Contents

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:32, 23 May 2024

COVID-19 pandemic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

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

Notified: User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion

Reasoning: The closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. #1 closer ignored roughconsenus pointing to "the discursive failures that occurred in this RfC." #2 the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred to Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Discussion in which I stated ""Controversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China.[34]" Note that no editor made an RS claim in the discussion on the oppose side, thus the closer seems to have improperly summarized the discussion and rather than summarizing instead pointing to his own view of lack of RS, MEDRS, and discursive failures (none of which were not discussed in the RFC). When I sought to discuss the close with the closer on their talk page, the closer instead failed to WP:AGF stating "I know it wouldn't be as personally satisfying" and going on to say "we may sometimes feel shorted if our comments aren't recognized." Note, I had not been asking the editor why my "comments aren't recognized", I instead asked the editor to justify their own novel claim that no RS were provided in the RFC. #3 eventually the closer goes on to contradict themselves apparently stating "As already noted in the close, the RfC should have been an easy consensus close to strike #14" as if some procedural failure in the RFC didnt gain such consensus, I suppose pointing the editors vague claim of "discursive failures," rather than the very succinct explanations of many of the editors that participated in the RFC. In summary, the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus, instead suggesting that the RFC be run again and explained "I've reviewed it and decline to reverse." The discussion with closer (and additional information) can be found User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close. I adding it here as something is amiss with the template link above, maybe due to the closer archiving their talk page recently. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved (COVID19)

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

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

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

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

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

• Overturn This seems to be a clear supervote and WAY outside what reliable sources state. At this point, any restriction on this viable theory is political in nature and feels very much like the last vestiges of clinging to "no, I can't possibly be wrong". Buffs (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Although I don't agree with the restriction, the close is with what could be considered reasonable given the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• That's the whole discussion? I was expecting it to be longer when I clicked through. At this point, the close note plus this AN thread combined seem like they are far longer than the actual RfC. The whole thing seems really weird to me, frankly -- why do we have a box proclaiming itself to be "current consensus" if all the stuff in it is four years old? jp×g🗯️ 14:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I would probably have closed it differently. The reference to WP:NOTCENSORED is quite a compelling policy-based argument that wasn't rebutted for example. It's also worth remembering NOTAVOTE is an essay, not a guideline or policy, although the ROUGHCONSENSUS guideline does say "Consensus is not determined by counting heads". However the fact I would have come to a different conclusion isn't sufficient reason to overturn the close; for that we'd need to demonstrate the conclusion the closer came to is unreasonable, and I don't think it is. WaggersTALK 14:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, this is byzantine. Overturn. If there is no consensus about whether a consensus exists, then no consensus exists, and the statement saying a consensus exists should be removed as wrong. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• That RfC is probably one of the shortest (and most concise) I've ever seen. And I would have reached a different conclusion after spending just 5 minutes reading all the comments. A double-vote was not correctly identified and discounted. Closer wrote much more than every participant in the discussion to justify their stance, giving an appearance of a supervote. That's a clear Overturn. I echo what has been said about shutting down the current RfCs based on previous RfC from 6 months ago. The whole virus is only 4 years old. That means (checking my math) it has been more than 1/8 of the virus' entire history since the newest RfC was created after the last one. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakly overturn I feel Compassionate727's argument somewhat compelling. While we normally require a clear consensus to establish a new consensus and it its absence stick with the status quo ante, in this case since we were simply removing a documented current consensus, the lack of consensus should be enough to remove it. I have felt this for a while but didn't say anything because I hadn't looked at the discussion. Having done so I see that was actually another recent RfC. In the scheme of things, 6 months since the previous somewhat better attended discussion is a relatively short length of time. It's well accepted that those wishing to make a change cannot just keep making new RfCs until they wear everyone down and get their result due to non-participation. If the previous RfC had found a consensus to keep 14, I would have supported keeping FAQ item 14 but since it also found no consensus, IMO it seems clear this should just be removed due to the lack of consensus for something said to be the current consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That said, I'm only coming to this weakly since I also agree with those who've said the whole thing is a silly exercise. Rather than continuing to have these fairly pointless RfCs, it would be better to just start an RfC on some proposed change to the article which would go against RfC 14. If this succeeds, 14 will be overturned implicitly. If not, then even if technically 14 may have no consensus, since there was no consensus to add anything, who cares? Talk pages aren't for chit-chat and until there is consensus to add something the fact that there may simply be no consensus to add something rather than consensus against something doesn't matter. And if editors are able to provide compelling reasons for some addition then some FAQ item which has been through 2 RfCs with no consensus is not going to stop it. That said, this is one area where I disagree with the closer. Unfortunately all this means it's probably a bad idea to start an RfC so soon. It starts to become disruptive when editors keep having RfCs for the reasons I've mentioned. So I'd suggest this unfortunate series of RfCs means it would be best to wait at least 6 months before anyone tries to come back to this. Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For clarity, when starting an RfC on some proposed change to the article in violation of 14, it would be advisable to acknowledge 14 and say this will also strike it down; or something like that. But the point is the focus of the RfC should be on some real change to the article rather than just changing what the current consensus says. IMO it's also fine to workshop an RfC on some proposed change in violation of 14 and would oppose any attempts to prevent that because of 14. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-of any particular importance comment) I don't think I could adequately describe how much I am sick of this issue being raised (not sick with COVID though!) Remove it, leave it, whatever... as long as we don't have another one any time soon. On the latest discussion, I don't see any consensus either way. I will note that Lights and freedom (talk · contribs) is apparently now CU blocked as of 26 days ago though, which would not be information that was available at the time of close. (I suppose I should also note I read WINC narrowly, which I see was mentioned in the previous RfC close, and thus do not find it compelling in the context which it is used) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Involved (COVID19)

