Compassionate727

This user has opted out of talkbacks

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: MarioGom
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

• Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year

• Interview: Interview on Wikimedia Foundation fundraising and finance strategy

• Special report: 19-page PDF accuses Wikipedia of bias against Israel, suggests editors be forced to reveal their real names, and demands a new feature allowing people to view the history of Wikipedia articles

• Op-Ed: Wikipedia in the age of personality-driven knowledge

• Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors

• News and notes: Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter ratified

• In the media: "For me it’s the autism": AARoad editors on the fork more traveled

• Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune

• Humour: Letters from the editors

• Comix: Layout issue

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

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

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Compassionate727,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Philipnelson99
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox person on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sulaiman Bek on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Your move closure

I see that you've closed the discussion on:

Edward V of England → Edward V

Edward IV of England → Edward IV

even though consensus was clearly not in favour. Would you please consider reverting your close? It appears to me to have little reasoning or valuation of the arguments behind it. Non-admins are advised against closing discussions where the outcome is likely to be controversial - see WP:BADNAC. Deb (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed this closure as well and was also surprised, since the discussion did not reach consensus. Like Deb, I would ask that you please consider reverting your non-admin closure. Thank you! ╠╣uw [talk] 10:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Deb and Huwmanbeing: The role of a closer is primarily to apply policies and guidelines and only secondarily to count votes. In this case, the guideline's prescription is clear: Medieval European monarchs should only include a territorial designation when necessary for disambiguation, and disambiguation is not necessary in either of these cases (indeed, there is nothing else to disambiguate from). Those who dislike this prescription should be seeking a consensus to change the guideline (or downgrade its status), rather than attempting to block changes that conform with it on individual articles. I stand by my closure; you may challenge it at move review if you wish. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Move review for Edward IV

An editor has asked for a Move review of Edward IV. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Deb (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Move review for Edward V

An editor has asked for a Move review of Edward V. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Deb (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Ahecht
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

• In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV

• News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law

• WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)

• Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users

• Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Closure of David III of Tao → David III

I applaud your approach to weigh the arguments depending on how well they are supported by policy. However, your closing decision here rests heavily on the following interpretation of the opposing argument:

the somewhat related [opposition] argument that the proposed titles were less recognizable was valid and weighty under policy

. This statement suggests you believe that WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is measured on some kind of continuum, where more recognizable is better than less recognizable, period. However, the RECOGNIZABILITY criteria is clearly specified as a threshold that must be met:

The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.

That is, a title that "is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize" meets the RECOGNIZABILITY criteria just as well as a title that is more recognizable to the public in general. The proposed titles all meet this criteria, there is no dispute about that, so RECOGNIZABILITY does not favor opposition.

Your closure also dismisses the supporting argument citing NCROY, because you claim NCROY "does not actually apply to Georgian monarchs (being Asian)". Although NCROY seems to limit its scope to European monarches by stating it is "intended to apply to medieval and modern European rulers and nobility", it also says: "Elsewhere, territorial designations [like “of Tao”] are usually unnecessary in article titles". Georgia is "elsewhere": therefore, per NCROY, "territorial designations are usually unnecessary". Opposition did not show why these titles should be exceptions that necessitate territorial designations in their titles.

Please reconsider your decision accordingly. -- В²C ☎ 04:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I want to acknowledge that I've seen this and the comments on the talk page but have been too busy the past couple of days to devote to these questions the attention they deserve. I will try to respond over there tomorrow. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel and apartheid and Talk:Barkley Marathons on "All RFCs" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Barkley Marathons on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Belligerents at Battle of Kosovo article

Hi, Compassionate727

Thank you for taking the time to close the RfC concerning the Battle of Kosovo infobox. As you may recall, the RfC concluded with the exclusion of Muzaka and Jonima from the article. However, their belligerents were also automatically included to the infobox when the leaders were first added. This practice has, of course, been applied consistently for all leaders and their respective belligerents in the infobox. If a leader is put into the infobox, so is their faction too.

While the focus of the RfC was primarily on the leaders themselves, it seems logical to extend the same rationale to their respective belligerents. Opening a new RfC specifically for the belligerents would be inefficient and time-consuming for everyone involved. Both the leaders and their belligerents were added simultaneously based on the same sources, and both instances conflict with MOS:INFOBOX.

