said. Perhaps the idea of consensus has now swung so far into the realms of "guess the majority" or perhaps it's "follow your political nose". The close to this RfC is not neutrally written - that's a shame. And it seems a political campaign has succeeded here, where it should not have.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC).

Discussion seems to have died down, any chance a passing administrator wishes to evaluate if there is consensus to do anything about the close so that, if there is consensus to overturn, it can be re-added to the RSN page or at least given a new closure? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

When you think a discussion should be closed, leave a comment at Wikipedia:Closure requests, which I've just done. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

A close appears to be in progress. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sennalen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus (not even WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS) to either unblock outright or to convert the block to topic ban/s. El_C 13:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Sennalen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Sennalen (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite site block made by Galobtter as an AE action.[4] An appeal was declined at AE.[5]

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Special:Diff/1236676427

Statement by Sennalen

Since the original closing only alleges "disruption" without identifying specific acts, I look to Galobtter's comment[6] on the appeal as the definitive statement of what I am supposed to answer for.

• I did not use a news source to undercut a scientific source. I wrote the entire Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 to give priority to peer-reviewed journal articles over news and opinion. By design, only the final 6 KB "Views" section[7] of this 61KB article included news sources at all. Part of that was a neutral summary about congress calling a paper into question. The paper itself was outdated for the purpose of presenting current scientific understanding regardless. I used the news source in an appropriate way, and furthermore, the choice to pick this minor aspect of the article to characterize my overall attitude towards the topic is highly misleading.
• I did not push a lab leak point of view. In the article, I wrote that scientists consider a natural origin more likely than a lab origin. I also presented several new lines of evidence, which had never been cited on Wikipedia before, against lab theories. Galobtter cited some isolated Talk comments seven months older than my article edits.[8][9] I did express belief in a lab origin at that time, but also principally argued for following sources. My beliefs evolve over time to account for new evidence. Having a belief is not a behavioral infraction. Every edit I made to article space was verifiable from peer-reviewed journals and given balanced weight. There was no violation.
• In the months since I was blocked, proposals to delete[10] or merge[11] closed with no consensus. In particular, there was no consensus that my article was a PoV fork of Origin of SARS-CoV-2. Several editors noted that I wrote mainly about science whereas the existing article was mainly about political inquiries. In short, I wrote a good article in a valuable unfilled niche.
• In a matter Galobtter raised after the block, I agreed that I should not have WP:OVERCITEed seven reliable sources to support a contested claim on Western Marxism. Nevertheless, the wording of the claim and the choice of which page to present it on were based on prior consensus.[12][13] When new arguments were made, I withdrew voluntarily to work on better edits incorporating on that feedback.[14] The situation resolved positively on its own. Nothing about these events explains why I was indef site blocked.
• Finally, Galobtter made some statements about race and intelligence that continue to be of unclear relevance. It is a fact that I was an uninvolved commenter on an RfC and then in some related ANI threads about the RfC. Old threads keep being linked without any indication why they are supposed to be a problem in relation to me. This, more than any other part of this ordeal, feels like a WP:SMEAR.
• To address Seraphimblade's concern about whether I understand WP:FRINGE, I wrote an overview of the history and meaning of the guideline [15]. Hopefully that puts those concerns to rest. I have never promoted any kind of pseudoscience or conspiracy theory on Wikipedia. Though I have edited in some contested topics, I have always done so while using appropriate sources and writing from the perspective of the scientific and/or historical establishment. Policy says, Editors may present active public disputes or controversies documented by reliable sources; citing a viewpoint stated in a mainstream scholarly journal, textbook, or monograph is not per se disruptive editing.[16]

The case against me was based on routine edits that are of no significance without a context of already assuming bad faith. I have observed all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and as ever remain committed to observing all policies and guidelines in the future. It's not necessary to like me personally or agree with all my content positions. All that matters per WP:Blocking policy is that blocking me does not prevent any disruption; therefore the block is against policy. I look forward to writing many more quality articles on diverse subjects in the future. Sennalen (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry if anyone finds my tone too defensive or not apologetic enough. There is an appropriate order to things: an act is alleged, evidence for it is presented, a rule or principle the act violated is identified, and only then is it possible to reflect on the error of my ways. I can't just skip to the end without the previous steps. If I have made a pseudoscientific edit, I really want to know what it is. If there is one, I will be deeply embarrassed and disappointed in myself. As a matter of WP:ADMINACCT it shouldn't be a guessing game for me.