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

• A belief that (a) ROUGHCONSENSUS is a synonym for Referendum, and, (b) consensus was achieved by process of majority vote.
  Intheir request for review on my Talk page, the challenger invoked WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to repeatedly demand the RfC be treated as a referendum or plebiscite and reversed on the apparent basis that the "count" [1]of"votes" [2] (6-4 in favor of the RfC - though challenger claimed it was 7-1 [3] somehow) favored the RfC proposal.
  I repeatedly counseled challenger that this was WP:NOTAVOTE, pointing to our WP:CONSENSUS policy which explicitly describes that a simple majority does not represent the "sense of the community" described by ROUGHCONENSUS in the absence of strength of policy-based argument. The challenger appeared non-plussed by this. Here, challenger goes on to again advance the false premise that "the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus", based on their insistent belief that consensus was achieved by a simple majority headcount.
• A belief that it's the closer's duty to engage in textual analysis of sources presented across the project and the zeitgeist, rather than arguments made in the RfC.
  The challenger writes that "the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred"
  This, again, appears to be a severe misunderstanding of the close by the challenger. RS was mentioned merely as part of the closer's formulary recitation of facts and summary of arguments made which is a customary and perfunctory part of the close. Nothing involving "RS" was part of the close rationale. (Nor is it the responsibility of the closer to evaluate the alleged "hundreds" of RS. Closes occur based on strength of policy-based argument, not the closer's independent and original evaluation of source material.)
• A belief that geopolitical factors must be taken into account in closing RfCs.
  The challenger explained in the RfC, on my Talk page, and now here, that "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." as an example of an unrebutted argument, apparently in the belief that the lack of rebuttal to this assertion tips the scale in favor of the RfC. But the RfC is the place to argue the application of WP policy. The state of Sino-American relations is completely irrelevant to the application of WP policy.
• A belief that an (alleged) lack of social grace afforded to an editor is cause to overturn a close.
  The challenger explains "the closer instead failed to WP:AGF" in his discussion with the challenger, nested as part of their appeal to overturn. Accepting, for sake of argument, that I did fail to AGF in a discussion on my Talk page with the challenger, failure to AGF in a Talk page discussion is not a rational cause to overturn a close. Closes are overturned due to some failure of the close itself, not as a sanction against the closer when we believe we were not treated with the deference we feel we deserve.