Rather than initiating a separate RfC, I suggest it would be more efficient if you could share your opinion on the article's talkpage regarding belligerents (Talk:Battle of Kosovo § Belligerents). I'm asking you because you've already delved into the topic and gained some insights, and perhaps most importantly, you would serve as a third party. It appears that those who opposed the exclusion of the leaders are less cooperative when it comes to the removal of their belligerents, despite the fact that when they were added, they were added completely simultaneously.12

If you believe there are significant differences between the leaders and their belligerents that warrant another RfC, please inform me. I value your opinion regardless. Thank you.--Azor (talk). 15:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This is unacceptable, Azorzal. You have been blocked from editing this specific article for 3 months. Now, you're contacting someone who gave a ruling on this specific instance to remove content that you clearly don't like. You had the possibility, until now, to disguise this feeling with arguments, but what you're doing on this article is an anti-Albanian campaign. Everything "Albanian" should be removed from the article, and I can provide diffs if you want it that way to substantiate my claims. Compassionate727, you should be reminded to look at the history of reverts on the article Battle of Kosovo as well as on the talk page, it becomes clear for how long and specifically what content has been tried to be removed from certain people. AlexBachmann (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, AlexBachmann. If you believe removing the content is "anti-Albanian campaign", do you also believe the ones adding the content to have been running a "pro-Albanian campaign"? I am interested in the opinion of third parties to make sure that neutral editing is sustained on the Battle of Kosovo article. One might expect that someone running a nationalistic campaign wouldn't seek the input of uninvolved editors through, for example, a RfC, right? You're among those supporting the content's inclusion in the article. Can I ask, have you ever initiated an RfC or any other action which might bring the attention of involved editors to the article's content? --Azor (talk). 18:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what the entire context for this dispute is and I doubt I want to. I will say that I don't view the commanders and belligerents as necessarily analogous, due to there presumably being much fewer possible co-belligerents than sub-commanders that we could include in the infobox. Beyond that, I agree that a separate discussion would be necessary to reach a consensus on this matter. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! --Azor (talk). 08:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: North8000
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Move review for David III of Tao

An editor has asked for a Move review of David III of Tao. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  // Timothy :: talk  04:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Non-admin closures

After reviewing your NAC's at Talk:David III of Tao and Talk:Edward IV, I think you should read/review Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. Specifically under WP:BADNAC it states, #2 "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial." These two discussion clearly meet this criteria.

Additionally I think your close at Talk:David III of Tao is particularly problematic. Closing a discussion with one result, then returning days later and reopening the discussion only to change the result is inappropriate, regardless of whether one side of the discussion is continuing and ignoring the close. Not notifying the participants you reopened the discussion and changed the results is inappropriate.

When you close a discussion, it clearly states for the participants:

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The new comments from participants you responded to should have been placed in a new discussion section, or should have been discussed at move review. Participants cannot simply continue the discussion once it has been closed.

If you feel your original close was an error, you as closer could reopen the discussion and notify the participants of your decision to reopen the discussion and the reasons. Since reversing yourself on a close clearly shows the discussion meets WP:BADNAC #2 ("where there are several valid outcomes", "likely to be controversial"), you should absolutely refrain from closing the discussion again or changing the result (other than reverting your original close actions). Any new close should give reasonable time for the participants to respond to your explanation for the reopen and I think the close should be made through Wikipedia:Closure requests with a note that an admin should close.

Your closes may stand on review, but please refrain from future controversial NAC's.  // Timothy :: talk  05:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Replied over there. I will add here that I originally thought this would be an uncontroversial no consensus closure, and by the time I realized I was wrong, I felt the best course of action was to continue on the path I'd already charted. I don't enjoy this drama, and I don't intend to court any more of it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

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

Administrator changes

Nyttend

• JohnOwens
• Killiondude
• MelanieN
• Nihonjoe

Bureaucrat changes

Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe

Oversight changes

GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news

• Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: MrLinkinPark333
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

CT alert

You have recently made edits related to the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Manual of Style. This is a standard message to inform you that the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Manual of Style is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Chlod
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

• News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections

• Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?

• Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24

• In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis

• Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure

• Comix: Generations

• Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The case request Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions, where you were listed as a proposed party, has been declined by the committee. You can find an archived version of the case request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Censorship by copyright on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 United States presidential election on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

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

Administrator changes

Graham Beards

• Deskana
• Mets501
• Staxringold

Bureaucrat changes

• Deskana
• Warofdreams

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

• Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
• The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

• WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rembrandt on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023

• Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade

• Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor

• In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say

• News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024

• Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies

• Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth

• Featured content: We didn't start the wiki

• Essay: No queerphobia

• Special report: RetractionBot is back to life!

• Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer

• Comix: The Wikipediholic Family

• Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox

• Concept: Palimpsestuous

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Theroadislong KylieTastic
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

David III

Greetings Compassionate727. Can you please move David III of Tao to David III? It was part of the group request move. Regards, An emperor ✖ 06:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not find a consensus that David III of Tao is the primary topic for David III. Another discussion needs to be held specifically on either making that move or turning David III into a DAB page for Tao and Ethiopia. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. An emperor ✖ 19:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

• News and notes: WMF board elections and fundraising updates

• Special report: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board

• In focus: How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators

• Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna

• In the media: War and information in war and politics

• Sister projects: On editing Wikisource

• Obituary: Hanif Al Husaini, Salazarov, Hyacinth, and PirjanovNurlan

• Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion

• Gallery: Spokane Willy's photos

• Op-Ed: Why you should not vote in the 2024 WMF BoT elections

• Crossword: On a day of independence, beat crosswords into crossploughshares

• Humour: A joke

• Cobwebs: Counting to a billion — manuscripts don't burn

• Recent research: Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps

• Traffic report: Talking about you and me, and the games people play

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

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

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

• Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo

• News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter

• Essay: Reflections on editing and obsession

• In the media: What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book?