I'm glad people are starting to notice some other editors have avoided scrutiny, but I disagree with saying they are on the opposite side of a conspiracy theory from me. We are all on the same side against the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. It's a false, dangerous, and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. I was the first person on Wikipedia to try to systematically explain why the conspiracy theory is factually wrong[17] (rather than just asserting that it's a moral outrage.) This follows WP:EVALFRINGE, describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas. There is a timesink, and it comes from editors whose feelings about the topic are too strong to treat it objectively. That's especially damaging when they export their feelings about the conspiracy theory to ordinary articles in history and sociology. That's what I have been up against.

Replacing the existing sanction with something less severe sounds like an idea worth exploring, but there is no reason to split the difference between truth and falsehood. The truth is that I have no problematic agenda. The value of a sanction is what it prevents. A topic ban from covid would stop me from supplying requested sources. For cultural Marxism (broadly construed) it would stop me from planned expansions on the theory of communicative action or the aestheticization of politics. That's not serving the community's interests. Sennalen (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

(additional statement by Sennalen pasted from talk page by me) Schazjmd (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to XOR'easter for taking the time to investigate my comments. I only tried to document the evolution of the policy over time, not to argue that it was better or worse at any stage of that evolution, so I'm sorry if I gave that impression. There is no "editor cabal", but some editors mis-apply the policy, as recognized for example by DGG.[18] My behavior when unblocked will be as always to follow the policy as written.

To reiterate to @S Marshall:, I don't cast doubt on academic consensus about any of the topics. I have presented the academic consensus in every CTOP I have been involved in. All content I added was accurate, verifiable, and neutral. When challenged, I listened and built consensus. It's not that I'm treated more harshly for breaking the rules than my opponents. I'm treated more harshly for following the rules than they are for breaking them. I don't doubt that it takes a lot of time to generate novel reasons to cast doubt on reliable sources. Since Wikipedia is WP:NOTMANDATORY, no one actually has to spend time doing that.

Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks says that showing evidence no violation took place is a valid form of appeal. I have demonstrated that Galobtter's accusations were false, and she says she has nothing more to add. The timesink here is persisting with disproven allegations. Sennalen (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I copied the third statement Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter

Re EggRoll, I don't have anything to add beyond what I said at the last appeal. Galobtter (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Newimpartial

Sennalen's second statement presents this diff as showing them to be the first person on Wikipedia to try to systematically explain why the conspiracy theory is factually wrong (rather than just asserting that it's a moral outrage.) Since I reverted that inclusion, Sennalen reinserted it, and it eventually did not make its way into Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, I'd like to use it as a potential "best case" example that actually shows why Sennalen's interventions in these areas have proved to be unproductive time sinks - and perhaps to show that "moral outrage" doesn't motivate the objections to their contributions.

Sennalen presents this edit as explaining "why the conspiracy is factually wrong", and I wouldn't doubt the sincerity of that intention. However, what that edit actually does - in my view but also the consensus view on article Talk (see this archive) - is to say, effectively, that the things Sennalen lists as "wrong" are how Cultural Marxism in the conspiracy theory differs from real (sic.) Cultural Marxism (my words from the archive linked above).

In fact, about six months after their attempt to distinguish what parts of the conspiracy theory are "factually wrong", Sennalen launched a malformed RfC (found at this archive) to establish that something called "cultural Marxism" existed apart from a conspiracy theory. Sennalen's insistence on this POV, in spite of repeated findings of community consensus from 2014 to 2023 that there is no there, there, makes for tiresome reading on Talk and is, in my view, inherently disruptive. An editor who engaged to restore this content, alongside Sennalen, was the same one who later appealed Sennalen's OWNTALK editing ban (for proxying); that editor was subsequently indef-blocked for disruption.