As I repeatedly said, this should have been an easy RfC to pass. Policy (and, frankly, reality) favored it. But those policies were never argued by the participants. For the closer to invoke his independent awareness of policy would be a WP:SUPERVOTE and, moreover, completely unfair as it would deny the opposing side the opportunity to rebut. I suggested to the challenger that if they were to rerun the RfC and remedy the significant defects in their first attempt it would almost certainly pass. They appear to be disinterested in doing that. Chetsford (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This response by the closer is further astray:

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

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

"the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus" I'll just note again, here, that this is a furiously repeated statement based on a false premise. As I have explained many times, there was no consensus to ignore. That's why the RfC closed as "no consensus" (versus "consensus for"or"consensus against"). I appreciate your view that your "count" [sic] [4] of the "vote" [sic] [5] led you to believe the 6 of 10 editors in favor of your RfC constituted a consensus, however, as detailed in our policy WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not determined by plebiscite and your RfC was not a referendum. I sincerely regret if you were under a different impression.
"RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy" Sure, you aren't "required" to present policy-based argument, but by your decision not to do so, you ended up with the result you got here. Please see WP:NHC: "... after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue ... [if] discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". Chetsford (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which editors made arguments that you felt met this criteria "after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" and why? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are these "/current_consensus" pages even real?

• The more I think about this whole "official talk page current consensus box" thing, the weirder it gets. Since when do we have a policy or procedure for keeping a set of officially-determined statements about article consensus... on the talk page of an article... separate from actual consensus on the article? And then we have to have separate discussions to change the "official consensus" thing on the talk page, versus just the article? I don't see anything about it in any of our policies or guidelines; I am looking through some talk pages, each of which I know to be a zoo, and seeing if they have anything like this. So far it's a "no" for Talk:Israel–Hamas war, Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign), Talk:Race and intelligence. A title search says that there are, apparently, only thirteen of these pages on the whole site. The first was at Talk:Donald Trump, which seems to have been unilaterally created by one admin in 2017. What in tarnation are these? Are these binding over actual article consensus or actual talk page consensus? jp×g🗯️ 15:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

  For pages that have had a lot of RFCs, they are basically a history of RFC results for that page. Here's some other ones. I see nothing wrong with documenting RFC results and consensuses this way. It makes it more organized. The proper way to change an item that has been RFC'd before is to RFC it again. And then we have to have separate discussions to change the "official consensus" thing on the talk page, versus just the article? Normally I think one would change both the current consensus and the article content at the same time (to reflect the result of a new RFC). The two seem clearly linked to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to side with JPxG on this. This is layered bureaucracy designed to get a consensus and then have it apply in perpetuity. The fact that it was applied first with Trump and now with COVID should be an indicator that there are other factors at play (a.k.a. "Fact checking"). Buffs (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree too, it's instruction creep of the worst kind. This kind of thing should be in the WP namespace as a formal policy or guideline. It's no wonder people fall foul of these pseudo-regulations if they're spread all over the place in talk subpages. If an RfC finds consensus to make a guideline, make it a proper one. WaggersTALK 08:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Aren't these current consensus templates just a list of RFC results though? A list of RFC results doesn't ring any alarm bells for me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It depends what the RfC is for. If it's to establish a rule like "don't mention the theory that COVID-19 might have originated in a lab" then that's a guideline and should be published as such. WaggersTALK 08:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess it depends on scope. Guidelines like that go beyond a single article. Others might just be consensus for what one particular article should say, in which case it's fine that they stay on the talk page. But that sort of consensus only reflects that moment in time, so doesn't necessarily need to be kept for posterity. In short, we can't have it both ways. Either it's a "moment in time" decision or it's a lasting guideline. WaggersTALK 08:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And sometimes the so called "consensus" is just two people agreeing, yet it's treated like a commandment forever more (often by the same two people). The Trump list is like RSP: start clicking through the links and you'll find a bunch of the entries are BS. The lab leak one is another example where "documented consensus" -- aka the opinion of strong minded editors -- failed to keep up with RSes and actually impeded Wikipedia writing an accurate summary of current scholarship on the subject. Havana syndrome is another example. Pentagon UFOs also IIRC. Same with policy/guideline FAQs. Sometimes it's good to establish and document consensus, but also those tools or processes get abused by folks who want to use them to assert consensus rather than document it. Levivich (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. This is why I think this kind of thing needs to either become actual guidelines, or not be kept at all. Discussions about genuine policies and guidelines tend to attract a fair bit more community scrutiny and stop rubbish like this getting through. WaggersTALK 13:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think to some extent this happens because people want others to read the previous discussions and not cause massive time sinks. Talk:Twitter has an FAQ section where 8 move discussions are linked, for example. Obviously consensus can change but I don't think that mentioning previous consensus where there's been strong editor participation (not a two person decision like Levivich mentioned) is a bad idea in itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh absolutely. I occasionally do a bit of work on British Isles and related articles and the same conversation happening time and time again about the name of the island group (or even whether it is a group) is mind-numbingly dull. Probably the biggest problems in the COVID case are (1) the original consensus was a very local one and (2) some editors are treating it as set in stone when it absolutely isn't. WaggersTALK 07:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But it's a local consensus on a local issue. If editors were trying to say that based on this consensus you cannot add the lab leak to any article that would be a problem. Likewise if editors were saying this local consensus overrides some wider consensus. But this is simply documenting a historic consensus established on the talk page of the one and only page it applies to. And it's documenting it on that same talk page basically. (I mean yes it technically derives from a subpage but it's intended for the talk page.) And there's no wider consensus that comes into play. So the local consensus issue is a red-herring here IMO. (As I said above, I find it weird we have a current consensus which isn't a consensus so would support removing it for that reason, but that's unrelated to it being a local consensus.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm unconvinced your claim about Havana syndrome is accurate. AFAICT, there has never been a current consensus documented on the talk page [7] Talk:Havana syndrome/Current consensus. I'm aware of how controversial it's been in recent times, but my impression and I had a quick look at Talk:Havana syndrome which seems to affirm my belief that the discussion has primarily about whether the recent reports are of sufficient quality to be mentioned in the article and where and how WP:MEDRS applies. In terms of discussions over consensus, I see repeated claims there is consensus to add stuff based on the recent reports (which clearly can only be referring to a recent consensus) as well as discussions about there being consensus for MEDRS etc and people imploring others to gain consensus before making changes to avoid blocks and page protection (i.e. not necessarily because there was existing consensus they needed to override but because as always when there is dispute there needs to be discussion rather than edit-warring). Oh and there are also mentions of alleged consensuses outside of wikipedia e.g. a scientific consensus or medical consensus. In other words, this is a fairly typical highly charged disputed involving stuff some editors feel is fringe and the sourcing making certain claims are insufficient, and where others disagree. It may very well be correct that the anti-fringe editors often have the "upper-hand", so to speak, for various reasons but this is not because of any specific claims about a documented consensus other than MEDRS itself (for which there clearly is consensus even if not in it's application to any specific case). Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're fine to have FAQ-style lists of common things people bring up.