• Obituary: JamesR

• Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword

• Humour: Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

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

Administrator changes

Isabelle Belato

• Ian.thomson
• Modussiccandi

Interface administrator changes

Izno

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49

Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Telegraph RFC

While I disagree with most of what you say in your close (it seems you read a very different discussion to the one I did) the one but I absolutely have to protest is that sources at RSP cannot be downgraded without an affirmative consensus to do so. Not only does this fly in the face of years of practice, it is contrary to the explicit definitions used on the page! "Generally reliable" is defined as having an active consensus that a source is reliable. The next level is defined as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". I'm sorry not to be able to let this finally rest but when I see something this categorically wrong I have to speak up. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yup, that close completely misunderstands the way RSN works. The last paragraph is particularly egregious and I'm going to ask you to strike it. You impute thoughts and ideas into my head which aren't there. I have previously closed RSN threads that found the Daily Telegraph 100% reliable; see here.

You don't know what I think.—S Marshall T/C 07:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Compassionate727, but I have to disagree with this close. Funnily enough, my objections to your close can be found in the arguments in that close review where people have !voted for Overturn: namely that this looks like a supervote: taking one camp's arguments at face value, while minimizing arguments made by other voters.

A lot of people have also argued for the RFC to be reclosed, and not closed to a different outcome. Unsure where you addressed those arguments in your close. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As one of the people who voted that the RFC should be reclosed by someone else (not overturned to a specific outcome), I would appreciate that being addressed in the closing statement. I'm obviously biased on the issue, but I thought "let someone else close it" was the consensus outcome, particularly in light of the "Part 1" sub-section that was specifically about this issue (where "5", let someone else reclose, seemed to have consensus). Levivich (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 Mach61 16:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I also object to this close. The first paragraph reads as an obvious WP:SUPERVOTE to me. Loki (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is why RSP sucks. It doesn't distinguish between an affirmative consensus that there shouldn't be a general consensus and no consensus on if there's a general consensus.

In practice, "additional considerations apply" means the first, that we agree there shouldn't be a broad policy applying to the source and it must be argued about on every page.

RSP needs something else. Right now, we have a no consensus nesting doll where we have to resolve what "no consensus" on the above means for the source. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't distinguish between an affirmative consensus that there shouldn't be a general consensus and no consensus on if there's a general consensus.

I don't see how that is a problem. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chess what practical difference would making such a distinction mean in terms of applying the RSP guidance to source? There is no point making distinctions that are irrelevant to those evaluating the reliability of (potential) sources in articles. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Because many people wanted to impose additional considerations as a mechanism to prefer other sources when possible, which is what WP:MREL means in practice. Immediately after the entry was added to RSP, editors began removing it from articles. [1]

If you think the close should have been "no consensus" and recorded at RSP, we should have a separate no consensus option at RSP to make it clear that one can't cite the WP:RSP entry as global consensus of something. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with most of what you say in your close (thank goodness it seems you read a very different discussion than the one Thryduulf did) I absolutely have to protest that any remark acknowledging WP:RSP "practice" is out of place. Still, you deserve thanks and best wishes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

After reading this discussion I have posted on the RSP talk page about whether "no consensus" needs some different labeling/nuance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a requirement that the person evaluating the consensus in a close review cannot be the one to re-close the discussion if there was consensus in the close review to overturn the closure? I cannot find anything that suggests that this user could not both close the close review and reclose the discussion. The fact they posted their "re-close" of the discussion as part of their close review should not change whether their re-close is valid or not. There was, as Compassionate727 states, a consensus to overturn S Marshall's close. They state in their close of the close review I think that if I needed to find a specific consensus on that question, the side arguing it should've probably had it, referring to option 1. The entire first two paragraphs of the close review are summarizing both the consensus of the close review and the initial discussion. So absent a reason they are disqualified from closing the original discussion, I see no reason they should be prohibited from analyzing the consensus in the original discussion and thus making the decision to overturn and re-close the discussion to status quo.

The bottom line is there was a consensus that there were significant issues with S Marshall's close, and merely disagreeing with the outcome does not change whether Compassionate727 was qualified to re-close the discussion in addition to evaluating consensus at the close review. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing Compasionate727 wasn't qualified to close the discussion. I'm arguing that they closed the discussion with a result that does not reflect the consensus found in the discussion and that was, at least in part, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of RSP. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

They stated they found a consensus in the RSN discussion (not the close review, the original discussion) that the source should still be considered generally reliable. They spent two paragraphs discussing why they came to this conclusion. As a whole, the arguments of this side were compelling and unrefuted, and I'll note that even S Marshall himself essentially admitted that he primarily considered editors' opinions of The Telegraph's reliability (rather than specific evidence and arguments). You're free to disagree with that, but the AN discussion shows that there was a consensus for it to be re-closed - and that amounts to a reclosure of it. Many people opined at AN that the original close did not take that point into account - that the claims were "compelling and unrefuted" (in support of reliability) while the claims of unreliability were neither compelling nor unrefuted.