The bottom line is that Sennalen's edits do not accomplish the avowed goals they have in mind as their intended purpose; they consistently cause disruption and lost editor time in various domains, and this filing shows no sign of a change in their approach to editing that would lead to less disruptive results. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Novem Linguae

I guess I'm involved in COVID-19 origins so moving my statement up here. Oppose revoking the block, per HandThatFeeds and S Marshall. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by XOR'easter

Oppose revoking the ban, as the argument for doing so reads like a request to do more of the same civil POV-pushing that led to it in the first place. (See Galobtter's statement in the March 2024 appeal for why the race-and-IQ topic was included.) I have edited in these topic areas, but not (AFAICT) in the specific disputes that led to the ban or the AE discussions about them, so I am commenting in this section to be on the safe side. XOR'easter (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The overview of the history and meaning of WP:FRINGE does not put any concerns to rest; rather the opposite. For example, it complains at considerable length about language that has been stable for a decade and a half, while selectively quoting the older text, e.g., omitting the qualification that the guideline won't even attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which may well be impossible. The older phrasing somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications is treated as more precise than the newer departs significantly from the prevailing views, despite the obvious vagueness of every qualifier. It then advances without evidence a claim that a new interpretation of "fringe theory" has gained ground on Wikipedia, accusing a nebulous editor cabal of refusing to read sources. Far from allaying any concerns, this "overview" is a promise to sealion more. XOR'easter (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

I started an AFD on Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 and have participated in a merge discussion concerning it, so I guess that makes me involved. This unblock request is mostly defensive and there is a severe lack of acknowledgment for what led to the block or what they will do differently in regards to those issues. I'm not convinced that their previous disruption will cease and therefore oppose unblocking them. TarnishedPath^talk 05:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Sennalen