NOTE: The following is a fictitious example meant to illustrate a general point that applies to all Wikipedia content equally, and is not intended to be an analogy, endorsement or condemnation or any political subjects, activities, lifestyles or worldviews.

Led Zeppelin IV actually wasn't released with an official title, so some people call it "Untitled (Led Zeppelin album)"; if we had some RfC about what to call it, but people keep showing up to ask about it eight times a week regardless, it makes sense to have a little talk page header saying "this title was decided on by XYZ discussion in 20XX". I think the main thing lacking justification is the idea that the talk-page summary header becomes a thing in itself -- e.g. that people argue that something should or shouldn't be done on the basis of what it says in the header, rather than the actual discussions themselves. Maybe a useful litmus test (a hypothetical statement concerning a thing that I do not claim to be the case) is to imagine that some random person makes a page at Talk:Moon/Current consensus that says "The article MUST say that the Moon is made of cheese" -- what happens? I feel like what should happen is that nobody cares, and we all go about our business, and edits to the article are made based on what sources say, etc. jp×g🗯️ 02:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there is that it discourages good editing practices such as WP:BRD, WP:SOFIXIT, and WP:NORULES. "The science discussion on this is settled" is the governing statement.

I find it completely ridiculous that we have a discussion result no one is willing to overturn due to bureaucracy despite

1. a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin
2. literally hundreds of reliable sources
3. the actual article which has it there in spite of the consensus
4. even if you don't agree with it, you have to admit that it is possible or at least a widespread theory and its exclusion from the COVID-19 article is a disservice to what reliable sources state.