Compassionate727's views on RSP don't even come into play - because there was a consensus that the source should be deemed reliable still based on the "compelling and unrefuted" arguments in favor of no change to the consensus of it being reliable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 16:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Many people did argue that, but many people also argued the contrary (that such arguments were refuted) and this is completely ignored. You have made it abundantly clear that you regard the arguments as refuted, but one person repeating this time and again does not necessarily make it true. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The people arguing that they were refuted were doing so based on a !vote count. Compassionate727 evaluated the arguments, and there were no (or very few) people who actually refuted based on something other than their own opinion. And Compassionate727 correctly downweighted those people claiming that the original refutation of the initial claims was invalid just because they disagreed with it.

You are continuing to argue that it should be closed differently just because one side was louder. That is simply not how things on Wikipedia work, as you yourself should know. The point stands that the majority of non option 1 (or 1/2) !voters voted based on reasons that do not conform with policy, and/or reasons that were based on a misunderstanding of what the sources said. !votes like that which are not based on fact are not to be given equal weighting as those based in fact, regardless of how many of them there are. I have yet to see you express any concrete reasoning that Compassionate727’s closure (both of the AN close review and their accompanying re-analysis and re-close of the original discussion) are invalid that aren’t based in “enough people screamed loudly”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Your reply could have been used verbatim in the previous discussions, seemingly by both sides although I would have written it in response to Loki's denial that almost his entire opening statement at the RfC was refuted. Perhaps we should just have a link to it that editors can use to save time in this escalating series of recursive reviews.

I think we've reached the point where some editors of GREL stripes simply consider the GUNREL arguments refuted, and some editors of GUNREL side simply consider the GREL arguments refuted, to the point that the world views are simply incommensurable. I hope that this gulf could be bridged - for some editors at least - if we returned to RS/N and considered the arguments on their merits, but perhaps this is naive. I certainly don't think it will happen here. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

In any case, characterising it as "one person repeating this time and again" is uncharitable and untrue. Even though I would post most of your reply to GUNREL/Endorse supporters, I recognise that there are a non-trivial number of them. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

While I basically agree with your evaluation of what's going on here, I also think that that evaluation screams "no consensus".

Also, while it's certainly true that there were a number of GREL supporters, I do think that Berchanhimez in particular has been much more insistent than others that there was no reason whatsoever that someone could think the Telegraph was GUNREL. The plurality of Option 1 supporters acknowledged that the Telegraph was biased, and most of them acknowledged the Telegraph had indeed made some mistakes of fact. But Berchanhimez keeps on repeating in a needlessly inflammatory way that all the claims of GUNREL supporters have been entirely refuted, when some of the key claims of GUNREL supporters have been acknowledged to be true by even the majority of GREL supporters. Loki (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

After removing the refuted claims of actual misinformation/incorrect information, the only things left are two arguments - either that it is biased and thus unreliable (not in compliance with policy/guidelines on bias not equalling unreliability), or the second argument of “well that’s not how I read the source”. The second argument is based on reading something into a source that is not there - either by ignoring the attribution of opinions to specific individuals (which is not misinformation) and treating those as “facts” reported by the source, or based on reading things that the source didn’t actually say (ex: the litter box things) into the source. Those arguments are equally irrelevant. Consensus is based on strength of argument - and when removing the refuted arguments the arguments left are at best extremely weak - this doesn’t change just because enough people screamed that they wanted it to be declared unreliable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

After removing the refuted claims of actual misinformation/incorrect information the point is that there is not a consensus that these were refuted. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

In your reading. But you have not provided any evidence for why Compassionate727 finding such a consensus is wrong other than “I don’t like it”. Whenever possible, a consensus should be sought out rather than just declaring there is no consensus.

Please point out anywhere in the discussion anyone “refuting the refutations” did so with actual factual evidence rather than an argument based on “I read it differently (because I ignore the words present in the source)”. There isn’t any. Again, when evaluating the consensus or lack thereof, the arguments must be weighted. Those arguing the refutations were invalid because the source “clearly said X” when the source did not say X at all should be given virtually no weight whatsoever.

When weighting the “anti-refutation” arguments properly, there is a clear consensus that the initial claims were refuted successfully. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You say "the refuted claims of actual misinformation" but the idea that they were refuted is an opinion not shared with over half of participants, including many Option 1 voters. Loki (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You don’t get to just vote count to support your claim that they weren’t refuted. When weighing the arguments that were based on a complete misrepresentation (or incomplete representation) of what the Telegraph actually wrote, the consensus is clear. You and others are attempting to engage in vote counting to say “well, the arguments on one side were clearly stronger, but because more people screamed on the other side the first side can’t have a consensus and there must be no consensus”. And that’s not how WP works. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention that "over half" is quite shaky, as has been somehow extensively brought up and debated during the CRV. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I've seen at least 2 previous GREL supporters accused of bludgeoning in the prior discussions. I don't give these accusations much credence - they seemed to be playing the man and not the ball quite frankly. And if I were you Loki, I wouldn't want to start a discussion about who has been needlessly repetitive.