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved editors. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Sennalen, I mean this in all good faith, but I don't think this is a well-crafted request at this time. By putting "disruption" in quotes and evincing skepticism as to the basis of the block, it does not engender confidence that a return would be smooth. I am in no way saying you have to agree with the block, but I think it would be wise to take on board that there was at least a reasonable basis. Again, you don't have to agree, and you're welcome to argue against it. But the tone here strikes me "this obvious injustice must be undone" rather than what I think would lead to success, which would be more along the lines of "I don't think it was an appropriate punishment, but I also know I can do better." Just a thought from the peanut gallery, and whatever happens, all the best. Dumuzid (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• I just wanted to note that this appeal was post here by User:JJMC89. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral on substance, but will note that only the first year of the block is under CT and after a year it becomes an "ordinary" admin block. No difference here because the block was in December but might matter for future appeals if this is declined. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• I don't see necessarily much of a problem with this, and I could be completely missing something (or many things?), but it seems as though the indef was taken as a way to circumvent the fact that AE can't impose topic bans on areas outside CTOP, and while I will wait for Galobtter's response on the substance, I'd be fine with repealing the sanction at AE, and replacing it with a community-issued topic ban on pseudoscience, fringe science, and Cultural Marxism, broadly construed. That would allow for Sennalen to make contributions outside of those areas, while lifting the site-block itself. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• I commented at the giant trainwreck AE thread that resulted in Sennalen's ouster last December, although I was not involved in the dispute which that thread arose from. Does anyone know if that makes me involved here or not? If so, I will go say my crap in the section above this; if not I will say it here. jp×g🗯️ 07:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG: while I would not personally consider you involved, I'd suggest best just to comment above like some others have done with varying levels of involvement. But whatever you do, might be wise to comment soon since this has already been opened for a while so might be closed soon. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm seeing cultural marxism, zoonotic origins of Covid-19, and race and intelligence. These show every sign of being sincere, non-trolling edits. Sennalen seeks in good faith to cast doubt on the academic consensus on those topics. EggRoll97's proposed alternative will founder on the fact that Sennalen doesn't grok that these are pseudoscientific edits, and that this editor's going to be a massive timesink in areas where volunteer time is precious. I can see the injustice to Sennalen here: we're not treating her as we've treated others, and we're kinder to editors on the opposite side of these conspiracy theories to her. But I'd place the encyclopaedia's interests first, so I'm at endorse indef and deny appeal.—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  [Later] I've seen Sennalen's additional remarks and considered them. I remain of the view that we're not being evenhanded and we haven't treated Sennalen particularly fairly. We're here to get an encyclopaedia written, and the resources of volunteer time it would take to deal with an unblocked Sennalen are substantial. Volunteer time is Wikipedia's limiting resource, so this would be an expensive unblock, if you follow me. I'm disinclined to pay that price.—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Skimming those earlier discussions, I actually do think she was treated somewhat unfairly (in particular, I see no evidence they've done any disruption in the Race and IQ area). Unfortunately, her(very defensive) appeals indicate that she won't change her mode of communication in contentious areas at all. An unblock with CBANs on Cultural Marxism and Fringe science seems reasonable. Mach61 12:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• I'm a bit unconvinced by I look forward to writing many more quality articles on diverse subjects in the future. As far as I can see, in their 2000 edits Sennalen has written only two articles; Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 which they would now be topic-banned from, and Muppet Theory which was non-notable and was redirected to its author. Black Kite (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose revoking the ban. Sennalen was a massive time sink on the pages in question, the definition of a polite POV-pusher. As evidenced by the appeal above, Sennalen absolutely does not believe she did anything wrong, and would be just as much of a time sink at any other article where she was convinced she was in the right. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons already nlaidnout by others. Their appeal shows nothing has changed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  As a second choice in case of the SB being lifted a TB should cover COVID, Marxism and fringe science. Rather than a narrower version. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support TB / oppose indef SB I rarely disagree with Galobterr (indeed, I don't say his wrong, per se now), but in this case, there's sufficient interpretative leeway to allow for the imposition of an AE topic ban rather than the full-on indef site ban. Per the Egg Roll. As noted above, this might be because the options are limited at AE, whereas we (the community, right here, right now) are not tied. I think it fair to say that if that discussion had taken place here rather than there, an indefinite site ban would have been seen as breaking a butterfly on a wheel, with the lesser sanction being imposed. I can't prove it, of course, but there's sufficient possibility to allow it now. I think we would be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face if we lose an otherwise productive editor in other areas when we could keep the editor on board just away from the boiler room. It certainly seems worth a try; if their approach remains abrasive, then we can revisit it. But it could be that the tone is a reflection of the—red blooded?—topic area and that working elsewhere might temper it. ——Serial Number 54129 10:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support shift to TB: While I'm no personal fan of Sennalen, I do not think that there's enough evidence of actual disruption, as opposed to disagreement, that an AE indef is justified. Being on the wrong side of consensus over and over is not by itself grounds for a ban. Loki (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support overturn indef. It seems clear that Sennalen edits in good faith, and I don't see an argument for supporting an indef, or any ban really, because of perceived 'time sink' or 'polite pov pushing'. These characterizations are almost entirely subject to the POV of the beholder. Also, I will note that the crux of this appeal isn't "I'll be better in the future", it's an argument that she never deserved the indef in the first place. Bypassing her arguments and assuming she definitely did something block-worthy and then going on to take issue with the perceived defensive tone and lack of apologies, and quoting that as a reason to support indef, seems like an absolute non-argument to me. JoeJShmo^💌 01:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per S Marshall. --JBL (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Crypto General Sanctions Review

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

---

General sanctions including 1RR and ECR were put in place by the community on all pages with content relating to blockchains and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, in May of 2018, in this discussion. Disruption and general interest in the area seems to have decreased significantly since then. Should the sanctions be lessened, completely removed, or stay the same?