Some Admin needs to step up and say "enough." Who is going to be brave enough to do what is right? Buffs (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You sound pretty confident that the current consensus is wrong. If so, wouldn't it be easy to just RFC it again and get it changed? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC shouldn't be necessary; it's unnecessary bureaucracy. The article already has the consensus to include it. Buffs (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: I don't really understand your point 1. There's nothing in FAQ 14 which stops us mentioning what the general public believe is the most likely origin i.e. that it came from an animal of some sort through natural means. (In such much as the is a general consensus, probably over 50% of the world haven't really thought about it any any great deal.) FAQ 14 only stops us mentioning what a small minority of the public believe is most likely i.e. that it came from a lab. There may or may not be merit to mention what this small minority of the public believe but there's absolutely nothing stopping us mentioning the general consensus of the public of the most likely origin i.e. that it came from an animal through some natural means. Since this confuses you, we would consider re-wording it although I'm not entirely sure how you could confuse "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article" into somehow affecting us mentioning the most common belief by the general public i.e. that it came from an animal through some natural means. Nil Einne (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Let's start with FAQ 14's verbiage: "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article." This means that, according to the "consensus" that was reached 4 years ago and bare months after the virus started, we cannot even mention the theory that COVID had a manmade origin. Even if you still wear a mask (despite ZERO supporting evidence that it does anything significant against the most current strains of the virus) and ample evidence that there are deleterious effects to social development, you have to admit that there are a lot of people who believe it. Including the following entities who admit it has a
   • US Department of Energy: "Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic"
   • FBI: "Covid-19 'most likely' originated in a 'Chinese government-controlled lab'"
   • US National Intelligence: "All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident"
2. "only stops us mentioning what a small minority of the public believe is most likely" You might want to get out of your own circles a bit more. None of these are a "small minority. They are, at worst, a sizable minority and, at best, a solid majority:
   • US public opinion: "66% of Americans — including 53% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans — say it is definitely or probably true that the COVID-19 virus originated from a lab in China...Nearly two years ago, a May 29 - June 1, 2021 poll found that nearly as many Americans — 59% — believed the lab-leak theory was definitely or probably true"
   • UK Scientific Opinion "...more than a quarter think the pandemic leaked from a Chinese lab"
3. "Since this confuses you..." There's no confusion. You're being condescending and casting aspersions I would expect an admonishment from an admin.