I don't think my evaluation screams "no consensus". I've made my arguments about argument-weighing over vote-counting before. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that closing the close review as "overturn and let someone else close it," and then also closing the underlying RFC, is an available option. If that's what C727 did, they should update the close review closing statement, and the RFC closing statement, to reflect that. Then editors will know whether they're challenging the close review close, or the RFC re-close. Levivich (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As someone who thought briefly about closing this a couple of times and then decided I didn't have the fortitude to read everything the two or three times necessary to close it correctly, I'm appreciative of C727's willingness to do the work. I think the concluding paragraph is well written and many would do well to think on it. I am surprised a day later that we haven't heard from C727 at all in answer to these comments. Dealing thoughtfully with concerns is, for me, part of what someone is volunteering for when they close something like this. I hope we hear from C727 soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I went to bed a couple hours after posting that and have been at work all day. I'll try to respond to everything here shortly, but wow, there's a lot of comments here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Try your best! Expect that for controversial RfCs, especially ones with over 50 participants. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's a quick stab at it:

1) Regarding practice at RSP: I am aware of what "no consensus" normally means at RSP. I also saw a lot of participants in this close review take exception to that standard being applied here, for essentially the reason Chess explained further up this section: in effect, MREL at RSP means the source can't be relied on for anything controversial, and many people (about as many people as explicitly okayed it) objected to a lack of consensus at an RSN discussion being a sort of backdoor to automatically downgrade an otherwise reputable newspaper of record in one specific topic area. It's not my intention to overthrow the whole standard practice of RSP, but I did see a degree of opposition to it in this specific case that I believed couldn't be ignored. What, if any, other ramifications there ought to be from that are not clear to me; like I said in my close, a discussion of that issue specifically may be prudent.

2) At any rate, the consensus to overturn hinged relatively little on any questions about how RSP works; in my mind (and I tried to communicate this with the first sentence of the third paragraph), the consensus to overturn came mainly from arguments in the close review that arguments in the underlying discussion weren't properly weighed. I was attempting to make my finding more robust by incorporating those who complained about downgrading on lack of consensus into a kind of coalition of people who think the discussion shouldn't have resulted in a note at RSP, but I see that I fostered confusion by doing so and perhaps should've just stuck to "there was a consensus the arguments weren't weighed correctly."

3) In my head, I was not closing both the close review and the underlying discussion, just the close review. Of course, I recognize that the way I closed it effectively did both, as is normal for any kind of close review (the vast majority of which determine a specific outcome for the underlying discussion, rather than merely vacating the close). I'm surprised to find people discussing whether a closer has the ability to do that.

4) As for why I didn't merely vacate, I didn't think that would be helpful here. We'd have to wait (potentially a while) for someone else to close it, and I'm guessing they'd also have gotten complaints no matter what they did; it didn't seem right (or helpful) to just kick that off onto someone else. I would have bowed to a strong preference from participants for merely vacating, but the dedicated section only indicated a slight preference, and participants who thought the discussion should have originally been closed in favor of option 1 (instead of without consensus) were underrepresented there, so I don't think that apparent slight preference was actually a consensus.

That was my attempt to quickly (although it didn't end up proving very quick) respond to a bunch of different things and probably doesn't make for a coherent argument. Feel free to ask further questions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I have a lot of issues with this response, but here are my chief ones:

1) Yes, some people in the original discussion objected to the way RSP works. But it wasn't even a consensus, it was just some people. Also even if it had been a consensus, an RFC about a single source cannot change policy, including the way RFC works. This IMO was clearly decided incorrectly.

2) Most close reviews also "close" the underlying discussion because most close reviews affirm the original close. Of close reviews that overturn a close, the large majority just vacate the close. And there again wasn't a consensus to do this even by your own admission. So this IMO was also clearly decided incorrectly.

3) This doesn't really address many of the biggest issues with the close, like the weird snipe against S Marshall, or the fact that your whole first paragraph reads as a WP:SUPERVOTE for Option 1. Loki (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

1. A discussion about one topic certainly can be opposite of prior consensus/practice if it is merited.

2. As others have opined here, it is clearly not against any rules for the closer of a close review to also re-close the discussion.

3. It's not a supervote, it is a re-analysis of the consensus that was present in the original discussion. You disagreeing with the consensus does not make it a supervote. There was no snipe against S Marshall - just a reminder that perhaps it is not best to close discussions when you have a pre-existing opinion on the discussion, because it can result in a mis-evaluation of consensus (as happened here). There was no attempt by C727 to say that S Marshall messed up because of their opinions, but there was certainly that possibility. Making a general remark is not a "snipe" even if it does not apply to the discussion in question. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez Generally, there needs to be a very strong sentiment in favor of invoking WP:IAR when it comes to large discussions like this. That sentiment did not exist in this case. Mach61 14:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification here. I think that your close was well written, and ultimately followed the strength of the arguments in light of the relevant policy. Thank you for taking the time to close the behemoth of the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Compassionate727, I hope that's not your entire response. I ask again if you'll strike the final paragraph or, preferably, self-revert.