• As the proposer, I support lessening the restrictions to auto-confirmed removing the sanctions completely. Per the block log at WP:GS/CRYPTO, there have only been 3 bans/blocks in the past 4 years, compared to 22 in 2018 and 18 in 2019. The sensationalist aspect of crypto seems to have passed, and if it happens to return it the future, sanctions can be discussed at that time.JoeJShmo^💌 23:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure about the extended-confirmed restriction? While the linked closure does refer to "WP:ARBPIA-equivalent" sanctions and some pages have been extended-confirmed protected in response, a topic-wide extended-confirmed restriction never really existed nor was asked for in the discussion as far as I can see. There is thus no way to lessen something that doesn't exist, and "lessening the restrictions to auto-confirmed" would add a restriction.

I'm fine with removing the 1RR as I personally didn't see it as helpful in practice. Someone comes and writes something promotional, is reverted and reverts the revert: all allowed. And then the removal may not be re-done? That just hurts recent changes patrollers rather than advertisers. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Although not every article has the protection in place (although such protection is warranted under the current sanctions), there are a number of articles that are under ECR because of this sanction, and the discussion is therefore relevant. I do agree with you that the sanctions should just be removed completely in light of the fact that most articles in the space aren't even auto-confirmed protected– good point. JoeJShmo^💌 07:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Those would be page level sanctions if logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. As I understand it, removing the general sanctions will not lift the protection for any of these pages since WP:ECP is a valid form of protection for any page nowadays. The only difference is it will allow the protection to be lifted or reduced by any admin instead of only by or with the permission of the protecting admin, or after discussing here. Note I'm fairly sure this already applies to any page where it isn't logged on the general sanctions page (and isn't protected under some other CTOP, general sanctions or other process), the protection there is not under the general sanctions system therefore is just an ordinary ECP. To be clear, this also means if there is any page protected under general sanctions, where any editor feels ECP is no longer justified, there is no need to lift the GS system for the removal or reduction of the protection. Instead they can ask the protecting admin, or open a discussion here, about that particular page. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There is one other difference between CTOP/GS ECPs and regular ECPs, which is that the latter can only be done if semi-protection hasn't worked. At least in theory. I'm not sure how often that rule is followed anymore. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Argh, mobile diffs! Those are my kryptonite. Anyway, I'd oppose lifting the mild restrictions, such as they are, in the absence of evidence that they're doing any harm.—S Marshall T/C 08:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  What brought this to my attention was a particularly long edit request posted by a user on one of the ECR pages. I wouldn't call it 'harm' exactly, but keeping sanctions in place does have the effect of newer editors being unable to edit that area, so if there's no good reason for the sanctions they end up just being a waste of other editors' time. JoeJShmo^💌 09:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  If you're talking about Talk:List of bitcoin companies#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2024, note that Special:Contributions/Domglu is not even confirmed [19]. Perhaps they would have made the 10 edits to earn auto-confirmed (the account was created back in 2017 but doesn't seem to have edited here until now), but I'm not sure how likely this is. And I'm unconvinced we want Talk:List of bitcoin companies to be unprotected whether the GS exists. I suspect semi-protection is the bare minimum for such a list as it will be a magnet for spam and good-faith but non-notable additions. So in that particular example, I'm not sure anything would be different with or without GS. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• I am happy to see some discussion of a community GS as I think the community would do well to periodically review its sanctions. In this instance, would prefer to see no blocks/bans for at least a couple of years in order to rescind and so I would be in favor of keeping the restrictions on Crypto/blockchains the same at this time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - cryptocurrency spam has not gone away. The reduction in spam is a sign of the sanctions working. MER-C 16:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note - JoeJShmo is currently blocked for 1 week for a topic-ban violation, unrelated to this discussion. As such, he will be unable to respond to comments here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - While it has diminished from its 2023 peak, there're still no shortage of people trying to prop up currencies to take "investors" for a ride, and Wikipedia pages would be a huge boon to those efforts. The increased vigilance is still necessary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose procedurally, an established editor can make this request but JJS has had trouble in other contentious areas and I don't think this is an area where it should be lowered so he can edit, which I assume is the unspoken behind this request. Star Mississippi 01:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Partially struck at subject's request, although I think this remains a bad idea. Star Mississippi 02:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Crypto promotion isn't going away while people think they can make money. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Scammers promoters of get rich quick schemes are still active in this topic area. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Appeal of a 6 year old topic ban on closing/relisting deletion discussions