Buffs (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, I remember the discussion earlier this year about "Consensus 37" at the Trump article. This RFC from five years ago with an 8-3 vote is still the law of the article despite being obviously outdated because it's about "Content related to Trump's presidency" which ended three years ago. Levivich (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Pretty much all of these should be shitcanned. Editors do not get to form a little clique and vote themselves a preferred consensus to be preserved in amber forever. Jtrainor (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing I will say is IMO it might be helpful if we establish somehow that when we have these current consensus FAQs, a no-consensus outcome in a well attended RfC would be enough to remove them. However also that most of the time, such RfCs are ill-advised since it would be better to propose some specific change that would be in violation of the current consensus. (An exception might be broader current consensuses like consensus 37 mentioned by Levivich above.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently a member of the following five groups: autoconfirmed users, extended confirmed users, pending changes reviewers, rollbackers and users. Last one's redundant, of course. Would I be able to get the first 4 removed, so that my account has no special permissions? Thank you in advance. (If autoconfirmed/extended confirmed can't be removed, just get rid of the rollback & pending changes designations.) -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed pending changes reviewer and rollbacker but kept extended confirmed as the latter is not so much a special permission but a recognition of experience and commitment. It could be removed if you want, but I don't think it would automatically return. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, extendedconfirmed is granted automatically upon an account meeting the requirements, but only at that point. If the permission is removed manually it will not be re-granted automatically, but can be requested at WP:PERM. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making those changes. If it's possible, though, could you get rid of the other 2 permissions as well (autoconfirmed/extended confirmed)? That should be all, once that's done. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled extended confirmed. Autoconfirmed cannot be removed. Looks like I originally granted you rollback a decade ago! Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for making that final change. It's funny to hear that too - I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while but it's great to see the same people sticking around. Hope you're doing alright. Take care. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm done dealing with nonsense like this [8]. If a promo article that ledes with statements like "...where contradictory forms bombard our thoughts and gazes." and is authored by an account that is probably a sock and was blocked as a "Spam / advertising-only account",[9] isn't G11 I'm in the wrong place. I've had my NPP flag removed,[10], and doubt I will continue contributing in anyway. @Bbb23: has won the game they've been playing with me, but it cost Wikipedia an editor. I'm well aware there is little concern about losing experienced editors, but eventually it will catch up with Wikipedia (and clearly is having an impact at AfC, AfD, and NPP).  // Timothy :: talk  17:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really quite confident Bbb23 is not trying to get rid of you. There are graceful ways to leave if you're sick of a place, but coming to AN on your way out the door just to blame it on one person who disagrees with you on the definition of a G11 isn't one of them. Hope you find some peace and come back in a better frame of mind. You've done a lot of good work. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, I hope your absence isn't forever. I have taken two extended WikiBreaks during my 11 years here, the first for 6 months when I was a new editor and got into what seemed like a dispute that would never end (that editor left Wikipedia during my time away) and later for 2 years after some changing life circumstances. Both times I came back to Wikipedia renewed and ready to get to work. So don't say goodbye forever, if stress or ongoing conflicts are wearing you down, change your environment for a week, a month or several months. Come back after you have cleared your head and differences that could be driving you crazy now might not seem so catastrophic. But I agree with Floq, you've contributed a lot to Wikipedia and I'd hate if you slammed the door shut forever on your way out. Take care. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted this article as G11 (having been created by a spam SPA to boot), no comment on the other issues. jp×g🗯️ 03:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you salt it with the summary "Repeatedly recreated"? It was created once. DanCherek (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were two entries in the deletion log and one for the draftification, which looked like three, sorry I've unsalted. jp×g🗯️ 04:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, CSD is for uncontroversial deletion. The deletion is by definition controversial if someone has objected to it, admin or not. So, what you've done constitutes abuse of tools, sorry to say. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to open a DRV I can undelete the page, but: the article itself was slop, and it was such slop its creator was indeffed for spam, and Special:DeletedContributions/Sakshi.shah123 is nothing but slop. The AfD had 3+1 to speedy-delete and 2 to delete, so it seems like a completely foregone conclusion. jp×g🗯️ 04:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. Admins often do things I disapprove of that I let go because it does not matter much. Whether this article is deleted now or six days later does not matter much to me either. But since we are on the admin's noticeboard writing stuff that will be archived forever, I felt it important to point out that admins should not be speedily deleting pages where CSDs have already been declined, even by non-admins. In this case, it was a very experienced admin. Even in the AFD, there's a comment saying they want the AFD to proceed because it's not an obvious CSD case. If you're taking AFD votes into account, then perhaps you wanted to deleted under WP:SNOW, not WP:G11. I don't know if SNOW would be a good call but it would at least not be an unambiguous bad call like CSDing a page under the same criteria that's been declined before by another experienced editor. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: I do not want to comment on who is right or wrong here. I just want to say that we need you. Please do take some time off. Sometimes we all have to move on disagreements for the better of all. No shame in it. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask the community to remove or reduce the 1RR restriction imposed on me. I received 0RR on March 7, 2023 ([11]), this restriction was reduced to 1RR on July 3, 2023 ([12]), for appreciating my trouble-free editing history. On September 27, however, after my 2nd revert on the Povilas Plechavičius article, I received 0RR again ([13]). It was once again reduced to 1RR on November 29, 2023 ([14]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This user, @ScottishFinnishRadish has been making some rather strange edits today. In a discussion on one part of the current Israeli genocide, the user has removed a number of comments from a discussion because they disagree with my opinion on the topic. My comments, while impassioned, did not breach any of Wikipedia's guidelines. They have accused me of "attacks against other editors", for simply stating that being in support of the indiscriminate murder of children makes you a "sick, sick individual", which may be an opinion, but I think it should be a commonly held opinion.

They removed my comment, before closing the particular section off as a "tangent". Now, while I can appreciate closing it as a tangent, my comment should have remained, as it was posted before the section was closed, and there was no reason to remove it. I was then threatened on my talk page, before ScottishFinnishRadish made it abundantly clear that they support the murder of children by stating that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany was a bad thing? A reminder that my initial comment was on a discussion, and this follow up comment was on my own talk page. These are places where discussion is welcome, no?

To make things worse, ScottishFinnishRadish then abused their administrative privileges to have me immediately topic-banned, with no discussion. This is a heinous abuse of power, and is very clearly politically motivated. If they are accusing me of WP:BATTLEGROUND, then this is the same.