Berchanhimez, there may be people on Mars who've read your opinion about this less than seventeen times. I do so look forward to reading it all again every third or fourth post about this. —S Marshall T/C 07:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry the badgering of Berchanhimez over repetition, just as when it has been done to Chess and to BilledMammal before, is out of order. It reads like having a lot more to do with disliking the points being raised than any substantive concern. If you have an issue with how Berchanhimez conducts themself, why wouldn't you take it to their user page in the first instance? It's just unpleasant. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

...right. Because it's everyone else badgering Berchanhimez that's the problem here. Got it.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You’ve been getting more and more irritated ever since the close review was opened and many people began expressing their distaste with your close. You got it wrong (and there was consensus for that regardless of this specific close), and you have the opportunity to drop the stick and move on with dignity. I recommend you do that. Other people will “continue the fight” if C727’s close was improper. There is nothing you stand to gain by continuing to blame/malign others (including myself) or continuing to act like you got it right. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I wonder when we'd stop making comments about contributors rather than the things they say or things they do. The original slight snark (Mars etc.) was unnecessary, but the escalation to You’ve been getting more and more irritated ever since the close review [..] is really bad. Reading it even though I'm not S Marshall makes me feel things. It really felt like "u mad bro?" said in a more formal way.

I'm sad or angry or whatever that the close happened this way, but I hope I can choose not to let that affect me when I argue for what I think is right. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I deliberately didn't respond to this request last night because I was not sure how to do so without likely inflaming things and I was hoping you would calm down on your own, but I guess I need to say something.

You are correct that I do not know your thoughts. I did not claim to know them. I gave my personal opinion (and clearly identified it as personal opinion) that your opinions, whatever they are, seem to me to have affected your closure, and jumping from there gave the entire community some advice about closing discussions about things one has opinions on. I know I'm not the first person to end a closing statement for a messy discussion like this with an opinion and some advice, and my opinion strikes me as moderate compared to some of the opinions expressed in the discussion. I regret that it has caused you offense, but honestly don't understand why it has.

I'm not particularly attached to that paragraph; I'll change it if enough people say I should. But a lot of people have come here to express an opinion on this closure, and only you and Loki have expressed any objection to that paragraph, which I think makes it the least controversial component of the whole thing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If anything, I also do object to that paragraph (as I felt that was like a personal jab). I just thought it was obvious to me so I didn't weigh in. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Your point 4) really reads like a supervote to me. It sounded like

[because I felt] it didn't seem right (or helpful) to just kick that off onto someone else, I don't think that apparent slight preference was actually a consensus.

I find it weird that you suggested that people specifically called for an overturn finding consensus for option 1, were not represented in the section about what to overturn to. That just immediately sounds contradictory to me. If someone articulates that they want to overturn to option 1, then they must have clearly articulated what to overturn to. The question was more so for people who didn't disagree with the no consensus result but had still argued that the status quo be kept.

And I really need an answer from you about what the original RFC should be overturned to as. Should it be that there is no consensus on whether The Telegraph is generally reliable for the specific topic, or that there actually is consensus that it is generally reliable (therefore consensus for option 1)? If it is the former, then from my reading the people who primarily argued for that also argued for the original close of the RFC to be reverted. Where are your findings on the level of consensus of the "Part 1" subsection? Isn't the close technically a supervote for Option 2 under that? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The question here was not for people who agreed with the no consensus result - it was for everyone who supported overturn, regardless of how wide or narrow their objections to the RS/N close was (in order to clarify what those shades of opinion were).

Question as to what was actually done here. Clearly the RS/N close was overturned. It seems to me that what happened wasn't Option 2 ("Overturn to no consensus, defaulting to no change") at all.

Rather, I gather that C727 has overturned and reclosed the discussion at RS/N as consensus for GREL (which could be taken either as Option 1, or Option 5 followed by C727 reclosing at RS/N for GREL). I think adding a new closing statement on the original discussion might be helpful if that is the case. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your first paragraph, I might have phrased it a bit awkwardly in my comment. It more so meant that people who had already explicitly suggested it to be reclosed with consensus for option 1 did not need to restate their position.

I don't think the rest of your reply really addressed what I meant. 5 explicitly said Overturn by reverting the close, leaving someone else to close with no guidance from the community on how. There's no way C727 could have closed the review and reclosed the rfc at the same time, by that wording. And supervoting, whether for option 1 or for option 2 (as I claimed), is still supervoting.

And I disagree that the reclose was that way. Especially when the closing statement explicitly said I'll dither on whether there was a consensus that the original discussion should have been closed affirmatively in favor of option 1.