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

---

I was indefinitely topic banned from closing/relisting any deletion discussions in February of 2018. Since it has been 6 years since the topic ban was enacted, and the enforcing admin said I could appeal in 3-6 months, I would like to appeal my topic ban long after that time. I have gained a lot more experience on AFD policy in that time through observation, and don't plan on closing any non-SNOW/speedy discussions. My focus is almost entirely on RC, edit filter, and new page patrol now, so to be honest, I just want a clean slate after so much time even though I don't plan on closing many (if any) AfDs. Jdcomix (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Convenience link to the ban discussion: [20]. I note Jdcomix has been around for quite a while, took a hiatus from 2021, and has returned to active editing 2 months ago. I feel quite comfortable wiping his slate clean via a formal unban, given his assurances above. I'd also suggest that if he does any NAC at all, including crystal clear and appropriate ones, he go slow and start off doing one at a time. That would be good practice for any NAC, doubly so given his history here. Martinp (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• I took a look at their block log and discovered they've had exactly one block; by me, during the aforementioned discussion. I have zero recollection of the details. In any case, that was 6 years ago, which is a long time. Their user page says they are currently in college; without intending to pry into any private details of their life, most people in college are very different from the person they were 6 years previously. I can't see any reason to deny this request. RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support reasonable appeal and next steps. Star Mississippi 03:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support reasonable timeframe. Appears remorseful. Etc. Buffs (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support, per above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive User Lavalizard101

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

---

Lavalizard101 has for no reason started reverting edits I have made. Mostly page merges and seems inclined to get involved in revert battles. Zigismon (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

further this user gives no reasons for the reverts. Zigismon (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Where have you attempted to discuss this with them, as advised by WP:BRD? --JBL (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You have not made any attempt to speak to Lavalizard101 about the reverts. I would suggest instead of going to a noticeboard, you speak to them first. Conyo14 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Eches0's file uploads

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

---

• Eches0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Eches0 is a newly created account that looks to have uploaded 300+ files today alone without any kind of information about their provenance or copyright status. This is probably just a good-faith misunderstanding of WP:IUP, but the number of files is so great it might take time to sort them all. Perhaps an admin could ask Eches0 stop uploading files at least until they've gotten a better understanding of file copyright licensing and relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

While I was posting this, Ingenuity blocked Eches0 as a sock, so I guess that means notifying them of this discussion is no longer needed. There's still a incredible amoount of tiles though that need to be dealt with, and perhaps they could all just be speedily deleted per WP:F9 or WP:G5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried mass deleting them all per G5, but it crashed, I assume because there were 300+ files because Ingenuity got to them first. I'll leave it for someone with more technical skills (or a better computer). Floquenbeam (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

sigh, fuzzy headed tonight. It now appears Ingenuity and I both deleted some. So I'm not a total waste of space tonight. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Nuke is not working super well... after giving lots of errors, it looks like we both managed to delete the same page at the same time? —Ingenuity (t • c) 02:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Double secret deletion. I wonder if you'd have to undelete it twice? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Floquenbeam and Ingenuity. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Undo

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

---

please undo this [21] and [22], this is vandalism, thanks  Rafael Ronen  09:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I see IP vandalizing this article seriously, need to undo to February 10, 2022  Rafael Ronen  09:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done and revision-deleted. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite: thanks  Rafael Ronen  01:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

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

LTA attacking noticeboards

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

---

Not sure who it is, but there is a very persistent LTA attacking our noticeboards with constantly changing IP addresses. I've blocked a half dozen or more and protected a number of the targeted boards. Unfortunately, it is getting a bit late where I am and I need some sleep. Extra eyes would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

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

No action taken on stockpuppet and vandal User:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya

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

---

NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya

• This account is a sockpuppet of User: Kairakairav, who has a history of adding factually incorrect information on WP: Hinduism articles by making 100s of sockpuppets.
• They gets banned everytime for vandalism, despite attempts made by other users to guide them.
• However, they make another account and continue the same type of vandalism.
• This cycle has been in continuation for more than a year.
• Like previous sockpuppets, Kairakairav has returned as NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya and constantly irritating users by adding "fanfics", replacing the well sourced info from articles like Kunti, Pandu, Eklavya, Madri, Sahadeva, Yudhishthira, Nakula and many more.
• I had opened an stockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kairakairav but no action has been taken even after 3 weeks.
• Earlier User: Redtigerxyz had reported this user at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161#User:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya, but it was archived without any action taken.

.245CMR.•^👥📜 06:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Request to start a page

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

---

I request permission to create a page, Thulani Victor Mbuyisa, a Roman Catholic bishop in South Africa. I thank you. SiniyaEdita (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see Help:Your first article. All the best, Miniapolis 22:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

A "first article" page is not relevant here (the user then requested assistance at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit where the request was removed with a suggestion to "try the Article wizard" in the edit summary). The reason an article or draft could not be created is because of the title blacklist: .*thula.*(victor|makhubu).* # Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nokuthula27 - it looks like this could be changed to .*thula.*(victori|makhubu).* # Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nokuthula27. Peter James (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at these sockpuppets in 2020, it looks like they were all focused on creating an article for a South African model, Thula victorious, I'm not sure how this other page title got caught up in this title blacklist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@SiniyaEdita: I have made the change to the Title Blacklist proposed by Peter. You should be able to create the page now. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

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

AIV backlog

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

---

There is currently a huge backlog at AIV, with 29 comments and multiple LTA reports that need dealt with. Jdcomix (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hacking away at it. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Jdcomix (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Histmerge

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

---

Could an admin perform a histmerge of Wikipedia:Robert Dell (Engineer) and Robert Dell (engineer)?

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I s'pose. —Cryptic 22:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

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

This user is abusive Materialscientist

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

---

I tried editing a page and he said no that there was no links provided but i did explain to that person i provided links. Viking Fox Queen (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You are meant to notify users if you start a discussion about them. This is NOT OPTIONAL. I have now notified User:Materialscientist here.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Very difficult for Materialscientist to abuse anybody, considering he has an... inexemplary track record for communication, shall we say. SerialNumber54129 13:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Backlog

There is a tremendous backlog of RD1 requests. I just thought I'd drop a note. Scorpions1325 (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Russell Brand revdel request

Diff (admins only)

-thx Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, an edit like that deserves an indef block and revdel. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:IronMike6#Indefinite block. El_C 11:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Wikieditor662