My comments did not attack anyone, I was condemning the actions of Israel and condemning anyone for supporting said actions - again, a reminder that these actions are the indiscriminate murder of thousands of children and civilians - we are not talking about something political here, this should be a black-and-white issue, knowingly, willingly and purposefully killing children is BAD. Why is that controversial?

Requesting my topic-ban to be lifted, requesting ScottishFinnishRadish to be sanctioned for abuse of their power, and requesting for my comments to be reinstated at the original discussion. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish made it abundantly clear that they support the murder of children. A wonder that I saw enough evidence of battleground editing and personal attacks to topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You had half a case and then you went and jumped the shark... "before ScottishFinnishRadish made it abundantly clear that they support the murder of children by stating" just no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, ScottishFinnishRadish Is a blatant antisemite. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know you're biased against Swedes from your name so that tracks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so this is all just a joke to you guys? Good to know. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between gallows humor and knitting besides the guillotine. Honestly yeah it is a little bit funny to me when someone is like "I didn't personally attack anyone" and then proceeds to grievously personally attack another editor... If you had been watching over my shoulder you should have heard me chuckle. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have recently indef blocked another account that said "Editor A supports rape and murder". is there any particular reason not to do so here? Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Editor A is removing any comment in a discussion condemning a mass rapist/murderer, then yeah, they probably support rape and murder? Are opinions not allowed in discussions on Wikipedia? I believe I missed that memo. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying an editor supports the rape and murder of children is a personal attack. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta draw the line somewhere and between "they support the murder of children" and "their argument supports the murder of children" seems like the least we can do... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban's clearly not having any effect at all, and forcing one's opinions on others is about as uncollegiate as it comes (the irony of appealing a TB imposed for a battleground approach with... a battleground approach). That's before the various breaches of NOTFORUM, civility etc (See their talk: comparing editors to thinking like Nazis and calling them "Zionist"?!)... WP:BOOMERANG applies. (FTR, when I started my post, the latest comment was six minutes earlier. ——Serial Number 54129 18:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so we're just going to ignore all of the valid points I've raised here because you're unhappy with my wording? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think get off my talk page, zionist [15] says a lot more about you than about SFR. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That reprehensible attack isn't "wording." It does show that a topic ban is necessary, and that a block for personal attacks is probably warranted as well. Acroterion (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Unhappy with my wording"?? You made an egregious personal attack against another editor, and are doubling down on it. Regardless of any other points, that can't be allowed to continue. Your question can easily be reframed back at you as "Okay, so you're just going to destroy your chance to make a case because you insist on making personal attacks?". After some thought, I'm blocking you indefinitely until we have assurances the personal attacks will stop, and the topic ban violations will stop until/unless the topic ban is removed. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Too slow. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like three of us EC'ed on indef'ing. These sorts of comment has no place on Wikipedia, and it is far from an isolated example of ABF, PA, and INCIVIL. The many comments jumping from disagreement about an edit to SYNTH of an editor's personal opinions are unacceptable either. It is all immediately disruptive and has no redeeming potential for improving our encyclopedia. But no prejudice against further discussion here and no need to consult me directly if others wish to alter this block in any way. DMacks (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone came onto Wikipedia and was openly in support of the Nazis on their talk page, in discussions, etc., you guys would be okay with this? In 20 years, we will look at the two regimes with the same disdain. My sentiments on the topic should be shared among normal people, surely.

My initial comment was NOT attacking anyone but the state of Israel itself. I see Israel the same way most people see the Nazis, they both have many similarities. Why is it that attacking one is absolutely fine, but attacking another is apparently a heinous crime? My comment was unjustly removed, and I'd like someone here to stop mocking the entire situation and give me a good explanation to why ScottishFinnishRadish's actions are not inappropriate? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better work on getting your topic ban lifted before you start with arguments like that, because that's all a blatant topic ban violation. Acroterion (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still no explanation for ScottishFinnishRadish's initial actions. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the first comment made by Davidlofgren that was removed on that page "To argue semantics is one thing, but if you personally genuinely believe that Israel is not committing a genocide in Gaza, you are a sick, sick individual." that is pretty much on the wrong side of the line that is a personal attack. It could have maybe been handled with a warning or redaction but removal and subsequent closure of that thread seemed reasonable. Doubling diwn on the comments here is making it worst for David and justified the SFR's actions. — Masem (t) 18:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright that's enough. Between the blatant topic ban violations, using Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and the repeated personal attacks, I've indef the OP here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was about to do that as well. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just wanted to take a moment to thank everyone for the quick resolution. It's appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically the page In lulz we trust, which is currently a redirect to Encyclopedia Dramatica. This page is a redirect from Encyclopedia Dramatica’s slogan, so I added the the corresponding redirect category, and this user keeps reverting this genuine contribution. I’ve notified him several times about this and he still reverted the contribution. Can something be done about this? Thanks, 2604:3D08:3682:4500:48B1:2A5:79A2:4F2E (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that APA apologized on their talk page[16], yet continued to revert the edit. I've restored it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! 2604:3D08:3682:4500:48B1:2A5:79A2:4F2E (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My sincerest apologies. I did not do any further research into the matter. I thought it was genuine vandalism. My apologies. Best, A Proud Alabamian (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