Let's not try to add more replies that further confound the discussion. I think it's important that C727 considers what I said about the close and answers the questions I had. I think it might not be very helpful if you tried to interpret the closing statement for me. (I, for instance, may interpret things very differently from you, so it is important that I hear thoughts from the closer) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll just say this: I don't think that Option 5 (which I supported) precluded the same person who closed the review as reclosing the discussion. The "someone else" is in reference to S Marshall I think. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Samuelshraga - I did not intend for my opinion of option 5 to mean the person closing the close review couldn’t also re-close the discussion. Nor did I read any of the options to preclude that outcome. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 16:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your first concern: that section existed because many people who had voted to overturn had provided little clarity about what they expected to happen. Many other people had already made clear (or otherwise strongly implied) what they thought should happen and did not participate in this subsection, presumably because they saw no need to repeat themselves. Because of reasons like this, a subsection of a discussion like this which has relatively light participation does not necessarily make a consensus that's binding on the whole discussion. It can be informative, but I concluded that in this case, the appearance it gave was deceptive.

Regarding your second paragraph: I overturned The Telegraph to being generally reliable on trans topics, which was the status quo prior to this discussion (as derived from the The Telegraph's being generally reliable). You asked other things, but I'm finding myself confused by them, and I'm not sure whether that's because you wrote them in a confusing manner or if I'm just struggling to process it because I only slept four hours last night. I'll try to answer them again tomorrow. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your second paragraph: I overturned The Telegraph to being generally reliable on trans topics, which was the status quo prior to this discussion (as derived from the The Telegraph's being generally reliable) that's incompatible with a finding of no consensus in the RFC as repeatedly explained. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, since the RFC, and now your overturn, more articles have been published in the Telegraph with very questionable reliability on transgender issues - [2] and [3] - attacking the largest doctor union of the UK, representing 190,000 doctors and calling them "trans extremists" is not what a GREL newspaper would publish on a topic. This isn't merely bias anymore.

So, if your overturn stands instead of no consensus=MREL, I expect another RFC very soon in light of some of the recent new articles, in particular as more and more international (and with the BMA also UK based) organizations have found serious flaws with the Cass Review. Raladic (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Those are both opinion articles, which I deliberately avoided.

I will say that if I could include opinion, there's some real whoppers from the Telegraph. I can think of one specific editorial where the author claimed that Josef Mengele was transitioning children. Loki (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I think at some point, platforming such opinion pieces does add into the actual newspapers reliability once it gets as extreme as these linked ones are. Raladic (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

To you? Maybe. But that doesn't affect its use for the purpose of Wikipedia until it does. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I would expect another RfC regardless with how much criticism both closers have had to deal with. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Marshall made a pretty good point at the RSP talk page:

This drama is all about the Daily Telegraph and whether it's a reliable source about trans people. There's a broad consensus that the Daily Telegraph is, in general, a newspaper of record and a reliable source, and we've tested that consensus several times. Whether it's a reliable source about trans people is disputed, and there's no consensus among Wikipedians whether it is or isn't.
— User:S Marshall 07:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Aaron Liu (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Honestly, I wish that had been his original close. Loki (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Really? You think that wasn't in my original close? Really?—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It was in your original close, yes, as a few lines buried in the middle. I wish it was your original close. The reason we're having problems here is that you started your close by editorializing about the Telegraph instead of summarizing the discussion. Loki (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I "buried" it, as you put it, as the whole of paragraph 4. You know, I've been closing contentious RfCs for about ten years and in that time I've learned to have a pretty high threshold for people who moan about closes they haven't read; but the Daily Telegraph is starting to make me wonder if I need an eyerolling emoji.—S Marshall T/C 17:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding what Loki is saying. The problem isn't that it wasn't in your close or wasn't prominent in your close, the problem is your close contained a lot of stuff in addition to it. (The stuff you're suggesting they haven't read.) Levivich (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Loki (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If I have understood what you are saying here correctly, when you closed the review you functionally re-closed the RfC as a consensus for Option 1? BilledMammal (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "functionally" is a good avenue for debate. What he seemingly did was re-close the RfC as NOCON and interpret that as "retain status quo". Aaron Liu (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure they did re-close it as NOCON, which is why I'm asking for clarification. BilledMammal (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a mess of my own making. Honestly, I wanted to close as a consensus for option 1, but opted to close it as no consensus to change anything from the previous status quo (which is functionally option 1). I thought doing it this way would be more conservative, but it has instead proven more controversial, since it has come across as discarding the norms at RSP (which the discussion highlighted significant unease over, but certainly didn't establish any kind of a consensus to overthrow). Based on all the feedback here, I'm considering revising it to more straightforwardly find a consensus for option 1. While I'm not convinced the way I originally approached it is necessarily wrong, I'm beginning to appreciate that I complicated things needlessly. Sorry for the on-the-job learning moment, everyone. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm considering revising it to more straightforwardly find a consensus for option 1 - that’s a bit concerning - if you’re searching for content to back your desired outcome then that’s like research being conducted that already knows what the result is and doing the “research” to fit that desired outcome.