So after this thread advising this editor to slow down and not to jump into Wikipedia's deepest waters , Wikieditor662 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) took it upon themselves to create a good article review and pass a page as a good article. Enough is enough; Wikipedia does not have the time or resources to deal with such rank incompetence. I'd do the indefblock myself but I'm far too involved. Pinging those involved in the previous discussion: @Lemonaka, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Gerda Arendt, Usedtobecool, Softlavender, Aza24, Super Goku V, GhostOfDanGurney, Robert McClenon, and Just Step Sideways:. Also see their aborted arbitration request, which is just another piece of weirdness from this user. I was beginning to be more inclined to assume good faith with them but now I'm not so sure. I started this discussion here per the guidance in the banning policy; if I should have made it a subsection of the previous ANI discussion, or something else, then feel free to move/reformat it as required. Graham87 (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC) P.s. the article in question is Nimm von uns, Herr, du treuer Gott, BWV 101; here's a video of the work (uploaded by the copyright owner), which would make excellent accompanying music for any Wikipedia editing in my opinion. Graham87 (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I find it interesting that this was the first time they edited the article in question, so far as I can tell. It was right after Gerda Arendt's GA nomination of the article. Kinda thinking that they followed them to that article. Might have been in good faith, but this is still disruptive. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've checked and Gerda did mention the article on Wikieditor662's talk page. Graham87 (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah gotcha. At least that clears up how they got there. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support but I do believe in the good faith enough to prefer a WP:BANLENGTH in this case. I hate to be so quick on WP:CIR, but this editor appears to be so determined to dive into the deep end, despite a lot of feedback advising them to slow down, that I think they have to be forbidden from swimming in the pool for the time being. Hopefully they will take swimming lessons during the sojourn.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've done very little GA-stuff myself, so I'm not the one to judge how weird this is. My first guess would be they followed the "Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page." at Talk:Nimm von uns, Herr, du treuer Gott, BWV 101. If the nomination page was out of sync with Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Reviewing I can't say. BUT in GENERAL, I wouldn't recommend GA-reviewing to someone who started editing in July. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. It is hard not to conclude, after all the month-long disruption, time-wasting, and innocence/ignorance-feigning that has transpired, and now this, that we are not being massively trolled. Even were we not being trolled, this editor would need a CIR ban for being a net negative. Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Ugh! I will take another look at this when there is daylight in Eastern North America and when I should be awake. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose at this point. WE editor made their first edit in early July, - it's not months long. It was to a list of composers. I noticed WE with the idea to make Bach a featured article, and thought they have no idea. Next thing I noticed was wanting to write the legacy of Beethoven, and I thought who do they think they are? Then came the idea to link that list of composers, and to link it from the word "composers". This breaks both WP:Overlink (composers is a common word, and needs no link at all} as WP:EASTEREGG (a link should go to the expected subject, not some list, even if it is an informative list). I have begun conversation about this topic on WE's talk, and would like to continue. Overnight, they declared an article I had nominated for GA, a Good article. This is nonsense, of course, but I can see that they might have thought "good article" just means one editor reads it and thinks it's good. Summary: I see a new editor with (too) high ideas, (too) convinced that their ideas are better than what experienced editors have told them, - can these problems change, that is the question, but I think a ban is not the answer. I'd ask WE if they see a chance to change the problematic attitude and to listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a really common pattern. You get an enthusiastic new editor who wants to contribute to Wikipedia but doesn't know what specifically to work on. They don't get the hint that what they're supposed to do is work on content or low-profile maintenance backlogs while they gain experience. Instead they take "anyone can edit" a bit too literally and jump in at the deep end, and more often than not end up blocked. But to be fair, we do say the anyone can edit, and they can see that experienced editors flit between ANI and ARC and GA with no problems. It isn't unreasonable to try and follow that model and not everyone is equally able to read between the lines of policies and guidelines. I'm not saying this isn't disruptive, but like Gerda I'd really like to find a more constructive way of dealing with this pattern. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gerda's reasoning. And I'd also like to hear from Wikieditor662 before the ban hammer is dropped. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for your time.

The good article nomination writes that "The nomination may be reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article." I did overlook the part that says "If you are not a significant contributor to the article, secure the consent of the significant contributors before nominating." However, the part that seems to be the problem is that I'm a month old account doing this, but it's confusing as nowhere did I find it saying you have to be very experienced to review good articles. Why is that? Also, I don't understand what was wrong with my nomination, as I did follow the criteria and it passed all of it.

Even though I don't agree with every accusation, from everyone's comments it seems that I have wasted much of people's time, and I deeply apologize for that. Timesinking or trolling is not at all my intention and I just want the best for Wikipedia. If a ban on me is necessary, then I understand. I am very ambitious and I guess this is causing damage. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Unblock

Why did you block me? Hippobunny123 (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If you posted here, you are not blocked, unless you created this account to post here, thus evading your block. 331dot (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This was their only edit. They did create the account to post here. Who are they? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

CU shows nothing. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Tell us who you are and what you did. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Block request

Posting here because AIV is currently protected, but DK1964 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is very obviously WP:LTA/D86 continuing to block-evade, see [23], [24], and [25]. Please do not protect that last page as it functions as a honeypot to see which IP ranges they use frequently enough to be worth blocking, and as an obscure userpage it does not matter if it stays vandalized for a few weeks or even months. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:641C:8D6D:8AF:85B9 (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)