For those of you who don't read Tech News, this item should be of interest to many admins:

• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. [17]

RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note that we fixed a few other things at the recent Wikimedia Hackathon, which I documented at Wikipedia talk:Nuke#Improvements to Nuke. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Much appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one, or has the IP Information section of the contributions page for IPs become useless over the last two weeks? It was a really useful tool, especially for identifying block evasion and LTA editors, but right now it's generally a mass of "Not Available". Is there a known problem that's been identified anywhere that I'm not seeing? Or is it just me that's having an issue with it? Canterbury Tail talk 15:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a known issue and being investigated – see WP:VPT#IP Information tool and phab:T363118. Rummskartoffel 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you. I was looking on the wrong Village Pump. Canterbury Tail talk 15:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted about 5 years of history from Ubbi dubbi. I couldn't find any specific reason listed to justify it, so I guess it's WP:IAR. Noting it here for the record. RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettable, but if that link is to malware now, then it is also a link to malware everywhere in the history, and this is a good revdel. RD3 covers links to malware, though, IAR wasn't necessary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on both counts. For the record while it might be five years of history it was only 64 revisions, which on the whole isn't that "big" of an issue (in either sense of the word). Primefac (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how big a software change it would be, but I wonder how many people would be upset if links that are currently on the WP:SBL become unclickable. That is, readers just a see a bare URL in the text, and have to copy-paste it to the address bar. This time it was only 64 revisions. But what happens if some source that's been used in United States since the very beginning is hijacked and starts delivering malware? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it would be a good approach, though I also don't know how big of a change it would be. But it would be a more thorough method of obfuscating known malware links without having to hide large sections of page history. I think it would be a good idea if instead of removing the links they could point to some kind of warning page instead, so that users are warned what they are. If we just leave a plain URL without a link then someone's going to copy and paste it into their address bar. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's probably a better approach. One concern with either of these approaches might be performance. A typical edit might add one or two links to be checked against the blacklist, and the check only needs to be done once, at page save. But this would mean checking possibly hundreds of links, every time the page is parsed. It might be better to make this an option only for certain links, e.g. with a checkbox at Special:BlockedExternalDomains. Or even a separate "bad link list", similar to MediaWiki:Bad image list. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T365520

FWIW, I opened a security ticket on this. I'll be happy to add anybody with a phab account and a legitimate need for the details, but the gist is that this particular URL isn't in any of the malware databases the WMF uses, so whatever process we had in place probably wouldn't have caught it.

It might be useful to have some periodic background process which found every external link on the wiki (perhaps via an off-line database query or the XML dumps) and examined each one. But I don't know how you would determine if it was malware or not, and I suspect it would be a prohibitively expensive process. RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add me, please? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in way, way over my head, but wouldn't adding this site to the blacklist prevent people from clicking thru to the malware site? I think maybe it would even prevent you from saving a version of the page with the link in it? Then you could restore the history. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it only prevents saving. It's still possible to accidentally click on the link when viewing the old revision. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is to export the revisions to a file, modify that link, and then re-import. Of course this is a misrepresentation of what the past version were, but could disable the link and preserve others changes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that should ever be done, for any reason. If there's a diff saying that you did X, you did X, no questions asked. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, there's conflict between what the guideline WP:ELOFFICIAL recommends for hijacked/malware spreading official links, which is just hiding them until they are fixed, and what the policy WP:RD3 apparently recommends. Though I'm aware that the link in question was a translator link, and not an official link, so there was no reason not to remove it. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]