If your close was truly actually no consensus, then it should respect RSP and say that actually it wasn’t that clear a consensus for GREL, but actually no consensus and as such MREL. Raladic (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, "want" was not a clear word. I "wanted" to close it as option 1 in the sense that after reading the discussion, I thought that was the side that prevailed, judging from the strength of the arguments made during the close review and which of those arguments were found persuasive by participants. I have no personal opinion on the underlying matter. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

To close the underlying RFC as option 1, you'd need to find that the strength of the arguments made during the underlying RFC were strongest, not during the close review.

Basically I think the best thing here would be for you to vacate your close and have an admin close the review. And maybe the underlying RFC as well. Loki (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm also considering the strength of the arguments in the underlying discussion. Many of the the arguments in the close review were about that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Compassionate, but the more you say on this page the less I'm convinced that you have understood matters. You clearly haven't understood RSP (something that isn't unique to you), but you also don't seem to have understood the difference between the original RFC and the close review. I can only encourage you to stop digging the hole you've found yourself in by vacating the close. Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I shouldn't be the one to launch a close review review, but... it's an option. In somewhat different circumstances, it's been done before. Whichever way, I'm starting to wonder if it's no longer fair to pile on on Compassionate727's talk page.—S Marshall T/C 14:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

My advice is that you totally and completely disengage with this. Levivich (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I've considered that and I'm afraid I can't. I'm unable to tolerate the people who're actively lying about this.—S Marshall T/C 15:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

...the people who're actively lying about this. ? _WADroughtOfVowels^P 16:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

…the purpose of a close review is to determine whether a closer correctly weighed the arguments in light of policy. This necessarily involves considering arguments from both the close review and the underlying discussion. To take an example from this case: an editor argues that participants in the original discussion conflated bias and reliability, and their votes should have been given less weight. The person closing the close review must consider whether that person was correct in arguing both a) that bias and reliability are distinct under policy and b) that arguments in the original discussion conflated the two. When the closer makes a determination about the latter question, he is thus considering the strength of arguments from the original discussion, even though he does so because he is interested in the strength of the arguments in the close review. Do you not agree?

At any rate, while I don't wish to be obstinate and would be relieved to not deal with this anymore, I haven't been convinced and don't see much agreement that I got it fundamentally wrong, so I don't yet think self-reverting is the right path. If you believe a formal challenge is necessary, then proceed with my blessing, but I must wonder if it wouldn't be more profitable to simply start a new discussion than litigate this one yet again. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727. I commend your courageous (in the Yes Minister sense) NAC closure of this contentious RfC. I think your closure was logical and fair. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC).

I would like to say the same thing, but the more I read on this page the less I'm convinced it was either logical or fair. Thryduulf (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

In the UK TV series Yes Minister to which Xxanthippe refers, "courageous" is a polite euphemism for controversial and ill-advised. Youtube, if you've got 30 seconds to spare.—S Marshall T/C 14:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• For reference Hemiauchenia has reverted the close[4] as WP:BADNAC #2. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  That should be reverted. By longstanding community consensus, BADNAC by itself is not a valid reason to unilaterally overturn a close. I'd do it myself, but I participated in the close review. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit within an archive

C727, wow, you are brave to take on that closing! For all the demands and grievances above I feel a bit bad about asking for one more thing. Would you mind either restoring the RSN discussion so the new close is public or perhaps posting a notice that the closing was changed? Editors who haven't followed all the AN discussions may not realize things have changed since the closing that was shown on RSN. A note at RSN would ensure that people with that page on their watch list will see the change in closing. Again, I hate to pile on but I hope this is at least an easy request to address. Springee (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, apologies for the oversight, I will do that now. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, ActivelyDisinterested beat me to it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Gratitude

Even though it has now been rescind I'd still like to thank you for your close of the Telegraph RFC, and the other closes you've done. It requires an amount of courage to put yourself in the spot light, and I'd hope the recent events don't put you off. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

+1, thank you. Levivich (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to join the gratitude parade. I just wanted to say that this comment here to me shows you spotted exactly what you got right and what you got wrong in this whole episode - which to me is as if not more impressive than the decision to put yourself out there and step up in the first place. Well done. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

• In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse

• Recent research: STORM: AI agents role-play as "Wikipedia editors" and "experts" to create Wikipedia-like articles, a more sophisticated effort than previous auto-generation systems

• In focus: Twitter marks the spot

• News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded

• Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?

• Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing

• Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird

• Humour: I'm proud to be a template

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for your diligent work at CopyPatrol! DanCherek (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

AxSpA

Greetings, Why did you remove the necessary new chapter about axSpA pathophysiology? 84.54.174.60 (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Presumably because it contained a copyright violation. If you want me to say something more specific, you'll need to link it, as you haven't provided enough information for me to find it from memory. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)